Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — by Jonathan Bore MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 March 2025

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — Application A • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Churchill Retirement Living Ltd for a full award of costs against Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — Application B • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council for a full award of costs against Churchill Retirement Living Ltd. The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the failure of the Council to issue a notice of its decision within the prescribed period on an application for redevelopment to form a multigenerational community comprising 177 open market, affordable and retirement living apartments, 237 square metres of Class E commercial space, communal facilities, access, car parking, landscaping and all associated works.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Costs Decision APP/V1260/W/24/3351431 Application A: application by Churchill Retirement Living The case for Churchill Retirement Living 4. The site was allocated for housing in the emerging local plan for 150 dwellings at up to 4 storeys in height. It is an underutilised brownfield site in a key regeneration area in Christchurch and has long been allocated for development. The Council has a significant level of housing need and a severe shortfall of available housing land. The legal failure of the local plan at examination means that the need to address the housing issue is even more compelling than it was previously. 5. The Council’s objections were unreasonable for a number of reasons. • The Council relied on a misleading assertion in respect of flood defences. In October 2024 it had committed to securing a funding strategy to maintain and improve the area’s defences, which meant that the flooding scenario on which the Council relied was not a real or distinct possibility. • The witness from the Environment Agency appearing on behalf of the Council accepted under cross examination that the site did not fall within the normal definition of functional floodplain and was thus not currently in Flood Zone 3b.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. but said that national policy guidance should be ignored. • The Council’s evidence to the local plan examination was that the site passed both the sequential and exception tests, but the Council argued at the inquiry that neither test had been met. • In stating that the sequential test had not been met, the Council referred to sites that had been discounted from its own assessment of housing land supply and took an approach to disaggregation that was contrary to the PPG and to Mead Realisation Limited v SSLUHC [2024] PTSR 1093. • One of the Council’s witnesses suggested that if the appeal were allowed, the Council would seek to nullify the planning permission by refusing to discharge the planning condition on drainage. • The Council’s objections in respect of design, heritage and trees were vague, generalised and inaccurate assertions. • The Council’s refusal in respect of housing mix should never have been advanced and its witness accepted in cross examination that it could not amount to a reason for refusal. • The Council did not carry out a proper planning balance exercise and did not therefore give appropriate weight to each of the benefits of the scheme outlined above. 6.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. These amount to a clear example of unreasonable behaviour in delaying a development that should have been granted planning permission. The Appellant has incurred very significant costs by having to fight this appeal at a 5 day public inquiry. These are costs which it should not have to bear as they have been brought about by the LPA’s unreasonable behaviour. 7. The Appellant therefore seeks a full substantive award of costs from the submission of the appeal to the formal close of this inquiry. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. These amount to a clear example of unreasonable behaviour in delaying a development that should have been granted planning permission. The Appellant has incurred very significant costs by having to fight this appeal at a 5 day public inquiry. These are costs which it should not have to bear as they have been brought about by the LPA’s unreasonable behaviour. 7. The Appellant therefore seeks a full substantive award of costs from the submission of the appeal to the formal close of this inquiry. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Costs Decision APP/V1260/W/24/3351431 The response by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council 8. The Council never ignored or downplayed the planning benefits of the Appellant’s scheme in this location. However, the development was contrary to the development plan, principally because of the unacceptable flood risk, but also as a result of the design issues. The Council produced seven witnesses to substantiate every putative reason for refusal on appeal including a witness from the Environment Agency. Its refusal of the scheme was reasonable. In response to the Appellant’s points: • Although the Council is committed to a funding strategy for flood defences, it is by no means certain that the raising of the defences will be achievable. • The Council’s witness accepted that the site is not currently within Flood Zone 3b but would become so during the lifetime of the development hence its designation as Flood Zone 3b in the SFRA. There was no challenge to the SFRA by way of judicial review. There is nothing in the wording of the PPG Table 1 definition to suggest the categorisation of functional floodplain must always be restricted to sites which meet the criteria as at today’s date.