067 Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding Development Plan Document (DPD): Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) Consultation Representation Form
Please return your completed form by email: [email protected] OR by post: Cornwall Council, Local Plans Team, Pydar House, Pydar Street, Truro TR1 1XU OR by hand: New County Hall reception (Truro) or any Cornwall Council One Stop Shop before 5pm on Monday 19 December 2016
Fair Processing Notice The feedback you provide in this questionnaire will enable Cornwall Council to finalise the Minerals Safeguarding DPD and will be retained for the life of the plan. Your full name and any comments you provide will be published online and in hard copy. Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 requires all representations received to be submitted to the Secretary of State so your information will be shared with the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Planning Inspectorate. By completing this form and submitting it to the Council you are giving your consent to the processing of your personal data by Cornwall Council and that any information received by the Council, including personal data (but excluding personal contact details and any signatures), may be put into the public domain, including on the Council’s website. Publication will not include any information which you provide on the Equality Monitoring Form which will be retained for up to three months from the close of the consultation. Part 1 Your contact details You must complete this page for your representation to be accepted. The Council cannot accept anonymous representations.
Name: John Coxon
Organisation (if applicable): Emery Planning
Address:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Postcode:
Email Address:
Telephone number:
If an agent, the individual or organisation you are representing:
Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd
1
Please let us know whether you wish to be notified via the address/email address you have provided (or other specified address/email address) of the following for the emerging Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD:
(i) The submission of the emerging Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD for independent examination under section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; Yes
(ii) The publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out an independent examination of the emerging Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD under section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; Yes
(iii) The adoption of the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD. Yes
Part 2 Your comments You may append additional sheets if you need more space to respond to any of the questions.
1. Do you consider that the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD Pre- Submission Consultation document meets the legal and procedural requirements? No comment Please specify your reasons below
No comment
2. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers to be ‘sound’ – namely that it is: positively prepared, justified, effective and is consistent with national policy. Do you consider the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD Pre-Submission Consultation document has met these tests? No Please specify your reasons below
Policy MS1
Policy MS1 allows non-mineral development in a number of circumstances, including "where there is overriding need for the non-mineral development" (MS1(e)). We consider that this is inconsistent with national policy, which is clear that mineral resources should be safeguarded. Paragraph 142 of the NPPF states:
2
“Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation.”
Paragraph 144 then states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should “not normally permit other development proposals in mineral safeguarding areas where they might constrain potential future use for these purposes”.
A development need, such as the housing need of a particular settlement, may override the need for the minerals resource, but if it also could be met in another location without impact upon minerals then that is a material consideration which must be taken into account. We therefore consider Policy MS1(e) should be amended to make it clear that there must be a compelling need for the development that cannot be met in another location. Our proposed amendment is set out below:
"e. there is overriding need for the non-mineral development, that cannot be met in another location; or"
Policy MS1 should also make allowance for development where it can be demonstrated that future minerals development would not be environmentally acceptable, for example where it would cause significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring uses. We therefore consider that an additional criterion should be included as follows:
"g. It can be clearly demonstrated that it is not environmentally acceptable to extract the mineral prior to non-mineral development taking place."
Proposals maps: Buffer zones
Paragraph 65 of the DPD sets out buffer zones for each MSA. We assume that these have been incorporated within the MSAs shown on the proposals map; however clarification on this point should be made at paragraph 65. It would be wholly unacceptable if these buffer areas are not included within the MSAs shown on the proposals map.
Notwithstanding, we object to the blanket buffer zones that appear to have been applied, which are not justified. We cannot see any justification for a blanket 250m buffer, applied without indiscriminately without due consideration of the site specific characteristics of each area. When defining the boundaries of the MSA, and in particular any buffer area, consideration should be given to key factors such as existing infrastructure (i.e. roads), development and topography. No such assessment appears to have taken place.
3
We object to the blanket 250m buffer zone which has been applied to the China Clay area, and specifically in relation to our client’s site to the north of St Austell. A site location plan is enclosed. The proposals map identifies that the areas to the north of our client’s land are operational areas (C31 and C32). However the buffer zone extends into our client’s land.
