Major housing developments: Density and design in appeal decisions 2000-03

Journal of Planning and Environment Law

Volumn , Issue APRIL, 2004, Pages 379-393

  Hull, Angela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650046442     PISSN: 03074870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Owens, "Energy, Environmental Sustainability and Land Use Planning", in Breheny (ed.) Sustainable Development and Urban Form, (Pion Ltd, London, 1992) pp.79-105;
2. Johnson, "Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda", (2001) 33 Environment and Planning A, pp.717-735.
3. The role of the First Secretary of State is currently undertaken by the Deputy Prime Minister. The development of new housing has always been an important issue within the planning system. About a fifth of all decisions on planning applications and over a third of all planning appeal decisions relate to housebuilding proposals (The Planning Inspectorate, Statistical Report 2002- 2003).
4. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, (DETR, London, 2000).
5. Llewelyn-Davies, Housing and Urban Capacity Studies, UK Roundtable on Sustainable Development, (London, 1997).
6. As to these, see respectively Llewelyn-Davies, (1996) Review of Urban Capacity Studies, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, Llewelyn-Davies, Brook House, Tornngton Place, London.
7. Breheny, "Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable?" 1997, 14 Cities 4, pp.209-217.
8. House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Report of inquiry into the Government's consultation draft revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing), (The Stationery Office, London, 1999);
9. Williams, K., "Urban intensification policies in England: problems and contradictions", (1999) Land Use Policy 15, pp.167-178.
10. Punter, and Carmona, The Design Dimension of Planning, (E & FN Spon, London, 1996) p. 1.
11. See also Office of the Deputy Prime Minuter Better Sheets, Better Places: Delivering Sustainable Residential Environments, (ODPM Publications, Wetherby, 2003).
12. See respectively: House of Commons, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee (1999) cited above, Council for the Protection of Rural England, Making Sense of Environmental Capacity, (CPRE, London, 1997).
13. Wenban-Smkh, Mm, Monitor and Manage; Making it work, (CPRE, London, 1999).
14. URBED, Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Urban Reform, (Friends of die Earth, London, 1998).
15. DETR Planning for the Communities of the Future Cm 3885, (HMSO, London, 1998).
16. The Urban Task Force defined low-density as below 20-25 dwellings per hectare net Urban Task Force Towards an Urban Renaissance. Final Report of the Urban Task Force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside, (E & FN Spon, London, 1999).
17. Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2002) Land Use Change Statistics, COI, London. The average density in England between 1989-97 was also 25 dwellings per hectare net.
18. See The Government's Response to the Tenth Report of the Environment and Regional Affairs Committee (1998), DETR, Cm.4080.
19. John Prescott's Press Release on PPG3, March 7, 2000.
20. Plan, monitor and manage has not worked: www.clarkewillmott.com.
21. Hammenley. The potitia of social maudi, (Sage, London, 1995) p.114.
22. appeal decision notes since March 2000 have been analysed using Microsoft Access. These have been selected from the Development Control Services website (www.dcservices.co.uk) under the category "new housing developments". Only "major applications" were selected and analysed.
23. See R.(on ate application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 All E.R. 929.
24. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (The Stationery Office, London, 2001) para.3.
25. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Planning Policy Guidance Note 11: Regional Planning, (DETR, London, 2000).
26. As to these, see respectively: Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and English Partnerships, By Design: urban design in the planning system, (DETR, London, 2000), Department of Environment, Transport and me Regions, Monitoring Provision of Housing through the Planning System. Towards Better Practice, (DETR, London, 2000).
27. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Planning to Deliver: The managed release of housing sites: towards better practice, (DETR, London, 2001).
28. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regioru, Better places to live: by design. A companion guide to PPG3, (DETR, London, 2001)
29. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Delivering Affordable Housing Through Planning Policy, (DETR, London, 2002).
30. Llewetyn-Davics, Sustainable Residential Quality: Exploring the Housing Potential of Large Sites, (Lleweh/n-Davies, London, 2000).
31. URBED Tapping the Potential: Best practice in assessing urban housing capacity, (URBED, London, 2000).
32. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000), By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System, advocates a proactive approach to design control.
33. ODPM (2003a) Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning Progress Report Annex A calls for a system that plans positively for sustainable development and which is at the forefront of creating better quality, more inclusive and sustainable places in which people can live and work.
34. In Hart DC v Berkeley Strategic Land Ltd [2002] the Inspector David Ward stated that "it is the Government's intention that planning decisions should be plan-led, and that development plans should command public confidence. In an appeal decision the Secretary of State has made it clear that, even in circumstances where the need for housing is not being met, some developments should not take place ahead of consideration of alternative sites within the development plan system".
