accord house sps - planning enquiry

Contents 1. Introduction 1

2. Contextual Appraisal 2

3. Proposed Development 5

4. Planning Policy Review 6

5. Material Planning Considerations 10

6. Conclusions 18

Waller Planning Planning, Design and Access Statement 1

1 Introduction

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared in support of a planning

application to construct two storeys of residential accommodation, comprising 16 no. units on the roof of the building at Accord House, Bridge Road East, Welwyn. This application is made on behalf of BQ Properties (Potters Bar) Ltd (hereafter referred to as the Applicant), the owner of the application site.

1.2 The proposed alterations to the building are intended to provide additional units of residential accommodation in this sustainable location, making use of an existing building and previously developed land.

1.3 The building already has prior approval for conversion from office to residential accommodation for the ground and first floors, to form 17 flats, and the conversion of the building has begun. We therefore believe that the proposed development is acceptable in principle.

1.4 The residential accommodation that would be created would help to meet the high level of need for housing in the area. The provision of new housing is a matter on which the Government places great importance. Where there is a shortfall in the provision of housing land, as is the case in Welwyn and Hatfield, proposals for residential development should be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

1.5 We believe that the proposed development is entirely acceptable with regard to current policies and all relevant considerations, and it should therefore be granted planning consent without delay, in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.


2 Contextual Appraisal

Location and Accessibility

2.1 The application site is located on Bridge Road East a short distance from the junction with Broadwater Road. The site is located very close to the centre of Welwyn Garden City, within around 600m walk of the Howard Centre and bus and train stations; this equates to a walk of around 6-7 minutes. The whole of the town centre is within a 10-minute walk of the site. The town centre contains a wide range of convenience and comparison shops, including John Lewis, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s.

2.2 The railway station provides regular services to London, leaving 4 times

per hour, and with a minimum journey time of 29 minutes, serving both King’s Cross and Moorgate stations. Frequent services are also available to other towns, including Peterborough, Cambridge and Hatfield.

The application site’s location, relative to the town centre and railway / bus stations

2.3 The bus station provides regular services to several local towns. A bus stop, located 170m to the west of the application site on Bridge Road East, offers sixteen different bus services, with connections to Hatfield, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead and St Albans. As such, the application site is in one of the best connected locations within the Borough. Full details


of the available bus services are included in the Transport Statement by TPA which accompanies this application.

2.4 The area surrounding the application site is in a mix of uses. To the east and south are 3 and 2 storey office buildings, respectively. Immediately to the west of the site is Mercury House, which has recently been granted planning permission for conversion and extension to form 43 residential flats (6/2016/2624/FULL). To the north, across Bridge Road East and well set back from the road is a commercial development, including a Halfords and Kwik Fit. Also opposite the application site, on the corner of Bridge Road East and Broadwater Road, is a pub / restaurant. To the south west along Broadwater Road is the former Shredded Wheat Factory, which is a Grade II listed building, and now derelict; permission has recently been granted (N6/2015/0294/PP) to redevelop the site to provide a residential-led development, also including a hotel, offices, food and drink establishments.

2.5 None of the nearby uses is incompatible with a residential use, and the

character of the area is rapidly changing from its former industrial nature to a mix of uses which includes extensive residential accommodation, and uses which are compatible with residential use, such as offices.

The Application Site

2.6 Accord House is an office block, currently being converted to residential

use, as permitted development (see below). The existing building occupies the north-eastern side of the site adjacent to Bridge Road East. The remaining site area comprises car parking, which is served by access from Bridge Road East, and Hydeway. This car parking area relates only to this building, and is located adjacent to its main entrance. Along the building’s frontage there is an area of boundary planting, including shrubs and mature trees.

Planning Context 2.7 Accord House has an established office use, but prior approval has been

granted for the building’s change of use from B1 office to C3 residential (application 6/2017/0525/PN11). This change of use takes place as permitted development, under the provisions of Class O of Schedule 2 (Part 3) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended. The building’s former office use has now been lost, as it is currently being converted to residential use. The building is owned by a house builder, and there is now no prospect of it returning to office use.

2.8 The change of use of the ground and first floor accommodation is a

separate matter to the current application proposals. The application proposals do not relate to any aspect of the ground and first floor


accommodation. Access to the new storeys proposed would be taken through existing stairwells and the existing lift shaft. However, the two additional storeys of residential accommodation to the building would clearly complement the change of use.

