TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 78 BY EMERY PLANNING ON BEHALF OF GLENNMARK TRADING LTD. HIGH PEAK REFERENCE: HPK/2015/0471 PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/H1033/W/16/3155484 PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF MELISSA KURIHARA MLPM, MRTPI 1 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Planning Policy 4 3. The Case for High Peak Borough Council 9 4. Conclusions 19 Appendix 1: Appeal decision Land off Craythorne Road, Stretton APP/B3410/W/15/3134848 Appendix 2: Appeal decision Land between Ashflats & A449, Mosspit, Stafford APP/Y3425/A/14/2217578 Appendix 3: Appeal decision Land bounded by Gresty Lane, Crewe APP/R0660/A/13/2209335 Appendix 4: Deliverable supply tables (large sites and allocations) Appendix 5: Proof of Evidence of A G Massie APP/H1033/W/16/3147726 Appendix 6: Rebuttal Proof of Evidence of A G Massie APP/H1033/W/16/3147726 2 1. Introduction 1.1. This Proof of Evidence has been prepared by Melissa Kurihara, Principal Planning Consultant at Urban Vision Partnership Ltd, a multi disciplinary planning consultancy based in Salford. 1.2. I am a chartered town planner with significant professional experience in housing land supply. I hold a Masters in Landscape, Planning and Management from University of Manchester and I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Prior to joining Urban Vision I worked in various planning policy teams within local government. 1.3. I have experience of all stages in Local Plan production from initial evidence gathering and the establishment of the correct OAN, through to submission, independent examination and adoption. I specialise in housing land supply assessment, both methodology and realistic assessment of deliverability. 1.4. This Proof of Evidence is provided on behalf of High Peak Borough Council in relation to the appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning consent for residential development including the demolition of 70 and 72 Brown Edge Road. All matters are reserved save for access. 1.5. This evidence which I have prepared and provide for this appeal within this proof is true, and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution, the Royal Town Planning Institute. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. In reaching my conclusions on the deliverable supply, I have also placed reliance on the evidence of Ged Massie, which was presented on behalf of the LPA at the Appeal into Land off Station Road, Tunstead Milton (APP/H1033/W/16/3147726). 1.6. I address matters of 5 year land supply only. Mr Beswick covers landscape and Mr White covers all other matters including the planning balance. 3 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton 2. Planning Policy The Development Plan 2.1. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires that this appeal must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 2.2. For the purposes of this appeal the Development Plan compromises the High Peak Local Plan (2016) High Peak Local Plan 2.3. On 24th March 2016 the High Peak Local Plan was found sound following its Examination by an independent Inspector. The Inspector’s Report (CD3.1) concluded that the High Peak Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough until 2031, provided a number of Main Modifications were made to the Plan. On 14th April 2016 the Council adopted the new Plan. 2.4. Between 2012 and 2016 High Peak Borough Council carried out a series of consultation and evidence gathering stages to prepare the High Peak Local Plan.  Options consultation (2012)  Preferred Options (2013)  Additional consultation (regarding potential changes to the Preferred Options) (December 2013)  Pre-submission Local Plan (2014) 2.5. At the end of the staged process of Plan production and consultation, representations on soundness and legal compliance were sought prior to the Plan being submitted to the Secretary of State for independent Examination on 28th August 2014. Mr Mike Moore MRTPI CMILT MCIHT was appointed as the Planning Inspector by the Secretary of State to conduct the independent Examination, with initial hearing sessions on key issues taking place in January/February 2014. These initial sessions considered Duty to Cooperate, legal compliance, the development strategy, housing need and supply and the site selection process, to test the Plan’s legal compliance and soundness. 4 2.6. At the examination stage of the Plan, representations were received from Emery Planning on behalf of a range of clients. Emery Planning attended the hearings and raised the following points:  As submitted the Plan does not meet the full objectively assessment of housing need  Additional land surrounding towns and villages should be safeguarded to meet future development needs beyond the plan period  Concern that there would not be a five year land supply on adoption  Further sites should be added for flexibility  Assumptions made as to the availability and deliverability of sites in the Plan will lead to the plan under delivering as not all sites are regarded as deliverable 2.7. Following initial hearings in January/February 2014 the Council undertook further work to assess the implications of the DCLG 2012-based sub-national household projections and the Strategic Development Site at Land at Woodhead Road, Glossop. 2.8. A further hearing session to discuss this work was held in September 2015. The proposed Main Modifications to the Plan were subject to a period of consultation between 10th December 2015 and 28th January 2016. The representations received, together with a summary and the Borough Council response to these representations, were forwarded to the Planning Inspector for his consideration. 