We consider that the MSA boundary in this location is not justified. The key purpose of a buffer is to avoid development adjacent to or adjoining an MSA sterilising the potential to extract minerals. It is clear that the existing residential development immediately to the east would serve to prevent any encroachment of minerals development further to the south, and therefore our client’s land serves absolutely no purpose as a buffer.
A planning application and appeal for residential development on our client’s land has been determined (ref: APP/D0840/A/09/2113075), with no harm identified in relation to residential amenity or impact upon the operational mineral area. A copy of the appeal decision is enclosed. This clearly demonstrates that there is no requirement for our client’s land to be included as a buffer to the MSA.
We therefore consider that our client’s land should be removed from the MSA as shown on the proposals map. However as an absolute minimum, the policy should clarify that a far less stringent approach to the policy should be taken within the buffer areas than the actual areas identified as mineral resources.
Please note that the enclosed documents are attached with this e-mail.
3. Please set out below any concern(s) you have with the Cornwall Minerals Safeguarding DPD Pre-Submission Consultation document including any change(s) you consider necessary to address this concern(s).
You will need to say how the change(s) will address your concern(s) and it would be helpful if you could put forward your suggested revised wording to the policy or text and any evidence to support the change(s). Please also state which paragraph(s) or part(s) of the policy your concern(s) and change(s) refers to.
Paragraph / Concerns, changes and reasons/evidence part of policy
Policy MS1 Policy MS1
For the reasons set out above, we consider Policy MS1(e) should be amended to make it clear that there must be a compelling need for the development that cannot be met in another location. Our proposed amendment is set out below:
"e. there is overriding need for the non-mineral development, that cannot be met in another location; or"
Policy MS1 should also make allowance for development where it
4
Paragraph / Concerns, changes and reasons/evidence part of policy can be demonstrated that future minerals development would not be environmentally acceptable, for example where it would cause significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring uses. We therefore consider that an additional criterion should be included as follows:
"g. It can be clearly demonstrated that it is not environmentally acceptable to extract the mineral prior to non-mineral development taking place."
Proposals map / MSA buffer zones Paragraph 65 / Paragraph 65 should clarify that the buffer zones have been Proposals incorporated within the MSAs shown on the proposals map. map / MSA buffer zones We consider that the buffer zones around all of the MSAs should be reviewed, with consideration given to key factors such as existing infrastructure (i.e. roads), development and topography.
We consider that our client’s land as shown on the attached site location plan should be removed from the China Clay MSA. However as an absolute minimum, the policy should clarify that a far less stringent approach to Policy MS1 should be taken within the buffer areas than the actual areas identified as mineral resources.
Please note that the enclosed documents are attached with this e- mail.
5
4. If your representation is seeking a change(s), do you wish to participate at the examination in public?
No I do not wish to participate at the examination in public
Yes I wish to participate at the examination in public X
Equality Monitoring Form Cornwall Council is committed to ensuring that our services, policies and practices are free from discrimination and prejudice and that they meet the needs of all the community. For us to check we are providing fair and effective services, we would be grateful if you would answer the following questions. You are under no obligation to provide the information requested below, but it would help us greatly if you do.
The information you provide on this Equality Monitoring Form will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and will not be passed onto any third party. At all times, it will be treated as confidential and used only for the purpose of equality monitoring. All sensitive personal information held by Cornwall Council is held safely in a secure environment. Thank you for your assistance.
About you
6
Any Questions? If you have any queries relating to the consultation or the processing of data or would like the consultation material in a different format, please contact the Local Plans Team on [email protected] or 01872 224283.
Consultation Deadline: 5pm on Monday 19 December 2016
7
31 October 2011
Mr Stephen Harris Our Ref: APP/D0840/A/10/2130022 Emery Planning Partnership Ltd Your Ref: 09/01525 4 South Park Court Hobson Street Cheshire SK11 8BS
Dear Mr Harris,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY WAINHOMES (SOUTH WEST) HOLDINGS LTD AT LAND AT TREVERBYN ROAD, ST AUSTELL, CORNWALL PL25 5RX APPLICATION: REF 09/01525
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Martin Pike, BA MA MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 30 November and 17 December 2010 into your client's appeal against a decision of Cornwall Council to refuse planning permission for residential development of up to 1,300 dwellings; up to 9,000 sq m of classes B1, B2 and B8 floorspace; ancillary retail floorspace (classes A1, A2 and A5) and leisure (classes A3 and A4); 60 bed care home (class C2); primary school (class D1); strategic landscaping and public open space; community transport hub of up to 100 spaces and access connections; and associated engineering works, infrastructure, drainage and car parking on land at Treverbyn Road, St Austell, Cornwall PL25 5RX, Ref 09/05125 dated 11 November 2009.