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. The parties proceeded on the basis that the raising of the defences is not something that could be relied on. • Regarding the sequential test, the appeal was distinguishable from the local plan examination which was considering a much larger allocation. The sequential test is not rigid and inflexible and the Council’s approach towards reasonably available sites and disaggregation was not unreasonable. • As regard to the drainage condition, the Council’s witness was simply making the point that it would not be possible to discharge a condition relating to drainage in circumstances where it was wholly uncertain that the drainage system was capable of working. • The Council’s concerns about design were fully substantiated. It is reasonable to expect development on this prime redevelopment opportunity site to be of good design so far as urban design and heritage matters are concerned. The Council’s analysis was fully supported by the objective, independent position of Historic England. • The objection to housing mix was valid and it was reasonable to raise it as a putative reason for refusal. • The Council took an appropriate approach towards the assessment of planning balance.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. A planning balance is a judgement and not a mathematical exercise. In any case, it is not safe at the current time to permit significant residential development in this part of Christchurch, so ultimately there is no planning balance to consider. 9. Although this was an appeal against non-determination, the Council would have refused planning permission had it been in a position to determine the application, so the Appellant would have had to incur the costs of an appeal in any case. 10. The Council was entirely reasonable throughout in its approach to this application and appeal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. A planning balance is a judgement and not a mathematical exercise. In any case, it is not safe at the current time to permit significant residential development in this part of Christchurch, so ultimately there is no planning balance to consider. 9. Although this was an appeal against non-determination, the Council would have refused planning permission had it been in a position to determine the application, so the Appellant would have had to incur the costs of an appeal in any case. 10. The Council was entirely reasonable throughout in its approach to this application and appeal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Costs Decision APP/V1260/W/24/3351431 Application B: application by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council The case for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council 11. The appeal was brought unreasonably because the substantive merits of the appeal had no prospect of success. • It was unreasonable to bring forward an appeal in respect of residential development on a site which was categorised as falling within Flood Zone 3b in the Council’s published SFRA. Such development cannot be granted planning permission in accordance with PPG ‘Flood Risk and Coastal Change’ Table 1, irrespective of any of the planning merits of the scheme. The Appellant and its flooding team failed to make themselves aware of the SFRA and the Flood Zone 3b status of the site when the appeal was brought and the Statement of Case drafted. There was no reasonable excuse for this. The Appellant’s case depended on giving the relevant parts of the SFRA, which was an agreed material consideration, no weight. But no legal challenge was made to the SFRA. The Flood Zone 3b categorisation of the site was a complete answer to why planning permission could not be granted.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. • The Appellant’s approach to relying solely on evacuation before a design flood event to allegedly make the develop safe over its lifetime was contrary to the PPG. The failure to pass Part 2 of the exception test in line with the PPG was a complete answer to why planning permission could not be granted. 12. For either or both of the above reasons, the Appellant acted unreasonably in bringing the appeal on its substantive merits. This resulted in the full wasted expense of the Council. The Council seeks a full award of costs. The response by Churchill Retirement Living 13. The Council attempted to use its costs application to advance a case which it failed to properly make as part of this appeal. It was unacceptable for it to make these points in submissions on costs. For that reason alone, the Council’s application should be dismissed. The application also contained a number of legal and factual inaccuracies. • The Council had not argued that the SFRA was not open to challenge as part of its substantive case in the appeal. It was not therefore appropriate to raise this argument in closing and in its costs claim. In any case the Council was wrong.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. The SFRA was an evidence document, not akin to a local plan or an SPD, and it was appropriate for that evidence to be tested on appeal. If the evidence does not support the site’s classification as Flood Zone 3b, it is right for the decision-maker to conclude otherwise. The Council’s argument ignores the evidence of the Environment Agency representative who gave evidence for the Council, who stated that if the PPG was followed, the site would fall within Flood Zone 3a and hence the SFRA did not meet the definition in national policy. • It is factually wrong for the Council to contend that the Appellant relied solely on evacuation procedures to make the proposal safe over its lifetime. The proposal included a range of flood mitigation measures built into the design of the building, including elevated floor levels, flood resilient construction and a SUDS drainage strategy. These measures were in addition to the Appellant’s https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Costs Decision APP/V1260/W/24/3351431 robust and detailed emergency management strategy, in circumstances where the PPG expressly endorsed the use of emergency plans. 