Following the Mossend Decision, APRS has sent additional representation to Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals on planning casework where we have Objected. This is for a development on Green Belt in Dechmont. Sent 19 July 2024
Planning and Environmental Appeals, The Scottish Government, Ground Floor, Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk FK1 1XR
19 July 2024
Re: PPA-400-2148 PLANNING PERMISSION APPEAL: LAND AT BURNHOUSE FARM BURNHOUSE DECHMONT, WEST LOTHIAN EH52 6NB
Thank you for your emails about the above appeal. APRS would like to make a few additional comments on the implications on it of the three documents which you highlighted, namely:
- the Scottish Ministers’ decision on Mossend,
- the court’s opinion on that decision and
- the Chief Planner’s letter,
This submission is in addition to previous submissions by APRS dating from 14 April 2022 and 21 October 2022 and refers back to these where relevant. Please note that the section headed ‘housing land supply and NPF4’ from our submission of October 2022 should no longer be relevant.
The Scottish Ministers’ decision on Mossend
Our view is that the Scottish Ministers’ decision on Mossend is relevant to the Burnhouse Farm appeal in that it sets out the context as to how an application on unallocated land might be supported under NPF4 Policy 16 and decided that the Mossend application did not meet the necessary criteria for support. Our view continues to be that neither does the application at Burnhouse Farm and that this appeal should also be dismissed.
Part of the Burnhouse Farm site is in part designated as Countryside Belt (analogous to a green belt designation) in the LDP 2018 and the rest of the site is part of the Bathgate Hills Special Landscape Area. These were noted in our submission to West Lothian Council on 14 April 2022 to which we would now add that in addition to Policy 16 there are other NPF4 Policies, including policies 9 and 8 which would not support the application:
Policy 9 b) Proposals on Greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP.
Policy 8 Green Belts – this applies to part of the Burnhouse Farm site and the proposed development is not one of the types of development that would be considered acceptable.)
Our earlier submissions also cover wider concerns about the proposal’s climate, environment and landscape impacts.
The Court’s opinion on the Mossend decision
The Court of Session’s opinion gives clarity on the operation of housing policy in NPF4 and how it relates to existing LDPs.The Court’s opinion completely rejected the appellant’s submission and supports the use of policy set out in NPF4. It says:
“Policy 16 states that development proposals for new homes on land allocated for housing in LDPs will be supported. Development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances. So far as relevant here these are where the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out, the proposal is in accordance with other relevant policies and where delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline. This is to be determined by reference to two consecutive years of the Housing Land Audit evidencing substantial delivery earlier than pipeline timescales and that the general trend is being sustained. In other words the policy is designed to bring forward more land where the supply of land to meet the target is being met more quickly than envisaged in the delivery programme.”
This is the near opposite in effect of the policy set out in SPP previously, where delayed or slow build out of housing on allocated sites with (or awaiting) planning permission could result in speculative planning applications on unallocated sites being approved. The Court found that housing policies in adopted LDPs which referred to exceptional release to maintain a five year effective land supply, to SPP or to housing land targets in Strategic Development Plans (now abolished) were inconsistent with NPF4 and therefore NPF4 policy took precedence as it was the more recent plan in date.
The Court found that these changes to the development plan move housing
policy away from disputes over numbers, to an approach which seeks to provide housing in suitable locations, for example in 20 minute neighbourhoods. It also stated that looking at the policies as a whole there is an emphasis on quality, diversity and sustainability.
The Court also clarified that it had not previously determined that the overall purpose of the development plan is to stipulate that the housing need in the area is to be met. Instead, the court pointed out that the purpose of planning is “to manage the development and use of land in the long term public interest” and that, “A plan led approach is central to supporting the delivery of Scotland’s national outcomes and broader sustainable development goals”.
The Chief Planner’s letter
The Chief Planner’s letter restates that NPF4 is to be read and applied as a whole, which for housing proposals means that many other policies such as support for brownfield development, infrastructure first, local living and green infrastructure must be weighed up, in addition to considering whether a proposal on an unallocated site is supported by policy 16 f. In addition, NPF4 policy 1 requires that significant weight is given to the global climate and nature crises when considering all development proposals. This underpins NPF4 and the aim of delivering sustainable, appropriate homes in the right locations and via a plan led system. There is nothing in the letter that changes our position that the appeal should be dismissed.
We also note that the letter states that the Scottish Government is giving careful consideration to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report on the housebuilding sector. This report and a Scottish Summary were published in February 2024. Whilst some proposals for changes to the Scottish Planning system are made, the report notes that unlike the rest of GB that ”In Scotland, however, the number of homes given planning permission has increased significantly above the level of completions and assessed overall housing need since 2014-15” and that “Since 2014-15 the average number of homes given planning permission annually was 29,000, significantly in excess of the sum of LPA land supply targets”. The CMA report also notes that “the speculative model of housebuilding is unlikely… on its own initiative, to produce sufficient housing to meet optimal housing need once the wider benefits of housing to society are considered”. It suggests a potential greater role for the public sector in housebuilding, changes to the land market, and giving LPAs greater enforcement powers where speculative builders are not achieving the required build out rates on sites that already have planning permission.
Housing pipeline
The West Lothian LDP was adopted in 2018 and the preparation of a new plan is underway. There is not currently a new-style LDP delivery plan for West Lothian in place although we see that the Chief Planner’s letter says that local authorities have been asked to publish a new delivery plan by 31 March 2025. However, we note that the MATHLR figure for West Lothian in NPF4 is 9850 housing units and the land supply set out in the latest (2022) Housing Land Audit (HLA) for the area was 24507, comfortably exceeding the MATLHR. The HLA (2022) shows 7-year programmed output of over 12,000 units compared with the MATHLR of just under 10,000 for ten years.
Please get in touch if any of the above information requires further explanation.
Yours sincerely,
Kat Jones, Director