2. On 16 August 2010, the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The reason the appeal was recovered is that it involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.
Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1633 Richard Watson, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Central Casework Division, 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Matters arising after the close of the Inquiry
4. On 30 June 2011, the Secretary of State wrote to the parties to invite the Council and the appellants to provide up to date information on housing need and housing land supply in Cornwall and, particularly, in St Austell and to invite all other parties to comment on these issues. This was because he considered that he required this further information in order to assist him in determining the appeal. The representations received were then circulated to all interested parties for further comment under cover of his letter of 3 August. All representations received by the Secretary of State after his letter of 30 June are listed at Annex A to this letter. He has taken account of these responses in his consideration of the appeal before him, but as the responses were circulated to all parties who appeared at the inquiry, he does not consider it necessary to summarise the responses here or attach them to this letter. Copies of the correspondence can be made available upon request to the above address.
5. The Secretary of State has also taken account of the representation received from Emery Planning Partnership dated 28 March 2011 and those from Mr Hayes, dated 10 May, and M Tregunna, dated 2 June. As these did not raise any new matters that would affect his decision, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. Copies of these representations can be made available upon written request.
Procedural Matters
6. The Secretary of State has taken account of the revisions, referred to by the Inspector at IR1.1, that were made to the original application. He has determined this appeal on the basis of the revised application (IR1.2).
7. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (IR1.4) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application.
Policy considerations
8. In deciding the application, 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.
9. In this case, the development plan comprises the Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10), the saved policies of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 (CSP) and the saved policies of the Restormel Local Plan (RLP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those referred to by the Inspector at IR3.2 - 3.5.
10. The Secretary of State has made it clear, following the judgment of the Court on 10 November 2010 in Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Winchester City Council [2010] EWHC 2886 (Admin), that it is the Government’s intention to revoke RSSs, and the provisions of the Localism Bill which is now before Parliament reflect this intention. This gave rise to a subsequent decision of the Court on 7 February 2011 in Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin) which held that the Government’s intention to legislate to revoke regional spatial strategies was capable of being a material consideration. However, while the Secretary of State has taken this matter into account in determining this case, he gives it limited weight at this stage of the parliamentary process.
11. The Secretary of State has taken account of the emerging development plan documents referred to by the Inspector at IR3.6 – 3.7. He has had regard to the Draft RSS reaching the Proposed Changes stage in its development but, given that it is unlikely to progress to publication, he has accorded its policies little weight. Given that the draft Cornwall Core Strategy is at a very early stage of development, he has accorded its policies little weight.
12. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the national planning policy documents listed at IR3.8, Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations; Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, and the other planning documents listed under CD5, CD6, CD7, CD8 and CD9 on pages 63 and 64 of the IR. He has also taken into account the St Austell, St Blazey and China Clay Area Regeneration Plan which was adopted in July 2011.
Main issues
13. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are those listed by the Inspector at IR10.1
Housing Need
14. Having taken account of the further representations made by the parties and with particular reference to the Additional Housing Supply Statement of Common Ground (AHSSCG), the Secretary of State agrees, except where stated below, with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, at IR10.2 – 10.26, on whether there is a need for the proposed housing, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and PPS3. He agrees that the proposal is contrary to RLP policy 3, but considers that the relevance of the RLP is limited, given that it is somewhat dated with an end date of 2011 (IR10.2). Interpreting the development plan as a whole, he agrees that it is reasonable to conclude that if the CSP housing need to 2016 cannot
be met from land within the St Austell urban area, urban extensions such as the appeal site are not necessarily in conflict, subject to the sustainability and other criteria being satisfied (IR10.4).