2.9 As a separate matter, the building also has extant planning permission for

changes to the fenestration and the façade (6/2017/0903/FULL). This permission did not relate to a particular use for the building, and is compatible with either the existing office use, or the permitted residential use. The same changes that have been approved under that application are incorporated in this application, as they would provide the building with a cohesive appearance.

2.10 The application also proposes minor alterations to the car parking area,

to make provision for disabled parking spaces, and cycle parking.


3 Proposed Development

3.1 As we have noted above, Accord House is a two storey building, with

extant permission for change of use from B1 office to C3 residential (application 6/2017/0525/PN11). This change of use is now being implemented, and takes place as permitted development, under the provisions of Class O of Schedule 2 (Part 3) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.

3.2 This planning application proposes further development, separate from that approved under the prior approval process. This would comprise a two-storey roof extension to the building, to create an additional 16 no. residential flats. These would comprise 15 no. 1 bed and 1 no. 2 bed flats.

3.3 Provision would also be made for an external covered cycle storage area,

accommodating 34 spaces, at the site’s frontage. Waste and recycling facilities would be provided in a separate storage area close to the car park. Amendments would also be made to the existing car parking, to provide two disabled parking spaces close to the building’s entrance. The Transport Statement and Design and Access Statement each confirm that the Council’s standards would be met with regard to car and cycle parking.

3.4 The proposed development would be constructed at the same time as the

changes to the façade of the ground and first floor, which have already been approved (6/2017/0903/FULL). For clarity, the proposed drawings for this application also show these façade changes, so the Council will have the correct picture of the appearance of the completed building.

3.5 As can be seen from the proposed elevations, the only new changes

proposed to the building by this application would relate to its roof, which would be removed and replaced with an additional 2 storeys of accommodation. As the Design and Access Statement by Jefferson Sheard Architects which accompanies this application illustrates that the effect of the 2 additional storeys will only be equivalent of 1.5 storeys in height, due to the removal of the existing pitched roof.

3.6 The proposed development would require an extension to existing

internal staircases and a lift shaft, to reach the additional accommodation. This would not affect the existing (or proposed) layout of accommodation on the ground and first floors.


4 Planning Policy Review

4.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise1. The development plan for Welwyn Hatfield Borough comprises the saved policies of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (2004) and the Hertfordshire Minerals and Waste Plan. In addition, the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitute important material considerations.

4.2 However, paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that where Local Plans are out of date, ‘due weight should be given to relevant policies… according to their degree of consistency with this framework’. As such, the weight to be accorded to the District Plan’s policies will vary depending on their degree of consistency with the more up to date policies of the NPPF. This effectively means that the material considerations formed by the NPPF can be of greater importance in decision-making, and can be accorded greater weight than the District Plan’s policies, where these policies are both out of date and inconsistent with the NPPF.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 4.3 The fundamental precept of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of

sustainable development. Paragraph 14 states that for decision-taking, this means:

• ‘approving development proposals that accord with the

development plan without delay; and

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:

o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’

4.4 Footnote 9 then clarifies that the policies in the NPPF which may indicate

that developments should be restricted relate to a number of issues, such

1 See Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.


as the protection of designated wildlife sites, landscapes or Green Belt, none of which relate to this application. As discussed throughout this Statement, we do not believe that any of the policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted on the application site, and we do not believe that there would be any adverse impacts which would meet the high test of ‘significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits’ that the application would bring.

4.5 Paragraph 17 states that ‘Every effort should be made to meet the housing and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.’

4.6 Paragraph 19 states that planning ‘should operate to encourage and

not act as an impediment to sustainable growth’. 4.7 Paragraph 22 states that:

‘Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.’

4.8 Paragraph 47 requires local planning authorities to ‘boost significantly

the supply of housing’. 4.9 This is a matter which is given great importance within the NPPF, and

paragraph 49 notes that ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

Supreme Court Judgment

4.10 A recent judgment by the Supreme Court2, referred to hereafter simply as the Supreme Court judgment, has provided clarity on the interpretation of paragraph 49 of the NPPF, and its effect on other paragraphs.

