RE: LAND AT KINGSTON, EAST COWES, ISLE OF WIGHT

_____________________________

ADVICE

_____________________________

1. SUMMARY

1.1 From the information I have seen I do not consider a refusal of planning permission for the outline application to develop land at Kingston, East Cowes, on the grounds indicated in the 2 reasons suggested in the minute of the resolution of the Development Control Sub-Committee ('the Sub-Committee') on 11 July 2006 would have reasonable prospects of success of being sustained in the event of an appeal to the Secretary of State.

1.2 There are strong planning arguments to counter the complaint that the application involves the inappropriate use of greenfield land contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy and national police advice. The concerns relating to density are capable of being controlled by the imposition of conditions and careful consideration of the design at the reserved matters stage. They do not therefore justify the refusal of planning permission.

2. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

2.1 The application site comprises some 49 hectares of land on the southern edge of East Cowes largely lying between the River Medina (to the west) and Beatrice Avenue (to the east). The application site also includes a corridor of land running between Beatrice Avenue and Whippingham Road (further east) which is intended to provide the main vehicular access. In broad terms the site can be split into 4 areas. The northern part of the site divides (east and west) into 2 areas. The western part generally equates to an area of 12.2 ha allocated for employment development by the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2001) under Police E5 (13). The eastern part generally equates to an area of 10.5 ha allocated for residential development by the UDP under Policy H3 (69). These two areas lie wholly within the defined Development Envelope of the UDP.

2.2 The third area is the access corridor referred to above. This is shown in indicative terms on the UDP Proposals Map (Inset Q). The fourth area is an area of about 25 ha which comprises a woodland (Kingston Copse) in the centre of the site, various fields to the south (proposed for nature conservation mitigation) and land immediately on the river edge (part of the European Site of the River Medina).

2.3 Part of the residential site was allocated for development in the Cowes Local Plan (1988). The UDP was prepared in the late 1990’s and was subject to a public inquiry in 1999.

2.4 There were many objections to the residential and employment allocations at Kingston and the Local Plan Inspector devoted an entire chapter of his report (Chapter 16) to addressing them. The Inspector recommended the retention of both the allocations. Whilst the inquiry predated PPG3 (2000), the Inspector did take it into account in his recommendations (paragraph 10 of his covering letter dated 30 August 2000). He specifically recommended changes to draft Policy S2 on promoting brownfield land before greenfield land to more closely accord with the sequential approach in PPG3 (paragraph 1.2.1). He emphasised that the UDP should be adopted and then reviewed as appropriate, with monitoring in the meantime, rather than revisiting the whole strategy of the UDP in the light of PPG3 (paragraph 7 of his covering letter).

2.5 Since the adoption of the UDP the Council has carried out a number of urban capacity studies to assess the scope for the housing requirement set by Policy S.7 of the UDP to be met on brownfield sites. The UDP had envisaged some 2500 dwellings could be provided on unidentified sites in the period 1996-2011 (paragraph 7.24). The most recent urban capacity study (based on an assessment in November 2005) suggests that between 2490 and 2690 dwellings could come forward from the various sources of urban capacity (paragraph 6.20 of the March 2006 Residential Development Monitoring Report). However, it appears that this is a 10 year estimate and the yield expected in the period 2006-2011 is only 1467 dwellings (paragraph 3.19 of the draft Core Strategy 'Island Plan' of May 2006).

2.6 After allowing for completions from 1996-2006 and the urban capacity indicated above there is a residential requirement of about 975 dwellings needed in the period to 2011 if the strategic requirement of Policy S.7 (as least 8000 dwellings) is to be met. This residual requirement will involve the take up of extant planning permissions, the release of UDP allocations, or a combination of elements of both.

2.7 The UDP identified a requirement for 'at least 60 hectares' of employment land in the period to 2011 (Policy S.8) and some 65 hectares of land was allocated. As at December 2006 about 59 hectares of the identified employment land was still undeveloped (paragraph 4.1. of the Employment and Industrial Land Review of March 2006) and the take up rate had fallen to less than 2 ha per year compared to the 4.6 ha per year implied by the requirement.