15. The Secretary of State has taken account of the Inspector’s assessment of housing supply at IR10.5 – 10.10 and agrees with him that, at the time of the Inquiry, the Council’s five year supply figure of 2,356 dwellings for the Mid 2 area (IR10.7) was to be preferred. However, having considered all the further evidence submitted by the parties he considers that the deliverable housing supply figures set out in Tables 4, 9 and 13 of the AHSSCG most accurately represent housing supply in Cornwall, the former Restormel district and St Austell as at 1 April 2011.
16. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s assessment of five year supply as set out at IR10.11 – 10.24 and considers, in the light of the new evidence available to him, that the Inspector’s method of assessing five year supply using a range of housing requirement figures is sound. However, he considers that the assessment of five year supply of housing land for Cornwall, former Restormel district and St Austell, as set out in tables 5, 10, and 14 of the AHSSCG most accurately represents the position as at 1 April 2011. Of these, he considers that, while the figures for former Restormel and St Austell are indicative of the position in local housing markets, it is the figures for Cornwall that are relevant in assessing whether the Local Planning Authority, Cornwall Council, is able to demonstrate a five year supply in accordance with the advice in PPS3.
17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most up-to-date indicators of need are the PCRSS and its evidence base and the emerging CCS (IR10.25). Having had regard to the evidence submitted by the parties, he further agrees that the PCRSS evidence base, together with certain other indicators leads to a finding that the land supply is appreciably less than five years (IR10.25). Like the Inspector, he considers that the Council’s decision to produce locally-based growth strategies lessens the weight that should be accorded to the higher housing growth projections based on the PCRSS evidence base (IR10.26). Having taken account of the representations made by the parties on this issue, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that reliance on the highest of the housing growth projections does not reflect the most likely outcome and that a stronger case can be made for using the middle growth option proposed in the draft CCS, for despite the lack of testing, it is broadly congruent with the Option 1 figure which the Government has indicated might be an appropriate yardstick (IR10.27). On this basis, and having regard to the figures in Table 5 of the AHSSCG, he considers that there is considerable uncertainty as to whether a five year supply of housing land exists in Cornwall and that, on this basis, the PPS3 paragraph 71 presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission where there is not an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites would apply in this case. In accordance with the advice in PPS3, the Secretary of State has gone on to consider to what extent the appeal proposal would accord with the considerations set out in paragraph 69 of PPS3, particularly the need to ensure that development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives.
Prematurity
18. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions as set out at IR10.28 – 10.36 on whether the release of this large site would be premature in advance of the Council’s Core Strategy. He agrees that all that can be reasonably be said at this stage is that the appeal site is one of a number of potential candidates which may be required to deliver the housing needs of the town (IR10.30). He agrees that, consequently, the grant of planning permission now would inevitably reduce the choices otherwise available to the forthcoming LDF site selection process and could prejudice future decisions (IR10.31). He further agrees that the grant of planning permission now would deny the local community the opportunity of determining its preferred choice of housing sites for St Austell and that, without full public consultation on all potential options, a complete representation of local opinion would not emerge (IR10.36).
19. The Government has made it clear that its intention is to return decision making powers in housing and planning to local authorities. This is a key planning priority for the Government and the Secretary of State considers that in this particular case it is important to give Cornwall the opportunity to complete its Core Strategy process. Taking all the factors referred to by the Inspector into account, the Secretary of State agrees that there is a strong argument that the appeal proposal is of such a scale that to permit it now would prejudice decisions that ought properly to be taken as part of the LDF process (IR10.37). For these reasons, and with respect to the considerations set out in paragraph 69 of PPS3, the Secretary of State considers that granting permission for the appeal scheme now would undermine wider policy objectives in Cornwall and that the appeal scheme would not accord with PPS3.
Ecological Information
20. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, at IR10.38 – 10.50, on whether the ecological information is sufficient to enable a determination which complies with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. He has taken account of there being no dispute that an appropriate level of survey work and assessment has been undertaken to establish the likely presence of, and therefore the potentially significant impacts upon, most habitats and species (IR10.39). He agrees that there is sufficient evidence to be confident that the development would not cause significant harm to the favourable conservation status of any bat species, having regard to the commuting and foraging habits available off- site (IR10.45). The Secretary of State considers, like the Inspector, that the proposed mitigation strategy to ensure that birds are properly protected during the breeding season is sufficient to ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (IR10.48).