35. In Wimpey Homes West Midlands Ltd v the SoS [2002], Appeal Ref. No.Q4625/V/01/1081195, the issue of prematurity was raised since the Solihull MBC UDP was at such an early stage of review that it could not be concluded that the greenfield site, the subject of the application, would still be identified as housing land in advance of the adopted plan.
36. Tewdwr-Jones and Harris, state that development control practice in Britain should not, therefore, be regarded as a uniform administrative process, but rather as individual local political systems operating within central state boundaries, in (1998) "The New Right's Commodification of Planning Control', in Allmendinger and Thomas, Urban Planning and the British New Right, (Routledge, London) p. 184;
37. See also Tewdwr-Jones, "Development control and the legitimacy of planning decisions", (1995) Town Planning Review, 66 (2) pp. 163-181.
38. McAuslan, The Ideologies of Planning Law, (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980) p.152.
39. The Government has recommitted the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to Standing Committee with the aim to end the Crown's immunity from planning control (Report on progress of the bill Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning Progress Report Annex A: www.odpm.gov.uk).
40. DTLR, Planning Green Paper. Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change (2001). Available at www.planning.dtlr.gove.uk/consult/greenpap/index.htm.
41. See Purdue, Planning Appeals: A Critique, (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1991), p. 11: in 1988/89,98 per cent of all s.78 appeals were decided by Inspectors. The Planning Inspectorate website reports that 99 per cent of appeals are currently decided by Inspectors. Appeals relating to listed buildings and conservation areas are generally reserved for the SoS. In all cases, the SoS makes the decision with the assistance of his department.
42. Hansard, HC Qune 16, (1999).
43. The government has chosen not to intervene in 60 per cent of cases. Sinden, N., (May 2001) "Testing the guidance", (May 2001) Planning p. 18. The figures for 2002-2003 are 71 s.78 appeals recovered by the Fust Secretary of State and 140 a. 77 call-ins. Of the latter, the SoS decided 71 (The Planning Inspectorate Statistical Report 2002-2003).
44. The Planning Inspectorate is not independent of the Executive like the Irish An Bord Pleanala. Inspectors exercise quasi-judicial functions and are subject to the natural justice requirements of the The Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedures) (England) Rules 2000, and The Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedures) (England) Rules 2000, ODPM.
45. See Report on progress of the bill Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning Progress Report Annex A: www.odpm.gov.uk
46. Wilcon Homes (Western) v SoS Appeal Ref. No.U3935/A/02/1091611, para. 14.
47. Fairclough Homes v Conglelon Borough Council, Appeal Ref. N0.BO610/A/001050861, paras 17-18.
48. SoS v Allison Homes, Appeal Ref. No.H22/02541/00, para.11.8.
49. Swindon Borough Council v Wilton Homes Western, Appeal Ref. No.U3935/A/02/1091611, para.16.
50. SoS v Allison Homes, Appeal Ref. No.H22/02541 /OO, para 11.24.
51. SoS v Wankomes (South West) Ltd, Appeal Ref. N0.PO8IO/A/00/1044730.
52. SoS v Wainhomts (South West) Ltd, Appeal Ref No.PO810/A/00/1044730, para.157.
53. Laing Homes South East Thames v London Borough of Lambeth, Appeal Ref. No.N5660/A/01/1056821, paras 19-20.
54. R. (on the application of Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of 'State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] J.P.L. 291. In Alconbury, the issue was that the Government as land owner had a financial interest in the redundant Minisoy of Defence base. The cases were heard by the Divisional Court (Tuckey L.J. and Hamsion J.) in late November, early December 2000.
55. See discussion in Grant, M., (2001) "Human rights: the implications of the ruling of the Divisional Court that the Secretary's of State's role in planning cases is incompatible with European Convention", Encyclopaedia of Planning Law & Practice, January 2001, Monthly Bulletin Online (www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/index.html).
56. These are issues raised by developers cited in ODPM (2003b) Delivering Planning Policy for Housing: PPG3 Implementation Study, para.71. To improve the transparency and consistency of decision-making, the report suggests that planning applications notified to, but not called in by the ODPM, should be published on the web with the reasons given for non-intervention (para.74). Currently, non-intervention letters do not explain how applications perform against national policy.
57. ODPM (2003c) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, para.3.6. Again the statement by the ODPM in January (2003d) on Sustainable Development and Planning refers to existing developed land omitting any reference to location.
58. Planning Statement by Keith Hill, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, ODPM, July 17,2003;
59. See also Annex A: Proposed change to planning policy for reallocating employment and other land to housing in ODPM (2003c) Supporting the delivery of new homing consultation papery www.planning.odpm.gov.uk. The proposed new para.42a for PPG3 would require local authorities to consider housing development proposals for land allocated for industrial and commercial use favourably if the proposal reflects PPG3 intentions, or the housing strategy in the Regional Spatial Strategy (whichever is the more up-to-date) and if not required for employment use.
60. www.publications.parliament,uk/pa/pabills.htm.
61. Statement by ODPM, January on Sustainable Development and Planning (2003d).
62. Hull, "Restructuring the Debate on Allocating Land for Housing Growth", (1997) Housing Studies, 12 (3), pp.367-382.