14. The allegations made in the LPA’s application for costs are baseless. The proposal should never have had to come to an appeal. Regardless, it was incumbent on the Council to make its arguments as part of its substantive case in the Appeal, and they cannot now be introduced as submissions during an application for costs. Application A and Application B: Assessment 15. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 16. The Appellant’s and the Council’s arguments overlap and are dealt with together. 17. The Council’s view that the site and surrounding built up area should be regarded as falling within Flood Zone 3b was not justified by the PPG definition of such areas, by the projected timescale for flooding events, by the evidence on potential funding or by local circumstances.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. The Council also appeared to regard the SFRA Part 1 as a policy document beyond scrutiny rather than an unexamined background document for the emerging local plan. A legal challenge to the SFRA would have been a very unlikely course of action since it is a background document which is subject to change and updating, not a policy document. 18. Notwithstanding these points, the Council’s case was evidence-based and took into account the most recent flood risk modelling which showed increasing flood risk within the lifetime of the development if the defences were not raised. The Council took a cautious approach to this serious matter. The conclusions the Council derived from the evidence, the weighting it gave to various matters, the decisions it reached and the way it applied them are not accepted, for the reasons given in the appeal decision, but the Council did not take an unreasonable position, and nor did the Appellant in taking the scheme to appeal. 19.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Regarding surface water drainage, the modelling suggested that the site would have been susceptible to flood risk later in its lifetime if defences were not raised, so it was reasonable for the Council to test how the drainage strategy would work under those circumstances by putting forward hypothetical scenarios, and the Appellant was able to give robust and convincing answers. Both parties behaved reasonably. Eventually a site specific condition was agreed between the parties and has been attached to the decision. 20. Turning to the sequential and exception tests, the Council’s position at the local plan examination, where it stated that the site met both tests at the strategic level, appears to have rested on the expectation that the restrictive preconditions in Policy P10 of the emerging plan would be fulfilled. The circumstances of the appeal were clearly different. In any case the Council’s position had not been tested at the examination, which was at an early stage. It was therefore not unreasonable for the Council to examine the Appellant’s evidence on the tests critically.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Some of the Council’s evidence on the sequential test was itself open to criticism, notably the inclusion of candidate sites that had been discounted from its own assessment of housing land supply, but its arguments on alternative sites and disaggregation did not cross the boundary into unreasonableness. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Some of the Council’s evidence on the sequential test was itself open to criticism, notably the inclusion of candidate sites that had been discounted from its own assessment of housing land supply, but its arguments on alternative sites and disaggregation did not cross the boundary into unreasonableness. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. Costs Decision APP/V1260/W/24/3351431 21. As regards the exception test, the questions and arguments raised by the Council were appropriate in the circumstances. The Appellant provided sufficient evidence, as discussed in the appeal decision, to demonstrate that the development would be safe for its lifetime and that vulnerable users would be safe, but the Council’s objections and its testing of its evidence were both understandable and reasonable. 22. Both parties took a reasonable approach to the issue of heritage, design and trees. The scheme is acceptable for the reasons given in the appeal decision, but there is no doubt that it would be different in scale and form from its surroundings and would cause the loss of some protected trees. It would also be within the visual setting of heritage assets. The Council was supported by a letter from Historic England which had objected to the proposal. It was reasonable for the Appellant to advance the scheme it did, despite its obviously different character, and it was also reasonable for the Council to take a different view, and it produced adequate evidence to substantiate its position. 23.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — applications are dealt with together because they cover much the same grounds. On housing mix, the Council’s argument was not strong, given the evidence that larger homes would be freed up by the retirement living part of the scheme, but it did have a policy basis for its position and did not behave unreasonably. In any case the subject was rolled up in a discussion of the planning issues and was not treated as a main issue at the inquiry, so little time was spent on this subject and it is unlikely to have given rise to substantive costs. 24. In summary, there was no unreasonable behaviour by either party and both parties should meet their own expenses. Conclusions Application A: application by Churchill Retirement Living 25. For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted. Application B: application by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council 26. For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.

Former Southern Gas Network Site, Bridge Street, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 1AZ — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole — Jonathan Bore INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6