Development in Practice: A Case Study

1
Development in Practice A Case Study

• Steven Brown (Bsc Hons DipTP MRTPI)
• Associate
• Woolf Bond Planning

2
Introduction Presentation Format

• The Practice
• The Case Study
• Planning History Background
• Planning Policy Position
• Constraints to Development
• Planning Policy
• The Planning Application

• The Councils Decision
• Tactical Approach
• The Appeal
• Observations
• Client Cost Implications

3
Preamble

• The Practice
• We are a multi discipline planning practice,
  involved in a range of development schemes across
  England.
• Projects vary from strategic site promotion,
  major urban expansion proposals to medium and
  small-scale development projects.
• We offer specialist advice on housing land supply
  issues and advise on the form, content and layout
  of development schemes.
• Accordingly, we promote often difficult and
  controversial schemes at the application and
  appeal stages.

4
Purpose

• The aim of the presentation is to give LPA
  officers an insight into how the development
  industry approaches development opportunities and
  the complications that often arise

5
Linkages

• No development brief
• Earlier planning permissions now time expired
• Windfall site
• A number of problems have arisen before, during
  and after the application stage
• Key issue is whether the problems (dealt with
  below) could have been avoided had such a brief
  been prepared for the site

6
The Case Study

• Client TA Fisher (house builder)
• The site
• Rectangular, situated within the settlement
  boundary of Tilehurst, to the west of Reading
  (see Handout Figs. 1, 2 3).
• Occupied by three detached dwellings (No.s 1053,
  1055 and 1057 Oxford Road) with long curtilage
  depths to the road frontage (See Handout Figs 4
  5)
• Adjoins built development
• Tree belts.
• Change in levels of 15 metres
• Site extends in total to approx 1.58 hectares.
• Densities of surrounding area
• Represents a housing development opportunity,
  brownfield site, urban area,
• A PPG3 compliant scheme

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Planning History Background

• Outline planning applications were submitted in
  1989 proposing the erection of 24 and 46
  dwellings on land at 1063 1069 Oxford Road and
  1053 to 1069 respectively
• Both applications were refused by the Council but
  subsequently allowed on appeal
• In allowing the appeals the number of dwellings
  was reduced by the Inspector from 24 to 17 and 46
  to 43 respectively.
• The 1989 appeal decision established the
  principle of residential development on the site.

10

• Both permissions were overtaken by events in that
  subsequent consents were granted and implemented
  in the 1990s for development in two phases on the
  western part of the site. Phases I and II have
  been completed, resulting in a total of 22
  dwellings. This leaves the potential for some 21
  dwellings on the remaining part of the site.
• The 22 unit scheme relates to the Roebuck Rise
  and Durant Rise area, now implemented. (See
  Handout Figs. 3, 6 7)
• If the terms of the Inspector's decision on the
  46 (amended to 43) unit application are to be
  followed this would allow for the construction of
  a further 21 dwellings on the case study site
  (Handout Fig.3 edged red)

11
Construction and Ownership

• Our clients acquired and built land parcels A and
  B as phases I and II of the development (22
  houses).
• They own No. 1053 Oxford Road but have no control
  over the in-between properties (No.s 1055 and
  1057 Oxford Road).
• Ransom issue concerning delivery of comprehensive
  scheme. However, only feasible access is via
  Durant Way. Not possible to provide a new access
  from Oxford Road (a classified Road).
• Therefore, only means of developing the site is
  via an extension to the existing cul-de sac
  through land not controlled by our developer
  client
• Issue of deliverability and land valuation
  concerning the middle parts

12
Constraints to Development

• Character of the surrounding area
• Density
• TPOs
• S.106 requirements (Inc. affordable housing
  provision)
• Land ownership, Site Assembly
• No development brief to guide comprehensive
  development of the site
• Local opposition
• The above factors, allied to the development plan
  policy position, were taken into account in the
  preparation of the application proposal

13
Planning Policy

• Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase
  Act
• Adopted Berkshire Structure Plan to 2006
• West Berkshire District Local Plan to 2006
• Emerging Replacement Structure Plan

