Controversial Preston village development refused for a second time

Preston City Council has rejected claims by a housebuilder that it risked "misleading" councillors on its own planning committee by recommending that a proposed major development should be refused permission.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

It is the latest twist in a long-running wrangle between developers and the authority over how many new homes should be built in the city - and it could yet have implications for a series of controversial housebuilding proposals in the rural north of the area.

The application - for 125 properties on land off Jepps Lane in Barton - is one of nine originally given the go-ahead last year when Preston was unable to show that it had a five-year supply of housing land available to meet its then target to create 507 new dwellings a year.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Under planning legislation, that meant the council was obliged to approve most bids to build in the city - even on plots not earmarked for development - unless their negative impact could be shown to “significantly outweigh” their benefits.

125 homes were proposed for this plot of land off Jepps Lane in Barton (image: Google)125 homes were proposed for this plot of land off Jepps Lane in Barton (image: Google)
125 homes were proposed for this plot of land off Jepps Lane in Barton (image: Google)

It duly did so for the Jepps Lane site in December 2019, after applying a planning approach known as the “tilted balance” - a general presumption that sustainable development should be permitted when there is a shortfall in available land.

A total of 944 homes were approved under those circumstances over an 18-month period in villages to the north of Preston - but several of the proposals were left in limbo while the government decided whether to review the decisions at the request of Wyre and Preston North MP Ben Wallace.

However, late last year, a planning inspector’s decision in an unrelated case in South Ribble led to a recalculation of Preston’s minimum annual housebuilding need - reducing it to 250. As a result, the city could show that it had sufficient land set aside for housing, allowing it to judge applications on the basis of its own local policies once again.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

That led to the contentious slew of proposals being brought back before the planning committee earlier this year, where they were then refused.

Developer Story Homes has since resubmitted its Jepps Lane plan for fresh consideration - and when it appeared for a third time at a recent meeting of the committee, officers again recommended that it be rejected. They concluded that it conflicted with development policies which prioritise housebuilding on allocated urban sites and prevent large-scale housing creation in areas of open countryside.

However, the committee heard that the firm was one of several affected developers to have sought legal advice which had suggested that the council’s shift to a reduced housing requirement rendered those policies out of date - and that members would have been “seriously misled” if they concluded otherwise on the basis of the report presented to them by officers.

Lawyers had advised that was because the 250 figure - arrived at under the government-approved “standard method” - put it at odds with the higher number on which the local development documents were based.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

That prospect would mean the very thing that had handed control back to the council over where it approved new homes - the need to build fewer of them - would actually snatch it away again, because out-of-date policies are another instance which brings the tilted balance back into play under planning law.

Story Homes’ planning manager Siobhan Sweeney told the committee that they were therefore faced with exactly the same situation as when they approved the application a year earlier - and should do so again.

“Both officers and members agreed that the proposed development would create no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of [it].

“The [agenda] report seeks to increase the weight afforded to the out-of-date policies on the basis that the council can now demonstrate a five-year supply. It is our view that this reason is flawed, particularly when this proposal has no material harm other than to those out-of-date policies.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“There are no technical or environmental reasons why planning should be withheld, while the benefits are clear - the development would deliver 125 new homes in a sustainable location,” Ms. Sweeney added.

The meeting heard that the council refuted the claim that all of its most significant policies were out of date, only the one relating to housebuilding numbers - and so it still had others on which it could rely to justify refusal.

However, after receiving the legal note from the developers, the authority nevertheless carried out an assessment of the application on the basis that it accepted the constructors’ case - and took as its starting point the need to show negative impacts outweighing the benefits of the proposal.

Head of development Natalie Beardsworth said that the process had led to the authority drawing “a different conclusion” to the one reached 12 months ago.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“In December 2019, we could not demonstrate a five-year housing [land] supply and we were in desperate need for housing to significantly boost that supply.

“Therefore, we gave significant weight to the contribution the dwellings would make to boosting that undersupply.

“We’re now satisfied, some 12 months later, that by using the standard methodology to monitor and assess housing land supply, that we can demonstrate a 13.6 year supply as of 1st October,” Ms. Beardsworth said.

The benefits of the proposal - including 35 percent of the proposed properties falling into the affordable category - were described in a report to the committee as “generic and no more than would be expected from any major housing development”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Members voted unanimously to reject the proposal, meaning three of the initially-approved applications for development around the northern villages have now been refused twice by the committee. A planning inquiry into one of them - for 151 homes off Garstang Road in Barton - is due to begin in February after the developer, Wainhomes, appealed the first refusal.

DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE FENCE

Following the meeting, Chris Hayward, director for development and housing at Preston City Council, said in a statement:

“We understand the applicant disagrees with planning officers as to whether policies for determining the application remain up-to-date. We remain confident in our position that the aspects of our development plan relating to applications of this nature are up-to-date and that the correct information has been provided to councillors.

“Our planning officers provided a comprehensive report to councillors relating to this application and provided additional information clarifying points raised by the applicant’s legal advisers. As we can now demonstrate a five year supply of housing land for the city, this application was recommended for refusal because it is contrary to the development plan.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“This recommendation was endorsed unanimously by councillors who were confident in the recommendation provided by officers and the explanation given during the planning committee,” Mr Hayward concluded.

However, a spokesperson for Story Homes said the firm was “disappointed” by the city council’s decision and was considering how to respond.

“Our high-quality scheme would have complemented the character of the area and would also have made a significant contribution towards Preston City Council’s housing requirement, boosting the supply of new homes.

“In addition, the proposed development would have had a positive impact on the local economy by providing local contractors with opportunities to tender for work, with knock on benefits for local supply chains and other local businesses and services.

“Going forward, Story Homes will consider its options in respect of development proposals for this site.”