21. The Secretary of State agrees, from the evidence available, that it is reasonable to conclude that all species likely to be present have been surveyed and the impacts of the development on them have been appropriately assessed (IR10.49). He agrees that the proposed conditions and s106 obligations would be appropriate mechanisms to ensure that there would be no threat to the maintenance of populations of
protected species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (IR10.50).
Other matters
22. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of other planning matters, as set out at IR10.51 – 10.61. He agrees that the loss of part of the countryside setting to St Austell and the loss of good quality agricultural land are matters that weigh against the proposal and that it is not possible to reach a considered view on whether, in terms of landscape impact and agricultural land quality, the appeal scheme might be better or worse than other potential sites for large scale housing development (IR10.53). With regard to flooding, he agrees that the weight of evidence does not support the view that the development would result in greater surface water run-off and exacerbate downstream flooding (IR10.56). In the absence of compelling evidence that the solutions identified would not work, he agrees that an objection on traffic and highways grounds cannot be sustained (IR10.58). On the issue of employment, the Secretary of State agrees that the provision of serviced employment land as part of a mixed use development is unquestionably a significant benefit of the proposal (IR10.59).
Obligation and Conditions
23. The Secretary of State has considered the executed planning obligations as submitted by the appellants, the CIL Regulations 2010, and Circular 05/2005. He agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the obligations as set out at IR9.3 – 9.5 and 10.62 – 10.64 and is satisfied that the provisions in the obligations are relevant and necessary to the proposed development and comply with the policy tests in Circular 05/2005 and with the CIL Regulations. Given that he is not minded to grant planning permission for this development, he has not found it necessary to reach a view on the appropriateness of clause 3.15 (IR10.64).
24. The Secretary of State does not consider that the provisions in the obligations or the proposed conditions, either individually or in combination, would overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal.
Overall Conclusions
25. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the balance of considerations, as set out at IR10.65 and IR10.68 – 10.70. For the reasons given at paragraph 14 above and at IR10.65, he concludes that the proposal is contrary to the development plan.
26. The Secretary of State concludes that it is probable that a five year supply of housing land does not exist in Cornwall and that, on this basis, the PPS3 paragraph 71 presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission applies, subject to the considerations set out in paragraph 69 of PPS3. However, he also concludes that the appeal proposal is of such a scale that to permit it now would prejudice decisions that ought properly to be taken locally as part of the LDF process and that the appeal scheme would not accord with PPS3 on account of it undermining wider policy objectives in Cornwall. The Secretary of State considers that allowing the appeal in
advance of establishing the appropriate level of future housing provision across Cornwall would pre-empt decisions that should properly be taken locally.
27. The Secretary of State is satisfied that all species likely to be present on the appeal site have been surveyed and the impacts of the development on them have been appropriately assessed. He concludes that the loss of part of the countryside setting to St Austell and the loss of good quality agricultural land are matters that weigh against the proposal.
28. The Secretary of State considers that benefits of the proposal include the provision of a sizeable number of new homes so as to meet a probable shortfall in the five year supply of housing land in Cornwall. He also considers that increased choices in the supply of both market housing and serviced employment land, and a range of improvements to local infrastructure are further benefits of the scheme. Overall, he concludes that these and other benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan and the Government’s strong desire that decisions about the future strategy for an area should be taken by the local community through the LDF process.
Formal Decision
29. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client's appeal and refuses planning permission for residential development of up to 1,300 dwellings; up to 9,000 sq m of classes B1, B2 and B8 floorspace; ancillary retail floorspace (classes A1, A2 and A5) and leisure (classes A3 and A4); 60 bed care home (class C2); primary school (class D1); strategic landscaping and public open space; community transport hub of up to 100 spaces and access connections; and associated engineering works, infrastructure, drainage and car parking on land at Treverbyn Road, St Austell, Cornwall PL25 5RX, Ref 09/0125 dated 11 November 2009.