14

• Structure Plan Policy seeks to ensure that
  development is sustainable in its location and
  form.
• Local Plan Policy implements Structure Plan
  Policy at the District level and seeks to locate
  development within the existing settlement
  pattern
• However, Structure Plan Policy EN1 seeks to
  protect and enhance the environment of built up
  areas only permitting development which is
  appropriate in scale, form, impact, character and
  siting to its location

• Local Plan Policy adds a further constraint to
  allowing development in urban areas, only
  allowing development where it would not give rise
  to an unacceptable impact on the character or
  appearance of an area or the amenities of
  neighboring land uses
• Structure Plan Policy seeks to ensure that
  development is sustainable in its location and
  form.

15
PPG3 Housing

• Paragraphs 57 and 58 refer to the need to make
  the best use of land, and encourage local
  planning authorities to avoid developments which
  make inefficient use of land (those of less than
  30 dwellings per hectare net).
• The appeal scheme represents a density of 30.4
  dwellings per hectare. It accords with PPG3
  density advice and also reflects the character of
  the surrounding area and is a direct response to
  the need to protect existing tree belts and TPOd
  trees.

16

• This PPG also gives consideration to issues of
  design. Paragraph
• 56 states
• New housing development of whatever scale
  should not be viewed in isolation. Consideration
  of design and layout must be informed by the
  wider context, having regard to any immediate
  neighbouring properties but the townscape and
  landscape of the wider locality
• (Our emphasis).

17
Circular 01/05

• Circular 1/05 which requires schemes in the South
  East of England to
• achieve PPG3 compliant development on sites in
  excess of 1 hectare.
• The appeal proposals in this respect are fully
  compliant in the sense
• that the site extends, gross, to 1.58 hectares
  and some 48 dwellings
• are proposed, yielding a density of
  30.4 dwellings per hectare.
• This is the minimum requirement to meet PPG3
  Annex C based on
• gross site calculation

18
The Planning Application

• The application followed a detailed and
  comprehensive assessment of the planning policy
  position, a site and local area appraisal and
  discussions with the Local Planning Authority.
• The process can be summarised as follows
• Site appraisal
• Planning report prepared for client advising on
  merits or otherwise of development potential
  having regard to, inter alia, policy position
• Draft scheme prepared
• Discussions between architects, planners,
  landscape architect, arboricultutist, highway
  consultants and client
• Preferred scheme drawn up
• Details submitted to the LPA
• Meeting held and scheme discussed/ negotiations
  (S.106 etc.)
• Revisions to scheme
• Application submitted

19

• The principal constraint to development of the
  site was identified as being the character of the
  surrounding area
• However, schemes required to accord with PPG3
  requirements
• The application was submitted in outline in
  January 2003 with all matters other than means of
  access reserved for subsequent approval.
• At the request of the Council, details of siting
  and landscaping were added for approval, leaving
  only design and external appearance as reserved
  matters
• The scheme proposed the demolition of 3 existing
  detached dwellings and the redevelopment of the
  site to provide 33 houses and 15 apartments (30
  affordable housing)
• At that stage the affordable housing provision
  was to be paid for off site (LPA request)
• The proposals are shown on Fig.6 attached with
  the handouts.

20
(No Transcript)
21

• The site plan layout demonstrates the range and
  type of dwellings to be provided as part of the
  appeal proposal including a mix of terraced, link
  detached and flatted development
• Overall the site comprises 1.58ha, of which 0.41
  would be taken up by open space. The density of
  the scheme is 30.4ha
• The application represents a density at the
  bottom end of the range encouraged by Government
  guidance towards making efficient use of housing
  land, respecting also character of area.
• In designing the 48 unit scheme our clients have
  also sought to respect the concerns of local
  residents and to respond to
• their perceptions of the character of the area.
• It was considered that the scheme satisfied all
  necessary requirements of the Development Plan

22
During Consideration

• During 2003, and because of the ransom issue
  relating to access between Durant Way and No.
  1053 Oxford Road, the owners of properties 1055
  and 1057 Oxford Road submitted a scheme to the
  LPA for housing development on their plots only,
  with access from Oxford Road.
• The company objected to these proposals on the
  grounds that the scheme was not economical and
  also on the grounds that it would result in
  piecemeal development
• The scheme was subsequently withdrawn on the
  advice of the LPA.

