Croudace Appeal: WILD’s Analysis
Inspector says preserving the countryside is more important than hitting a housing number!
The report of the planning inspector’s decision about the plan to build houses next to Albourne village was published at the beginning of October. You can see our summary of the inspector’s decision dismissing the developer’s appeal by clicking on the ‘read more’ tab below. Here, we give you our analysis of the report, and explain why Mid Sussex really need to think again about their plan to concrete over the countryside between Albourne and Sayers Common.
In summing up her decision, the inspector said that in her view, the harm the Croudace scheme would do would be greater than the benefit of additional housing or the benefits the developer offered. In other words, although more houses are needed, this isn’t the place to build them.
The inspector found that the housing scheme would harm the rural and agricultural nature of the landscape, and have a damaging effect on the setting of local historic buildings. She also reviewed the potential benefits (you’ll find them listed at the end of our summary) and concluded that they didn’t tip the balance in favour of the scheme.
Is there any bad news in the report? It’s disappointing that she dismisses quickly the arguments which matter so much to local people, about transport, ecology and biodiversity, noise, site and water pollution, and flood risk and drainage.
But the best news is that the inspector said that even if Mid Sussex couldn’t show a five year land supply (and she thinks they can), the housing shouldn’t go ahead.
The implications for Sayers Village are clear. You don’t have to be super special to be really important! It’s exactly the same landscape, and the blight – on paths, views and skylines, will be proportionately bigger. The inspector said you would need binoculars to see the Croudace houses from the Downs. You won’t be able to miss Sayers Village from up there! ‘Managed parkland’, which the developers offer, isn’t an acceptable substitute for a rural setting. Nor would the benefits on offer get anywhere near the damage the Sayers Village scheme would do.
Overall, the report is a great result for Albourne and a big boost for those protesting against Sayers Village. Because it’s obvious that the Planning Inspectorate has been told to challenge schemes which concrete over the countryside. Are you listening, Mid Sussex?
Croudace Appeal Decision
Summary
The Planning Inspector issued her decision, dismissing the appeal, on 5 October 2023. The application for planning permission was refused for 4 reasons:
- Landscape character
- The impact on views from 2 public rights of way
- The impact on the setting of several designated heritage assets
- The absence of infrastructure and affordable housing contributions.
In her conclusion (paras 129ff), the inspector decided that the appeal would be determined on ‘the standard planning balance’. In essence, she concluded that the harm the scheme would do under reasons 1-3 above would not be outweighed by the public benefit of additional housing or the additional benefits offered by the developer. Her framing of the decision made it clear that the fact that the development was in conflict with the Council’s plan and current local policies was a major factor. Croudace has no further right of appeal through the planning process and must go to the High Court if they want to pursue their challenge.
The inspector identified the policy framework for the appeal:
- Although the developer identified a range of community benefits they would fund, the inspector found that these were not required, nor were they relevant to the proposal;
- The most important local policies are DP6, 12 and 15 in the District Plan, and ALC1 and ALH1 in the Albourne Neighbourhood Plan. DP6 sets out priorities for settlement based on boundaries, allowing for exceptions where expansion would support local need. DP15, which cross-references to DP6, allows new homes in the countryside in special cases, such as for rural workers or affordable housing. DP12 concerns the protection of valued landscapes and links to Para 174a&b in the National Planning Policy Framework. ALC1 seeks to maintain and enhance the rural and landscape character of the parish. ALH1 supports small development on brownfield sites within the village.
The appeal turned on three issues:
– The effect on landscape character
– The effect on designated heritage assets
– Whether the Council could demonstrate a 5 year land supply.
Landscape Character
The inspector found that Albourne ranks as ‘a category 3 medium sized village’. The area is not covered by national or local landscape designations: it is not a ‘valued landscape’ in terms of the NPPF para 174a, and there is no impact on the South Downs national park. It is therefore countryside which should be recognised for its character and beauty according to para 174b (decision para 15). Important references here are to Natural England National Character Area 121 – Low Weald; West Sussex County Council – Strategy for the West Sussex Landscape (2005); and A Landscape Character Assessment for Mid Sussex (2005). Para 16 of the inspector’s report has a description of the area, with the following comment: “While these features are not rare, they are important to the rural landscape character of the countryside in this location”.
The inspector writes (para 20) that the development would constitute “a significant extension to the side of the village. I am not entirely persuaded that it could be effectively integrated with Albourne.” She uses a number of paragraphs to describe the visual aspect of the scheme, particularly from footpaths/rights of way which she noted were well used. “The change would diminish the current rural and traditional agricultural experience of the users of the footpaths, and you would have to go further to get the equivalent.” (Para 25).
Paras 26-31 deal with skyline views. The inspector concludes that “The current landscape is already attractive and does not require improvement”. The development conflicts with the District and Albourne policies highlighted above.
Designated Heritage Assets
In the next section the inspector considers the impact of the development on designated heritage assets and the Albourne Conservation Area (ACA). For the purposes of the inquiry Grade II listed properties are included. “Agricultural landscape forms a fundamental part of the setting of the ACA which is integral to its significance” (para 44) and “I attach considerable weight and importance to the harm to the setting of the designated heritage assets” (para 65), because “The setting … can… contribute to the significance of the designated heritage asset” (para 38). The inspector reviewed each of the properties in turn and gives an individual assessment of impact. She notes that the scheme would lead to a “change of character from agriculture to a more managed parkland open space and housing. This would result in the loss of the agricultural nature of the appeal site…” Overall, (para 65) she found significant (but not substantial) harm, which outweighed the public benefits.
Housing Land Supply
The inspector went through all the disputed elements of Mid Sussex’s five year land supply and concluded that “the Council had demonstrated that it can identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of 5 years’ worth of housing against the standard method.”
Other Matters
The inspector dismissed arguments that permission should be refused on the grounds of
- Impact on the local highway network (112)
- Ecology, biodiversity and trees (113-4)
- Use of agricultural land (115)
- Noise, site and water pollution (116)
- Flood risk and drainage concerns (117)
She was clearly aware of the need to take account of government policy shifts (para 126).
She reviewed potential benefits from the scheme to set against the harm to the countryside she had identified:
- The provision of market housing, and affordable housing in an area where such provision is needed (significant weight) (133)
- Economic benefits. “However, any housing schemes of this magnitude would deliver similar benefits and…. such other developments are underway (moderate weight) (134)
- Provision of community benefits. Only the proposed community orchard and managed parkland open space attract moderate weight (135)
- Environmental benefits (moderate) (136)
- Financial contributions (106) Neutral (137)
Her overall conclusion was that, even if Mid Sussex couldn’t show a five year land supply, the harm done by the scheme was such that it shouldn’t proceed.