Right to challenge the decision
30. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.
31. A copy of this letter has been sent to Cornwall Council and other parties who were represented at the Inquiry. A notification letter has been sent to all other parties
Yours sincerely
Richard Watson Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
ANNEX A – LIST OF POST-INQUIRY REPRESENTATIONS
In response to the Secretary of State’s letter of 30 June 2011:
Name Date
R Preston 25 July 2011 S Henry (SOUL) 25 July 2011 L Uren 27 July 2011 Mr & Mrs M Husband 27 July 2011 S Harris (Emery Planning) 28 July 2011 S Kirby (Cornwall Council) 28 July 2011
In response to the Secretary of State’s letter of 3 August 2011:
S Harris 12 August 2011 S Kirby 12 August 2011 N Watkins 22 August 2011 R Preston 22 August 2011 R Ward (CPRE Cornwall) 23 August 2011 D Pooley (St Austell Town Council) 23 August 2011 S Kirby 23 August 2011 S Henry 24 August 2011
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The
Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS
There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review.
SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.
Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Martin Pike BA MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Date: 22 February 2011
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
CORNWALL COUNCIL
APPEAL BY
WAINHOMES (SOUTH WEST) HOLDINGS LTD
CONTENTS
Page
Glossary and Abbreviations 2 i) Procedural Matters 3 ii) The Site and Surroundings 5 iii) Planning Policy 6
iv) The Proposals 8 v) The Case for Wainhomes (South West) Developments Limited 8 vi) The Case for Cornwall Council 23 vii) The Cases for Interested Persons 29 viii) Written Representations 39 ix) Conditions and Obligations 40 x) Conclusions 43 xi) Recommendation 60
Appearances and Document lists 61
Annex A – Conditions 68
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
BCT Bat Conservation Trust CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CCS Cornwall Core Strategy CDA Central Delivery Area CSP Cornwall Structure Plan DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government dpa dwellings per annum DPD Development Plan Document DRSS Draft Regional Spatial Strategy EA Environment Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement GHB Greater Horseshoe Bat HMSEB Cornwall Housing Market Strategic Evidence Base HRS West Cornwall Housing Requirements Study LDF Local Development Framework NE Natural England NEDR North East Distributor Road PCRSS Proposed Changes to Draft Regional Spatial Strategy PPG Planning Policy Guidance PPS Planning Policy Statement PSGP The Planning System: General Principles RAP Regeneration Action Plan RLP Restormel Local Plan RPG Regional Planning Guidance RSS Regional Spatial Strategy S106 Section 106 Planning Obligation SCG Statement of Common Ground SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SOUL Save Our Unspoilt Land SUDS Sustainable Drainage System
TA Transport Assessment
File Ref: APP/D0840/A/10/2130022 Land at Treverbyn Road, St Austell, Cornwall PL25 5RX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd against Cornwall Council. • The application Ref: 09/01525 is dated 11 November 2009. • The development proposed is residential development of up to 1,300 dwellings; up to 9,000 sq m of classes B1, B2 and B8 floorspace; ancillary retail floorspace (classes A1, A2 and A5) and leisure (classes A3 and A4); 60 bed care home (class C2); primary school (class D1); strategic landscaping and public open space; community transport hub of up to 100 spaces and access connections; and associated engineering works, infrastructure, drainage and car parking. Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed and planning permission be refused.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
1.1 As originally submitted, the planning application was in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. During its consideration of the application the Council sought amendments on a range of matters which culminated in revisions being made to the application in May 2010. Among the amendments were details of the access to the site; as a consequence, “access” is no longer a reserved matter. Another change is a reduction in the number of parking spaces in the community hub from 350 to 100. The revised application was publicised by the Council and was subject to a second consultation exercise.
1.2 The appeal for non-determination was made on the basis of the revised application. It is shown on Plans A, B and L to U inclusive. The Council subsequently resolved to contest the appeal on five grounds relating to: i. the lack of need for a large scale housing development in advance of the preparation of the Core Strategy; ii. the absence of a planning obligation to deal with the infrastructure requirements of the proposed urban extension; iii. the failure to deliver a school to meet the identified educational needs of the proposal; iv. the increase in traffic leading to conflict and safety hazards on surrounding roads; v. inadequate survey information to enable the Council to determine the effects on protected species on the site.