23
The Councils Decision

• The Officers of West Berkshire Council
  recommended approval of the 48 unit application.
• The report to committee supported the scheme and
  identified site will have to be developed at a
  higher density. In officers opinion, no
  material harm will result on the character of the
  area or amenities of adjoining development.
• Further stated that overall, the proposal is
  considered an acceptable form of development,
  which complies fully with both national
  objectives and local plan policies.
• Officer report requested a number of developer
  contributions, including
• Commuted maintenance sum for transfer of the open
  space (26,840)
• Financial contribution toward education provision
• Contribution to highway works
• Affordable housing provision

24
Reason For Refusal

• Notwithstanding the officer recommendation to
  approve the scheme, the application was refused
  for the following reason
• The proposed development of 48 units would
  result in an
• unacceptable overdevelopment of the site which,
  by failing to take
• account of and reflect the nature and density of
  surrounding
• development, would produce a built form out of
  sympathy with the
• established character of the surrounding area
  which would result in
• significant and unacceptable detriment to its
  existing amenities. If
• allowed the proposal would set a precedent which
  would make
• further applications on similar sites in the
  locality harder to resist.
• The proposal is therefore contrary to provisions
  of policies

25
Our View

• Council decisions are frequently contrary to
  officer recommendation.
• Frustrating for development industry, leading to
  significant delays in
• project delivery
• In order for higher density development to be
  accommodated within
• the urban area it is inevitable that changes of
  this nature will be
• necessary and will have to be accepted and
  accommodated. The
• implication otherwise is that the requirements of
  PPG3 cannot be
• achieved. There will inevitably be change
  brought about by sustainable
• development opportunities in built up areas.
• An appeal against the decision was subsequently
  lodged with the
• Inspectorate.

26
Tactical Approach

• Following the refusal of the 48 unit application
  a subsequent application was submitted by our
  clients for the erection of 39 dwellings only.
  Details of the form and layout of the proposed
  development are shown on Handout Fig.7 attached.
• The scheme was submitted as a direct response to
  the refusal of the 48 unit scheme by reducing the
  density of deleting the flatted block.
• The 39 unit scheme has a density based on PPG3
  Annex C of just in excess of 25 dwellings per
  hectare
• The 39 unit application was based on an
  interpretation of PPG3, Annex C, to the effect
  that trees and landscaped area on the northern
  and southern parts of the site could be defined
  as significant buffer strips and excluded from
  the site area for the purposes of density
  calculation.

27
(No Transcript)
28

• This derives a reduced site area of 1.28ha,
  yielding a density of 30.46ha
• As a practice our view is that this approach did
  not accord with our interpretation of PPG3 Annex
  C
• Following negotiations with the LA Officers, the
  scheme was recommended for approval.
• At this stage the LPA then requested affordable
  provision on site
• Again, notwithstanding officer support, the
  scheme was refused.

29
Barker Report

• Published for the ODPM in March 2004
• The Barker Report identifies that political
  decisions often reflect negative local attitude
  to development.
• Referred to in the context of setting housing
  numbers but equally relevant to the consideration
  of planning applications at the local level.

