DEVASSIST: CInspector approves 290-home scheme after council found to have less than three-year housing supply
A planning inspector has granted permission for a 290-home development on agricultural land in Buckinghamshire after concluding that the local authority could demonstrate less than half of its required five-year housing land supply.
The appeal concerned proposals by land promoter Richborough for residential development south of Drayton Road in Bletchley, close to the recently constructed Newton Leys neighbourhood. The site lies within the area formerly administered by Aylesbury Vale District Council, now part of Buckinghamshire Council.
The application had not been determined within the statutory timeframe, prompting an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. In the decision notice issued on 2 February, Inspector O S Woodwards confirmed that the council had since indicated it would have approved the scheme had it reached a formal decision.
Objections raised during the appeal focused primarily on traffic impacts and the potential effect of the development on the character of the surrounding countryside.
On highway matters, concerns were raised about the impact of additional traffic at a nearby crossroads and the methodology used within the transport assessment. The inspector found that the modelling provided sufficient reassurance that traffic flows had not been underestimated and concluded that the development would have only a moderate impact on the wider highway network, in line with relevant local policies.
In terms of landscape impact, the inspector acknowledged that the scheme would introduce urbanising effects, particularly at the more sensitive southern portion of the site. However, it was concluded that once constructed, the development would appear as a natural extension to Newton Leys, resulting in limited overall harm to the character and appearance of the area.
A central issue in the appeal was the council’s housing land supply position. While both parties agreed that a five-year supply could not be demonstrated, the extent of the shortfall was disputed. The council initially claimed a supply of 3.62 years, though supporting documentation suggested a lower figure of 3.36 years.
The inspector questioned elements of the council’s evidence, including assumed build-out rates on a large permitted site. After adjusting these figures, the inspector concluded that the authority could demonstrate only a 2.44-year supply. This significant shortfall engaged the National Planning Policy Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Substantial weight was given to the delivery of market housing, along with the proposal’s provision of 35 per cent affordable housing, exceeding the local plan requirement of 25%.
Although the development would result in the loss of 2.1 hectares of the best and most versatile agricultural land and conflict with policies seeking to restrict development on unallocated countryside sites, the inspector found that these harms were outweighed by the benefits of addressing housing need.
Kindly shared by DevAssist