4.11 The judgment comments on which policies should be considered ‘policies

for the supply of housing’. It takes what it terms ‘the narrow meaning’,

2 Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and another (Respondents) & Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and another (Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 37


meaning the term applies only to policies dealing with housing numbers and the distribution of housing. However, the judgment also clarifies that les weight can be given to development plan policies which have the effect of frustrating the provision of housing, such as those restricting development in certain areas, where there is a shortfall in the supply of housing.

4.12 The Supreme Court also clarifies that a shortfall in the housing land

supply is sufficient to trigger the second part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The second part of paragraph 14 relates to circumstances ‘where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date’. The judgment directs the decision maker directly to this part of the paragraph, and not to a consideration of the whole paragraph. The second part of the paragraph sets out the terms of the tilted balance in favour of development, and its wording is noted above.

Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (2005) 4.13 We set out below the Local Plan policies which we believe are most

relevant to the proposed development. 4.14 Policy EMP2 states that non-commercial development will normally be

resisted within designated employment areas. We address this in Section 5 below.

4.15 Policy R1 seeks to prioritise the use of previously developed land over

Greenfield land. The application proposals would comply with this policy by making an efficient use of previously developed land, to provide greatly needed new homes.

4.16 Policy R2 concerns land which may carry a risk of contamination, and

seeks to minimise the risk to sensitive end users, through survey and mitigation measures, as may be required. Policy R7 concerns the protection of ground and surface water. Since this application does not involve the breaking of ground, and since the conversion of the ground and first floor is considered safe, we do not believe there is any risk associated with these proposals. We also note that the Council have already concluded, in granting prior approval for the change of use of the existing accommodation to residential, that the site is suitable in this regard. That application was informed by a Phase 1 and 2 Geo-Environmental assessment by GEMCO Ltd, which concluded that the site’s previous uses provide only limited potential for contamination, and there is a low risk of any significant impact upon residents or groundwater receptors from any possible contamination beneath the site. A low to moderate risk to buried services was identified. The Applicant intends to take the required steps to mitigate this risk during construction of the extensions. We believe that this matter can be appropriately addressed


following the grant of planning permission, and controlled by a suitably worded planning condition.

4.17 Policy R8 concerns flood risk. The application site is within Flood Zone 1, defined by the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance as being at a ‘low’ risk of flooding. This application is accompanied by a drainage strategy by PRC Structural Engineering Services Ltd, which illustrates how the site will drain surface water. Analysis accompanying the drainage strategy indicates that there is no flooding predicted for the 30-year standard. For the 1 in 100 year plus climate change standard, there is some chance of a less than 30 minute duration event leading to localised and shallow flooding, which would be limited to the car park, and would not be sufficient to penetrate the building. We understand that this represents an entirely acceptable situation, and that residents are not expected to be at risk from potential surface water flooding.

4.18 Policy R19 concerns noise pollution. It states that where new

development would be affected by noise, planning permission will be granted where planning conditions are able to ensure adequate mitigation. The previous application for prior approval for the change of use of the building from office to residential accommodation was accompanied by a Planning Noise Assessment by Cass Allen Associates. This notes that the primary source of noise is that generated by the adjacent roads. It concluded that ‘the site is suitable for development in terms of noise levels’. Cass Allen have scrutinized the current proposals and provided a further letter to accompany the current application. This concludes that the use in the additional floors of the glazing specified by their previous report would be sufficient to ensure acceptable internal noise levels can be achieved. It is proposed that the standards proposed by Cass Allen for the ground and first floor will be applied to the roof extension.

4.19 Policy M14, parking standards in new development, and the Council’s

most recent policy in this regard, are considered in both the Design and Access Statement and Transport Statement which accompany this application.

4.20 Policy H2 concerns proposals for windfall residential development, and this policy is considered further in Section 5.


5 Material Planning Considerations

The Principle of the Proposed Development

5.1 We believe that the proposed residential use is entirely acceptable in principle. It is compliant with the Local Plan and national policy, both of which seek to provide residential accommodation in accessible locations. The recent planning permissions for residential development at the neighbouring Mercury House building (6/2016/2624/FULL) and the nearby Shredded Wheat Factory (N6/2015/0294/PP) also indicate the Council’s settled view that this is a suitable and sustainable location for residential development.