30
The Appeal

• The appeal was lodged against the Councils
  decision to refuse the 48 unit scheme.
• We did not appeal the 39 unit scheme
• The grounds of appeal and subsequent Rule 6
  statement cited PPG3 grounds for the
  acceptability of the scheme.
• A statement of common ground and a core documents
  list was prepared by the appellant parties.
• In preparing the appeal, further detailed work
  was carried out by the appellant company, to
  include a contextual appraisal and preparation of
  an illustrative diagram to show the impact of the
  proposed flatted block on the street scene.
• Clearly, there are cost implications (for the
  client) in taking matters to appeal

31
Developer Contributions

• Prepared in accordance with S.106 TCP Act 1990,
  S.278 Highways Act
• Because our appellant client does not have a
  legal interest in the whole of the site, the
  contributions are triggered by the commencement
  of development on any part of the site.
• Unilateral undertaking to cover
• Educational facilities (300,000)
• Highway Improvements (115,000)
• Omitted open space requirements as based on draft
  SPG
• In addition, requirement for 30 affordable
  housing (14 units)
• Because our appellant client does not have a
  legal interest in the whole of the site, the
  contributions are triggered by the commencement
  of development on any part of the site. Scheme
  for affordable housing required at RM stage.
• Inspector satisfied that, given our clients
  control over the point of connection to Durant
  Way which is required to provide access to the
  development, there is sufficient interest in the
  land to provide reasonable assurance that the
  obligations would be delivered.

32
Inspectors Decision

• The Inspector considered the main issue in the
  determination of the appeal as the effect the
  proposal would have on the character, appearance
  and amenity of the locality having regard to
  local and national policies on sustainable
  development
• Character
• Appearance
• Amenity

33
Decision

• The Inspector concluded
• Although the proposal would contrast with nearby
  development in terms of density,
• such contrasts, together with an increased
  perception of built form, are to be expected
• as a result of pursuing a greater intensity of
  development ion sustainable locations which
• such low existing densities
• On the main issue that there would be serious
  harm would not be caused to the
• character, appearance, and amenity of the
  locality, and that the proposal accords both
• with the development plan on these matters and
  sustainable development objectives
• The appeal was allowed. Affordable housing
  provided on site through Grampian
• conditions

34
General Observations

• LPA support for scheme
• Developers willing to enter into S.106 agreement
  provided there is a justification for the
  commuted sum
• PPG3 density advice provides for higher density
  schemes.
• Change in character not necessarily a bad thing
• Supported by Inspectorate
• Officers open to proposals, whilst seeking to
  ensure that schemes accord with development plan
• Councillors protect local voter interest. NIMBY.

35
Client Cost Implications

• Our client has developed Phases I and II for a
  total of 22 dwellings. The remainder of the site
  remains undeveloped, albeit with the benefit of
  an extant (? delivery) planning permission for 48
  units.
• Significant costs in promoting development,
  including
• Purchase No. 1053 Oxford Road (750,000)
• Application Fee (3,520)
• Consultants Fees/Counsel (100,000)
• Education Contributions (300,000)
• Highway Contributions (115,000)
• No Open Space contribution
• Build costs (_at_35 value) 5m
• TOTAL 6.26M

36
Summary

• The case study is an illustration of where you
  have significant land assembly issues.
• Represents an example of where you have a single
  land owner preventing development from coming
  forward.
• Phases I and II have been built. Phase III now
  permitted (48 units) but no certainty as to
  deliverability
• Our clients have been involved with this site for
  in excess of ten years and it is still yet to
  come forward despite having a scheme and S.106 in
  place.
• Each property is worth IRO 750,000 as a private
  market dwelling house
• However, how do you value the different interests
  in this example?

37

• TA Fisher have a ransom issue
• How do you value No. 1055 Oxford Road in terms of
  implementing the planning permission
• How, in turn, do you value No. 1057 Oxford Road.
• Value of end plot (No. 1053)
• Is there a mathematical answer or is it simply a
  matter for negotiation?

38
End Result

• Planning Permission granted, with necessary S.106
  contributions.
• Expensive exercise for developer client in
  pursuing scheme to appeal
• No certainty that scheme can be delivered
• Worked example of how local resident objections
  have delayed the planning process but ultimately
  worked against them.
• They could have had a 39 unit scheme and off site
  provision of affordable housing
• By forcing the developers to appeal the PPG3
  compliant scheme (48 units) the result is
  (subject to implementation and delivery!) a
  higher density scheme with on site affordable
  housing provision.