2.8 It is clear from the text of the UDP that the residential allocation at Kingston would be expected to facilitate the provision of a new access road from Whippingham Road which would also serve the employment allocation and existing employment uses in the area.

3. GREENFIELD LAND

3.1 The Kingston site is predominantly a greenfield site (a small area may be previously developed land as part of a disused sewage plant but this area lies outside the residential area). UDP Police S.2 indicates that 'Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brownfield site exists'.

3.2 This policy is concerned with the making of allocations within the UDP rather than with the development control decisions to release an allocation once made.

3.3 The UDP did allocate residential and employment parts of the Kingston site for development (and fixed the Development Envelope to reflect that). It can be taken that the UDP is internally consistent and that the allocation met the requirements of Policy S.2. This is confirmed by the UDP Inspector's support for the allocations, having given specific consideration to Policy S.2 in the light of PPG3.

3.4 I do not therefore consider there can be a conflict with UDP Policy S.2 if an allocated site is released for development. The Sub-Committee resolution also refers to UDP Policies S.1 and S.11. Policy S.1 aims to 'concentrate' new development within existing urban areas. It does not preclude extensions to those areas, particularly where the land in question is within the defined Development Envelope. The purpose of the Development Envelope is to identify where development is generally to be located (Policy G1). It would be inconsistent if Policy S.1 was then used to resist development as a matter of principle on an allocated site within the Development Envelope.

3.5 Policy S.11 aims to reduce the impact of and reliance on the private car through the land use policies and proposals of the UDP. Again, it would be inconsistent if an allocated site was held to be objectionable on this ground as a matter of principle. Any objection could only relate to the detailed nature of the transportation arrangements rather than the locational characteristics of the site.

3.6 It does not appear that there is any specific criticism of the pedestrian and cycle linkages between the site and the adjacent urban area. Nor is there any specific criticism of the level of bus provision. Unless the proposed arrangements can be shown to be inadequate in some respect and also capable of realistic improvement, I do not think the Council could expect to sustain an objection based on Policy S.11 of the UDP.

3.7 The application is an outline application with only means of access to the site not reserved for future consideration. At the reserved matters stage the Council will be able to control the internal site layout to ensure that the dwellings are accessible by safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes which link to available routes within the existing urban area. Conditions have been suggested to restrict the amount of car parking and to require adequate facilities for cycle parking. The new access road will be designed to accommodate buses and a bus gate is proposed at Kingston Road to facilitate its use as a bus route into East Cowes. It is intended that a financial contribution of £100,000.00 would be required to provide initial funding of a bus service through the site.

3.8 The Council's Highway Officers were content with the proposed transportation arrangements and did not suggest any additional measures were necessary. It is difficult therefore to see how the Council could expect to sustain an objection that there was a conflict with Policy S.11.

3.9 Consideration could be given to whether the proposed travel plan requirements should be extended to include the residential development. Such arrangements often include 'welcome packs' for new residents informing them of the range of available non-car travel options, and sometimes include vouchers giving free or discounted bus travel for an initial period to encourage the adoption of sustainable travel patterns.

3.10 However, even if these matters are appropriate for this site they can be readily addressed by conditions or planning obligations and so their absence would not itself justify a refusal of planning permission.

3.11 The Sub-Committee resolution also refers more generally to conflict with PPS1 and PPS7 because the site is in a greenfield location but there are said to be available brownfield opportunities. If it were the case that any needs met by the development could be met instead by the development of brownfield sites that could realistically be expected to come forward, this would provide a sound basis for with-holding planning permission in line with paragraphs 21 and 27 of PPS1, paragraph 38 of PPG3, and 1(v) of PPS7.

3.12 However, I consider that there are strong arguments to show that the use of a greeenfield site for housing development is justified in this instance and that available brownfield sites cannot be expected to fulfil the same needs.

3.13 I acknowledge that purely in terms of the numeric housing requirement remaining under Policy S.7 the application site is not necessarily required. There appears to be an adequate supply of extant permissions and urban capacity opportunities to meet the residual requirement to 2011.

