Planning Appeals, Residential
Summary An appeal against refusal of an application for outline planning permission for up to 19 dwellings (all matters reserved apart from access) in Poringland, has been allowed at appeal, following an appeal hearing.
Proposal The proposal is for a residential development for up to 19 dwellings, with all matters reserved apart from access. An indicative site layout plan was submitted with the application to demonstrate that a satisfactory development could be accommodated within the confines of the site. The application had been refused by South Norfolk District Council for the following reasons:
“The proposed housing is not supported by any specific Development Management Policy which allows for development outside of the development boundary and nor does it represent overriding benefits when having regard to the limited benefits of housing when acknowledging that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, that there are concerns over deliverability of the scheme and where the scheme does present a level of localised harm to the character and appearance of the area, and as such does not satisfy the requirements of either 2c) or d) of Policy DM1.3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies document 2015”.
Our comprehensive appeal statement broke down these reasons for refusal into the following points of discussion:
• Whether the location of housing would be appropriate in the context of the Local Plan policies
• Whether Local Plan Policies should be considered ‘out of date’, i.e, inconsistent with the provisions of the Framework (NPPF)
• Whether the proposal conformed with the provisions of the Poringland Neighbourhood Plan.
• Whether the proposal is supported by any emerging policies and what weight should be attributed to those policies
• Whether the proposal was supported by the provisions of the NPPF/Framework
• Whether the Council could demonstrate an up to date 5 year housing supply given the nutrients neutrality considerations.
• What Planning Obligations were appropriate
• Planning History of the site
If the council is found not to have a 5-year housing supply, then the ‘titled-balance’ would be engaged, and permission can only be refused where the any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
Irrespective of the absence or otherwise a 5-year housing supply, the proposal was found to accord with the provisions of the Neighbourhood Plan, and existing Local Plan Policies for housing supply should have been considered inconsistent with the NPPF as the NPPF only seeks to avoid ‘isolated’ developments which this proposal was clearly not.
Outcome The case was taken to an appeal hearing where we gained outline planning permission for the 19 dwellings with all matters reserved.