5.2 The ground and first floors of Accord House are currently being converted

for residential use, as permitted development, following the grant of prior approval. This is a separate development from that which is proposed in this application. However, it does create clarity that this will be a residential building, and further residential development on the proposed upper floors is clearly appropriate in this context. The proposed development will not itself have the effect of changing the site’s use, as this change will have taken place prior to it being begun.

5.3 The application site sits within an allocated employment area, the Welwyn

Garden City Industrial Area, as identified by District Plan Policy EMP1. As such, saved policy EMP2 would normally resist proposals for development that were not in the traditional employment use classes B1, B2 and B8. However, in light of the conversion which is already underway, the proposed development will take place within a residential context, where the previous office use will already have been lost.

5.4 Paragraph 22 of the NPPF allows for alternative uses on land which is

allocated for employment use ‘where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use…’. It is clear in this case that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment purposes again in the future.

5.5 We note that Policy EMP2 states that non-commercial development in employment areas should only ‘generally be resisted’ (our emphasis). As such, we believe this is not a case where EMP2 should be regarded as opposing further residential development on the site in all instances. Given that the office use has been lost, the salient question is how to make best use of a highly sustainable site at a time of acute housing need.


5.6 We have noted above in Section 4 that where there is a conflict with the policies of a Local Plan, which is now out of date, those policies should only be given weight in decision making according to their degree of consistency with the policies of the NPPF (NPPF, paragraph 215). Policy EMP2 of the District Plan seeks to restrict residential development on allocated employment land, but paragraph 22 of the NPPF allows for this development, given that there is no reasonable prospect that the site will be used for employment purposes in the future. In this situation, the NPPF takes precedence, meaning that only very limited weight can be attributed to Policy EMP2 in the determination of this application.

5.7 When considering similar applications, the Council have already given significant weight to this fact. A recent example of a similar site is 51 Great North Road, Hatfield. This site lies within the Great North Road employment area in Hatfield, which is also an allocated employment area under Policy EMP1. Following the grant of prior approval for its conversion from office to residential use, a planning application (6/2015/2359/MAJ) was made for alterations to that building, to allow for the creation of a greater number of flats. The Council took the view that the office use had been lost, and so residential development was acceptable in principle.

The Need for Housing

5.8 The Government places great importance on the provision of sufficient housing to meet local needs. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires local authorities to plan to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’, and it also requires the provision of a rolling 5-year housing land supply. Where this supply cannot be demonstrated, paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. That paragraph also states that ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’3, which is considered below.

5.9 The emerging Local Plan and its evidence base set out information on the current need for housing. The emerging Local Plan recognises that its target of 12,000 dwellings is below the objectively assessed need (OAN) for housing, which the Council calculate is in the region of 12,616 to 13,433 dwellings4. The justification given for this planned under-supply is the need to allow for additional housing to meet needs arising in East Hertfordshire District. The emerging Local Plan also makes it clear that the Council have concluded that they are unable to find sufficient capacity within suitable Green Belt land to meet the full objectively assessed need (as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF).

3 NPPF, paragraph 49. 4 Draft Local Plan, Proposed Submission Document, p37.


5.10 Nevertheless, the emerging Local Plan proposes to allocate a large amount of new residential development beyond the limits of the existing urban areas and in the Green Belt. The Council have concluded that there is simply insufficient space to meet the Borough’s significant housing needs within the urban areas. In this context, any additional housing which can be provided within the urban area is helpful in addressing the unmet housing need, and in reducing the potential need for housing in the Green Belt.

5.11 We understand that the Council currently believes that there is a 5.03 year housing land supply5. This appears to be a very tenuous attempt to suggest that there is currently sufficient housing land available to meet the Borough’s needs, with a surplus of only 19 dwellings above the 5-year requirement. We have a number of fundamental reservations about the Council’s approach to this, which include the following:

• The housing target figure used is a constrained figure, derived in the emerging Local Plan, and it does not represent the actual need for housing - this overall housing target, and the proposed approach of constraining the housing target, have not yet been tested at Examination, and these proposals are subject to substantial unresolved objections through the emerging Local Plan process;

• The housing target is further suppressed due to the application of

a mechanism proposed by a draft Local Plan policy, to impose a higher target only in the latter stages of the Local Plan period - this policy has no status as yet, and is not part of the development plan due to not having been subject to examination – again, it is subject to substantial unresolved objections;

• Only a 5% buffer has been provided, rather than a 20% buffer,

which we believe is merited due to the previous poor levels of housing provision within the Borough;

• The proposed rate for the non-implementation of planning

permissions, at 2.5%, is unusually low, and well below the industry standard of 10%;

• Any alteration to any of these tenuous assumptions would result in

a shortfall in the housing land supply.