3.14 I also acknowledge that whilst it may be the case that in the longer term greenfield sites may still be required, such needs are better assessed as part of the work on the emerging Local Development Framework rather than by the immediate release of such sites now. This is so even accepting that the development programme for the application site envisages that it will not be developed out wholly or mainly within the UDP period to 2011.

3.15 However, in two key respects reliance on urban capacity sites and extant permissions will not address important and pressing current needs. Nor would deferring any decision to release the site to await the outcome of the LDF process.

3.16 The first issue is employment needs. Both the UDP and the UDP Inspector recognised the difficulties the Island has in sustaining and strengthening the local economy and the long standing weaknesses in the structure of local employment opportunities. In addressing objections to the employment allocation at Kingston the Inspector stated:

"To secure a firm economic base the Plan not only needs policies which encourage appropriate development to meet training needs but also an adequate supply of employment sites in various locations to meet anticipated demands. From my visits around the Island I noticed that some of the existing industrial and commercial premises are in poor condition and have few opportunities to expand . . . For the Island to compete and attract investment it is important to ensure the necessary supply of serviced sites, or in some cases modern premises, not only to bring in new industry but to allow the expansion of existing firms to more appropriate locations and buildings . . . . "

(para 16.7.2)

3.17 The employment allocation is intended to provide such a serviced site and it was in the light of this analysis of the importance of ensuring the provision of such sites that the Inspector supported the allocation. Despite this the employment allocation has not come forward since the adoption of the UDP in 2001 and it seems unlikely that it will do so without enabling development to fund the cost of the required new access road. The importance of delivering good quality serviced employment land is heightened by the fact that so little of the UDP employment allocations have come forward to date. This clearly has implications for the ability of the Island to address its underlying economic weaknesses.

3.18 It would be entirely unrealistic to expect the development of previously developed land elsewhere to fund the provision of the new access road to serve the employment land at Kingston. However, given the terms of the UDP it is realistic to expect the Kingston housing site to do this. The application proposes the complete construction of the access road within an 18 month period and so provides a major enhancement to the attractiveness of the employment land.

3.19 I consider this to be a very strong argument for utilising this particular greenfield site. Available brownfield opportunities could simply not achieve this objective or assist in the delivery of an important part of the UDP's employment strategy.

3.20 The second argument concerns affordable housing. The UDP had sought to secure at least a 20% contribution on appropriate sites. Supplementary Planning Guidance has increased the contribution sought to 30%. The application proposes to provide 30%, weighted to give greater preference to affordable housing in the first phase.

3.21 Given the terms of Circular 6/98 small sites (below 15 dwellings or 0.5 ha) do not have to provide affordable housing. This has hampered the Council in delivering affordable housing in practice because many of the extant permissions and the brownfield sites that come forward are below these thresholds.

3.22 It appears that the latest Housing Needs Survey shows an annual requirement for 1200 affordable units but since 2000 only 220 units have actually been provided in total (paragraphs 3.26 and 3.27 of the Island Plan). There is therefore a substantial shortfall and little indication that it will be remedied.

3.23 As a large site the application site will provide a substantial amount of affordable housing (about 165 units if the site capacity is about 550 dwellings). Clearly this will make an important contribution to meeting needs, but even more importantly, it is unlikely that any combination of brownfield sites will make a similar contribution because of their generally smaller size.

3.24 I consider when these two factors are put together there is a strong justification for using this particular greenfield site. Since the same needs could not be met by brownfield sites I do not see there is any conflict with national advice in PPS1, PPG3 and PPS7 on giving priority to the use of brownfield land. In these circumstances I do not consider the availability of brownfield opportunities provides an adequate reason for refusing planning permission. I would not therefore expect such an objection to be sustained in the event of an appeal.

4. DENSITY

4.1 The outline application envisages an average density of 55 dwellings per hectare across the site as a whole. However, this is not part of the application. Nor does the application seek permission for a fixed number of dwellings. In simple terms, therefore, a refusal based on density cannot be justified because the density is not a matter which is fixed by the application.

4.2 The Council does have the means to specify an appropriate density (or density range) if it considers that should be regulated at the outline stage. It could be said that some restriction on the total quantity of development is justified to ensure that the highways, landscape and other impacts tested in the Environmental Statement properly represent a 'worst case' of the likely impacts. One way of imposing such a restriction would be by means of a density condition and such a condition has been suggested by officers.