2.9. The Inspector’s Final Report was received on 24th March 2016 which marked the end of the independent Examination (CD3.1). The report concludes that the High Peak Borough Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough until 2031, providing a number of modifications are made to the Plan. 2.10. A key consideration at Examination was the assessment of the Council’s 5 year land supply position and the consideration of the trajectory for house building over the Plan period. Paragraph 63 of the Inspector’s Report provides useful context to the EIP’s consideration of 5 year land supply, stating that “Taking account of the evidence before me from all parties relating to the position at the time it was calculated by the Council; the housing land supply is likely to be less than the Council estimates. Nevertheless, it would be closer to six years than five. Recent progress on some individual sites may have been different to that assumed when the supply was calculated. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that on adoption there would be a reasonable prospect that the 5 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton Plan would result in an appropriate supply of sites to provide 5 years worth of housing in accordance with the Framework”. 2.11. It is clear that the Inspector received representations from various parties (including the appellant’s agent) regarding 5 year land supply. Representations suggested various approaches to methodology and raised queries over deliverability. The Inspector considered all of these and concluded that he was satisfied that the Council could demonstrate a 5 year land supply and that the allocations were deliverable. 2.12. Paragraph 64 of his report states: “The Council’s suggested main modification (MM106) proposes to substitute the revised trajectory for that in the LP. This is necessary to ensure that it is consistent with all the other modifications relating to sites. The amended trajectory is based on evidence as at September 2015. It has been suggested in representations on the main modifications that it should be revised further in the light of events that have occurred since this date, particularly where some sites are not being developed at the anticipated rate. However, the trajectory s inevitably based on information at a particular point in time. It is more important that the Council monitors development against the trajectory (and the 5-year land supply requirement) in a comprehensive way having regard to progress on all sites”. 2.13. This paragraph is instructive, it acknowledges the fact that a trajectory is a snapshot in time based on information available at that time. What is important is the monitoring of the performance of the Council over the timeframe of the Local Plan. The Inspector acknowledges that some sites had not been developed at the anticipated rate, but regards this as something that should be considered in a comprehensive way when assessing the delivery performance through the regular annual monitoring procedures over the Plan period. 2.14. The Inspector’s Report considered the September 2015 trajectory to be robust. He considered that there needed to be a main modification (i.e. the Plan was unsound without the revised trajectory). The Inspector therefore appears to have been content with the trajectory and the levels of delivery which it assumes. 2.15. There are a number of instances round the country where appellants have sought to challenge a Council’s five year land supply within a relatively short timeframe post adoption of a new Plan. In instances such as this the evidential burden on appellants to counter the findings of a local plan Inspector is significant. 6 “It is a material consideration of significant weight that some 9 months ago, following a full and proper examination, my colleague Inspector made findings about individual sites and about the overall supply. I consider that those findings create an assumption that there is a 5 YHLS unless there is significant and clear evidence to the contrary, including a material change in circumstances since the LP examination”. (Appendix 1, APP/B3410/W/15/3134848). 2.16. This is not a legal and/or planning policy evidential hurdle. Rather, it is a recognition that there should be consistency in administrative decision making. The Appellant (here) is challenging the inclusion of the same sites in the 5 year supply on essentially the same evidence. The s.78 Inspector therefore needs, in my opinion to have very robust evidence and give compelling reasons to reach a decision which is inconsistent with an EiP Inspector less than 12 months ago. I appreciate that the base date of evidence before the EiP Inspector was March 2015 (or September 2015 for the trajectory). However, the Inspector clearly concluded that he considered there would be a 5 year supply on adoption i.e. post March 2016. There has been less than 12 months since the date of that Inspector’s Report. 2.17. It is useful to refer to another appeal decision from Stafford Borough (in 2014) where a similar challenge to the newly adopted Plan for Stafford Borough was mounted shortly after its adoption (Appendix 2, APP/Y/A/14/2217578 1). The Inspector in this case noted: 71. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that, at its core, the Framework promotes a genuinely plan-led system, within which an important object is to boost significantly the supply of housing to meet objectively assessed needs. In default of those needs being delivered through the medium of an up-to-date development plan, paragraph 14 enables decisions on planning applications to be taken in the context of the broader policy embodied in the Framework taken as a whole, including, through paragraph 49, the granting of permission for housing in circumstances where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 72. However, ad hoc reappraisals, by any party, outside the regular annual monitoring promoted by the Framework in the context of a plan-led system are not in my view encouraged or endorsed by PPG insofar as it continually emphasises annual monitoring in the context of plan-led supply. In other words, the statement within it that “Demonstration of a five year supply is a key material consideration when determining housing applications and 1 This decision was the subject of an unsuccessful legal challenge. 