5.12 The approach proposed by the Council is inconsistent with paragraph 47 of the NPPF, which requires local planning authorities to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’. It is also, in our view, very clearly unsustainable at appeal. This is without even having considered the deliverability of the sites the Council has identified within its land supply.

5 Welwyn Hatfield Annual Monitoring Report 2015/16 (January 2017).


We therefore take the view for the purposes of this application that there is currently a shortfall in the supply of housing land. The consequences of this are discussed below.

5.13 In any case, it is clear that there is a high level of need for housing in Welwyn Hatfield Borough, and in the wider area. This can be seen in a long-term trend of rising house prices, and worsening affordability, as supply has failed to match demand. We consider below the ratio of lower-quartile house prices to lower-quartile incomes, which is one of the more accurate ways of determining the actual affordability of housing in an area.

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Welwyn Hatfield 8.80 8.75 8.50 10.01 9.21 10.69 Hertfordshire 9.37 10.00 9.02 9.63 9.37 - England 6.82 7.25 6.28 6.57 6.66 7.02

Ratio of lower-quartile house prices to lower-quartile incomes6

5.14 This table demonstrates that housing has been becoming less affordable in Welwyn Hatfield Borough over the last decade, and this trend appears to be accelerating. It shows that people on lower quartile incomes would need to raise a mortgage of more than 10 times a typical lower quartile salary in order to buy a house. As such, housing is clearly unaffordable to those on lower incomes, and this situation is becoming worse. This demonstrates the continuing need for as much housing as possible, in order to reverse this trend and make housing more easily accessible for all; the only way of addressing the affordability of housing in the long term is to increase supply, to better meet demand.

5.15 In the context of this clear need for housing, it is simply sensible to optimize the use of land in this highly sustainable location.

Windfall Housing Provision

5.16 Another District Plan policy which we believe is also relevant to the proposed development is Policy H2, which concerns ‘windfall housing’ within urban areas. Windfall development is any form of housing which was not allocated in the 2004 District Plan, and thus it now comprises the majority of housing coming forward today. We believe that the criteria within this policy, which consider the effect of development on the local area, remain consistent with the NPPF, and so are relevant to this application. They are considered in the table below, alongside the application’s response. Policy H2 Criteria Application Response

6 Information taken from CLG Live Table 576.


H2 (i) The availability of previously developed sites and/or buildings.

The proposed development would make a more efficient use of previously developed land and an existing building.

H2 (ii) The location and accessibility of the site to services and facilities by transport modes other than the car.

The application site is in one of the most well-connected places in the Borough, with excellent access to buses and a mainline railway station, and is only a short walk from the centre of Welwyn Garden City.

H2 (iii)

The capacity of existing and potential infrastructure to absorb further development.

The proposed development would not place any unacceptable burden on existing infrastructure. The Transport Statement demonstrates that the proposed development, combined with the residential conversion already underway on the existing building, would place significantly less burden on the local highway than the site’s previous office use.

H2 (iv)

The ability to reinforce existing communities, including providing a demand for services and facilities.

Additional residential development would create an increase in demand for local services, including the new commercial developments in immediate proximity to the site and various uses within the town centre.

H2 (v) The physical and environmental constraints on development of land.

There are no constraints which would prevent the site’s development.

5.17 We therefore believe that the proposed development would comply with

the requirements of Policy H2.

Sustainable Development


5.18 National policy outlines that there are three dimensions to sustainable development, which are economic, social and environmental. The proposed development would make a positive contribution towards each of these dimensions, as noted below.

Economic Sustainability

5.19 Housing development is vital to sustain a local economy and to

encourage growth and innovation. National policy repeatedly equates the provision of housing with sustainable economic growth, recognising that it is a key driver for the economy. It also recognises the serious negative effect that a lack of housing can have on economic competitiveness and growth.

5.20 Economic benefits can be generated in many ways. They can be direct,

for instance through direct employment during the construction period, or through increased demand for services and facilities in the local area, such as the nearby town centre. They can also be in less direct, but equally vital ways, for instance by providing the housing required for people to be able to both live and work in close proximity. This latter point is particularly relevant to young people, and those on lower incomes, where the housing they need can be particularly difficult to afford. A good supply and range of housing is therefore vital to the health of the local economy.