4.3 The wording of the proposed condition would need to be improved if it is intended to allow for an average density of 55 dwellings per hectare across the site as a whole but this is simply a matter of drafting.

4.4 It appears that the Sub-Committee is of the view that an average density of 55 dwellings per hectare is objectionable on this site as a matter of principle and that it represents 'over development'. Even if this were so it would be open to the Council to specify by condition a lesser density that it regarded as acceptable, and given the outline nature of the application, it would be possible to do this.

4.5 However, from the material I have seen I do not consider an objection to an average density of 55 dwellings per hectare could be sustained. Density is a very limited tool for judging the acceptability of development proposals. PPG3 sets a minimum density (of 30 dwellings per hectare) to avoid the wasteful use of land but it does not establish maximum densities which cannot be exceeded. The advice in paragraph 58 that densities in the range 30-50 dwellings per hectare are to be 'encouraged' does not mean that higher densities are objectionable per se or are limited to locations such as town and district centres or public transport nodes.

4.6 Whether a density above 50 dwellings per hectare is acceptable or not will depend on whether it can be said to give rise to any unacceptable impacts. This will be heavily influenced by design considerations and by whether the development would result in off-site impacts (such as pressures on open space or recreational facilities) which could not be satisfactorily mitigated.

4.7 I have seen no material to suggest that community facilities in the locality could not cope with the demands of a development of about 550 dwellings (which an average density of 55 dwellings per hectare would imply). Contributions to social and community infrastructure are proposed and I have seen nothing to suggest these would be inadequate.

4.8 This then leaves design considerations as the only basis on which a density of 55 dwellings per hectare could be said to be objectionable. However, on a site of some 10 hectares, where all design considerations are reserved for future determination, I do not see any basis on which the Council could expect to sustain such an objection.

4.9 Even if it could be said that in particular locations a lower density would be appropriate (for example at the interface with existing residential development or at the interface with the surrounding countryside) this could be achieved by having an average density of 55 dwellings per hectare. An average density would allow for lower and higher densities to reflect the different characteristics of different parts of the site and the surrounding context. At the reserved matters stage the Council would be able to control the size and disposition of the built form to ensure that it was satisfactory.

4.10 The Sub-Committee resolution refers to UDP Policy H6 which sets criteria for where 'high density' development will be acceptable. The UDP defines 'high density' as densities above 40 dwellings per hectare. There is no evidence that at the reserved matters stage criteria (b) (c) and (d) could not be satisfied. Whilst criterion (a) requires the development to be 'close to public transport services and local / town centre facilities', this must now be read in the light of PPG3 (paragraph 58). I assume that the provision of a bus service will enable the first part of the criterion to be met. Whether the site is 'close to' the town centre is a matter of judgment. Paragraph 75 of PPG13 suggests that distances of up to 2km are walkable and the town centre is within this distance.

4.11 Paragraph 58 of PPG3 suggests that densities up to 50 dwellings per hectare are generally to be encouraged, whether or not a site is close to a town centre and so the only issue can be whether there is any meaningful difference in terms of sustainable travel between a development of 50 dwellings per hectare and a development of 55 dwellings per hectare. I have seen nothing to indicate there is such a difference. Provided the development properly accommodates opportunities for travel by non-car modes (as discussed in Section 3 above) I cannot see than an objection based on non-compliance with criterion (a) of Policy H6 would be supportable in the event of an appeal.

4.12 Consequently, in my view neither of the suggested reasons for refusal constitutes an adequate basis for refusing planning permission. I do not consider that if there was an appeal those reasons would have reasonable prospects of success.

5.0 MISCELLANEOUS

5.1 Given the importance of ensuring that the development delivers a completed access road at an early stage, the Council may wish to consider imposing an additional condition to preclude the occupation of more than a specified number of dwellings (broadly equivalent to the expected output over 18 months) before the completion of the access road. In this way the developer would have a direct commercial interest in ensuring that the access road was completed on time.

MICHAEL BEDFORD

18 August 2006

2-3 Gray's Inn Square

London WC1R 5JH