Our ref: APP/W4705/V/18/3208020 Chris Darley Your ref: - Lichfields 15 St Paul’s Street Leeds LS1 2JG 5 November 2019 Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION MADE BY CEG LAND PROMOTIONS LTD LAND TO THE WEST OF BURLEY-IN-WHARFDALE AT SUN LANE AND ILKLEY ROAD APPLICATION REF: 16/07870/MAO 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of David Wildsmith BSc (Hons) Msc CEng MICE FCIHT MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 14 and 23 May 2019 into your client’s application for planning permission for demolition of the existing building, and outline planning permission (all matters reserved other than points of vehicular access into the site) for residential development (Use Class C3); education facility (Use Class D1); public spaces; landscaping; car/cycle parking; access routes within the site; drainage and other associated works, in accordance with application ref: 16/07870/MAO, dated 27 September 2016. 2. On 25 July 2018, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the application be approved, and planning permission granted, subject to conditions. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and disagrees with his recommendation. He has decided to refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Email: [email protected] Andrew Lynch, Decision Officer Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the environmental information submitted before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR8, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other additional information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. He addresses the issue of the Habits Regulation Assessment at paragraphs 29-31 of this decision letter Procedural matters 6. The City of Bradford is in the process of revising their Core Strategy, and consulted on the Core Strategy Partial Review from 30 July 2019 to 24 September 2019. However, due to the early stage of this process, the Secretary of State does not consider that this consultation document raises any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this appeal, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. Policy and statutory considerations 7. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8. In this case the development plan consists of the Bradford Local Plan Core Strategy (LPCS), adopted July 2017, saved policies of the Bradford Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP), adopted October 2005, and the Burley-in-Wharfdale Neighbourhood Plan (NP), made May 2018. The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR27-36. 9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) set out at IR37. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018 and further revised in February 2019. Unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the 2019 Framework. Emerging plan 10. The emerging plan comprises the Core Strategy Partial Review, which was consulted on from July to September 2019. There is also a forthcoming site allocations document, which has yet to be published or consulted on. Both documents are currently forecast to reach Publication Draft stage in January 2020, with adoption coming no earlier than 2022. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. Due to the very early stage of both of these documents, the Secretary of State considers they carry very little weight in the decision-making process. Main issues 11. The Secretary of State considers the main issues in this application to be those set out at IR493. 2 Green Belt 12. The Secretary of State notes that this site is currently designated as Green Belt, and that it is common ground between the parties that the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and that, given the site’s current undeveloped state would have an adverse impact on openness (IR501). He notes that RUDP policy GB1 presumes against development in the Green Belt except where very special circumstances can be demonstrated (IR503), and agrees that, despite out of date Green Belt boundaries, this is still in line with the Framework and carries weight. In line with the Framework, the Secretary of State considers this harm carries substantial weight against the proposal. He has gone on to consider other matters, including conflicts with the purpose served by Green Belt, in order to determine whether the very special circumstances exist to clearly outweigh this harm. 13. He has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of policies in both the Framework (IR497-501) and the development plan (IR 502-506) on the review of Green Belt boundaries. He notes that LPCS policy SC7 sets out that the Council’s resolved position that delivering the LPCS’ goals for housing and employment growth will require the release of Green Belt land (IR503), and that this will be done through a selective review of boundaries in locations that would not undermine the strategic function of the Green Belt, and would help deliver the core policies and strategic patterns of development set out in LPCS SC4 and SC5 (IR504). The Secretary of State notes that the selective review of Green belt boundaries envisaged in LPCS policy SC7 will be undertaken through the Land Allocations Development Plan Document, which at the time of this decision has yet to be published. However, the Secretary of State has found in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this Decision Letter that development of the site before him, by conflicting with three of the five purposes served by Green Belt, would undermine the strategic function of Green Belt within the Leeds City Region. He therefore concludes, contrary to the Inspector, that the application proposal conflicts with LPCS policy SC7. 14. He notes at IR504 that LPCS SC5 sets out that the Council will allocate sites through a Land Allocations document. While this has not yet been published for consultation (see paragraph 10 of this Decision Letter), the methodology for how this will be done is established through LPCS SC5, which sets out that re-use of previously developed land and buildings will be given first priority, followed by greenfield opportunities within settlements, and then third priority to Green Belt release in built-up areas in sustainable locations. He also notes that supporting text to SC7 states that Green Belt land will be necessary to accommodate around 11,000 of the 42,100 new homes in the LPCS plan period (IR505). 15. For these reasons, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR505, that the Council has given full and careful consideration of the options available to them for meeting their housing need, and that brownfield, greenfield and Green Belt land will all be required to achieve the Plan’s goals. 16. He has gone on to consider the Inspector’s analysis of where this need will be met (IR507- 508;IR514) within the District. He notes that Burley-in-Wharfdale is designated as a Local Growth Centre, a third-tier settlement in the hierarchy outlined at LPCS policies HO3 and EC3 (IR507). He notes that these are considered to be the most sustainable local centres, accessible to the higher order settlements via key road and public transport corridors, and consequently they are expected to make significant contribution to meeting housing and employment need in the wider district (IR508). He notes that these policies set out that Burley-in-Wharfdale is expected to accommodate 700 new dwellings, through the 3 redevelopment of sites within the settlement and a significant contribution from Green Belt changes (IR510). He further notes that the NP contains no restriction on large scale development to address this housing need (IR513). 17. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider the specific impacts of this proposal on the purposes of the Green Belt. While he notes that it is common ground between the applicant and the LPA that this proposal could be accommodated within this part of the Green Belt whilst maintaining the integrity of the wider Green Belt, and the functions of the Green Belt between Burley-in-Wharfdale and Ilkley (IR515), the Secretary of State disagrees with this view.