Social Sustainability

5.21 The site’s location would also allow residents to take a full and active role

within local community life, with many opportunities to work, shop and socialise within walking distance of the site. This ease of access to local facilities and other residents can help to encourage strong social links and a sense of community.

5.22 National policy supports the provision of housing to meet social needs,

and the need for a suitable amount and range of types of housing is prominent throughout the guidance within the NPPF.

Environmental Sustainability

5.23 The site’s location will allow for the prioritisation of transport options

other than the private car. We note in Section 2 that there is excellent access to public transport and local facilities, within a few minutes’ walk. This can encourage a sustainable pattern of living, which results in a reduction in carbon emissions through transport.

5.24 This is also an inherently environmentally sustainable form of

development, as it would make efficient use of previously developed land, which is a scarce resource within the Borough. We have noted above that the Council have already concluded that it will be necessary to allocate


greenfield Green Belt land to meet future housing needs. Making an efficient use of previously developed land in sustainable locations can help to minimise that need.

5.25 The extension would also help to improve the building’s thermal and

energy performance, as it would be built to meet the latest building regulation requirements. The Design and Access Statement notes that high levels of thermal insulation would be used. It also notes that materials would be sourced from environmentally friendly sources, and that water efficient appliances and fittings would be used.

The Planning Balance

5.26 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that development proposals that accord

with the development plan should be approved without delay, and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless:

• 'any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

• specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’

5.27 As the recent Supreme Court Judgment clarifies, the shortfall in the

housing land supply automatically triggers the second part of paragraph 14, requiring that the tilted balance in favour of the application proposals be applied in decision-making.

5.28 There is no guidance in the Framework that indicates permission should

not be granted. In this context, for consent to be refused, the development would need to result in adverse impacts which would 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits' of providing new housing in a sustainable location at a time of acute housing need. This is a substantial test, and it requires significant factors to weigh against the application.

5.29 The only possible factor weighing against the application is Policy EMP2. However, as we have argued above, the policy does not require a blanket refusal of other types of development in designated employment areas. In this context, it would be perverse to attempt to use EMP2 to prevent an efficient use being made of a site, where the employment use has already been lost. As such we argue that, on a sensible application of the policy, there is no conflict with EMP2 in this case.

5.30 We have also noted that the NPPF directs that planning permission for

residential development should be allowed in employment areas, where


there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ of an employment use, which is clearly the case in this instance. If there was considered to be a conflict with EMP2 in this regard, the policy should rightly be given limited weight in decision making, due both to its conflict with the NPPF (see NPPF, paragraph 215), and the effect it has of restraining the supply of housing (NPPF, paragraphs 49 and 14, in light of the Supreme Court judgment).

5.31 As such, even were the Council to take the view that EMP2 was in opposition to the application proposals, this putative conflict with one outdated local policy is clearly not sufficient to ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ of these proposals.


6 Conclusions

6.1 This application proposes a two-floor extension to Accord House to

accommodate 16 flats. Accord House is currently being converted for residential use as permitted development (6/2017/0525/PN11). This proposal is entirely separate.

6.2 The provision of additional dwellings would be particularly positive, in

light of the current shortfall in the supply of housing land within the Borough. This is a material consideration which weighs heavily in favour of the proposed development. It also implies that the tilted balance of the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to the application proposals.

6.3 Residents will benefit from living in a highly sustainable location, with

excellent access to the city’s services and facilities, and a range of public transport connections, on foot or by public transport, due to the site’s sustainable location.

6.4 The proposed extension, together with the cosmetic changes to the

building already approved in 6/2017/0903/FULL, will create a harmonious and attractive residential building, making use of the architectural features and materials of the existing structure.

6.5 As the application benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development, national policy directs that it should be approved without delay, unless ‘any adverse impacts of doing so would ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. It is clear from the analysis in this report that there would not be any notable adverse impacts, and certainly none which would outweigh the benefit of the provision of housing. We therefore respectfully request that planning permission should be granted without delay.

34

Old Lynn Road, WisbechSupporting Planning Statement

Conclusions

town and countryplanning consultants

accord house sps - planning enquiry

Documents