7 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton appeals” is a statement that needs to be understood in its proper context, i.e. the Framework and the PPG taken together and as a whole. The latter also states that… “the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that locally authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites [...]” 73. Thus identified needs in recently adopted local plans should not be lightly set aside but it is clear also that identified supply at the time of adoption should be accorded considerable weight and should not be lightly discounted. 2.18. The Inspector in this case gave substantial weight to the recent findings of the Local Plan Inspector. The thrust of his Report is that for the first monitoring year following adoption of a Plan, unless significant or fundamental new evidence comes to light, the Plan should be regarded as up-to-date and displaying a 5 year supply of housing land. As he acknowledges at paragraph 78 “ the Development Plan is neither absent nor silent and, bearing in mind that it has so recently been found sound and been adopted, the burden of proof on appellants to demonstrate that relevant policies are out-of-date is to my mind a heavy one”. 2.19. Whilst there may be some difference in the actual timing of the delivery of specific sites in the trajectory what is important is whether the council can meet its OAN over the Plan period to 2031. The fact that some sites within the trajectory may deliver earlier or later in the Plan period is of no consequence if the authority can meet its targets over the Plan period whilst maintaining a five year land supply. The focus of the NPPF is to boost significantly the supply of housing to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period. The 5 year supply is a mechanism to assist in achieving this. However, a 5 year supply is not the end in itself. The end is the delivery of the identified level of housing across the plan period. 8 3. The Case for High Peak Borough Council History of the 5 Year Land Supply Position 3.1. As set out above, in section 2 of this proof, the Council’s 5 year land supply position was assessed in detail by the Local Plan Inspector, with him concluding that the Council has a robust and defensible supply. To suggest otherwise in such a short space of time following this decision (24.03.16) one would expect the appellant to identify significant new evidence that has come to light to show that the Inspectors considered conclusions are wrong. 3.2. As noted in the PPG Paragraph 033 Ref ID: 3-033-20150327 (CD 12.3) “The examination of Local Plans is intended to ensure that up-to-date housing requirements and the deliverability of sites to meet a five year supply will have been thoroughly considered and examined prior to adoption, in a way that cannot be replicated in the course of determining individual applications and appeals where only the applicant’s/appellant’s evidence is likely to be presented to contest an authority’s position.” 3.3. Paragraph 47 of the National planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that Local Planning Authorities should: “Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area...” 3.4. Each Local Authority must identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. The Council’s most recently published 5 year land supply position has a base date of 30th September 2016. 3.5. This position was considered at an appeal on 7th February 2017 (APP/H1033/W/16/3147726). The Council presented evidence in defence of its 5 year land supply. At the Inquiry the Council’s witness accepted that there were a number of corrections that needed to be made to the Council’s September 2016 5 year land supply assessment. The evidence presented here in this Proof reflects the alterations to the supply that the Council made at the Manchester Road, Tunstead Milton Inquiry. 9 Proof of Evidence on behalf of High Peak Borough Council Brown Edge Road, Buxton Methodology 3.6. The first step in assessing a Council’s 5 year land supply is to establish the correct housing requirement against which to test the identified supply. 3.7. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out at paragraph 302 what the starting point for calculating a five year land supply is. It states: “Housing requirement figures in up-to-date adopted Local Plans should be used as the starting point for calculating the five year supply. Considerable weight should be given to the housing requirement figures in adopted Local Plans, which have successfully passed through the examination process, unless significant new evidence comes to light. It should be borne in mind that evidence which dates back several years, such as that drawn from revoked regional strategies may not adequately reflect current needs.” [My emphasis] 3.8. The adopted High Peak Local Plan sets the housing requirement for the plan period at 7,000 dwellings for the Plan period 2011-2031. The Plan is based on delivering the upper end of the OAN range identified in the SHMA (310-350). The Plan is only very recently adopted and there is no reason to deviate from the requirement that it sets. As a result the housing requirement for the purpose of the five year land supply is 350 dwellings per annum. Buffer 3.9. Having established the baseline requirement for the calculation of the five year land supply above I now consider the scale of buffer which should be factored into the calculation. 3.10. The NPPF requires that Local Planning Authorities apply an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, Local Planning Authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the required supply, and to ensure adequate market choice and competition for land. 3.11. The Council applies a 20% buffer in calculating the housing land supply. There has been much debate over the correct application of the buffer in the 5 year land supply calculation; 2 Reference ID: 3-030-20140306 10