1.3 Prior to the inquiry the Council reached agreement with the appellant on education provision, highway matters and (subject to matters of detail) infrastructure provision. Consequently the two matters contested by the Council at the inquiry were housing need and the adequacy of ecological
information. This position is set out in the Planning Statement of Common Ground (SCG).1
1.4 The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) 2 prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, as amended. Subject to its concern about the ecological information, the Council is satisfied that the ES meets the statutory requirements and confirmed that the appropriate procedures had been followed. In arriving at my recommendation I have taken into account the environmental information contained in the ES and presented at the inquiry, and the comments about the likely environmental effects of the proposed development.
1.5 The appeal was recovered for the decision of the Secretary of State by a direction dated 16 August 2010. The reason given for the direction is that “the appeal involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities”.
1.6 The inquiry sat for 6 days between 30 November and 8 December 2010. I carried out an accompanied visit to the site and the immediate locality on 9 December, and made various unaccompanied visits to the wider locality before and during the inquiry.
1.7 On the penultimate sitting day a member of the Save Our Unspoilt Land (SOUL) action group submitted a document with new representations on transport matters (not a main issue at the inquiry, but a matter of concern to local residents). The appellant asked for the right to respond, which I considered reasonable and fair; this meant that I was unable to formally close the inquiry on 8 December. I gave the appellant until Friday 17 December to submit a response, after which I closed the inquiry in writing.
1.8 The inquiry took place against the background of litigation brought by Cala Homes which opposed the Secretary of State’s approach to the revocation of Regional Strategies. The evidence at the inquiry reflected the High Court judgement of 10 November 20103 which reinstated Regional Strategies as part of the development plan. Later that month Cala Homes commenced a second action challenging a statement of the Secretary of State and a letter from the Government’s Chief Planning Officer which stated that planning authorities should have regard to the intention to abolish Regional Strategies as a material consideration in planning decisions.
1.9 An interim action which stayed the effect of the Secretary of State’s statement was set aside by the Courts on 3 December 2010. The position when the inquiry closed was that, until the outcome of the second Cala Homes action was known, the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) advised decision makers to consider whether the existence of this challenge, and the basis of it, affected the significance and
1 INQ2 2 CD 1/13 and 1/27 3 Cala Homes (South) Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 2866
weight which they judged might be given to the Secretary of State’s statements.
1.10 On 7 February 2011 the High Court dismissed the second Cala Homes challenge.4 The judgement confirms that the intended revocation of Regional Strategies is capable of being a material consideration in making decisions. I have taken this judgement into account in my conclusions.
THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The appeal site comprises most of the elevated, undeveloped land on the north-western fringe of St Austell between the existing built up area and Mount Stamper Road/ Menacuddle Hill. It extends to 51.9ha of mainly agricultural land enclosed by hedgerows which form an irregular pattern of fields, most of semi-improved grassland plus a few in arable cultivation. The land is classified as Grade 3 under the Agricultural Land Classification; most is subgrade 3a (good quality) while about 25% is subgrade 3b (moderate quality). There are relatively few trees on the site, generally found in field boundaries or in small areas of woodland in the southern part of the site. Apart from the former Carwollen farmhouse and associated outbuildings, which are centrally located within the northern part of the site, there are no substantial buildings on the site.
2.2 Mount Stamper Road traverses the crest of a small ridge between the steep-sided St Austell River valley to the west and the slightly shallower gradients to the south-east. The appeal site slopes down to the south and east from this ridge, gently at first and then more steeply where it abuts the existing urban area. There is over 80m difference in elevation between the highest part of the site, around the telecommunications tower on Mount Stamper Road, and the southern part towards the town centre. Public access to the site is limited to two footpaths, enclosed for most of their length by Cornish hedgebanks, which connect different parts of the town with Mount Stamper Road.
2.3 Abutting the north-western tip of the site are cottages and houses of Scredda hamlet. To the north and north-east, backing on to the A391 North East Distributor Road (NEDR), are small parcels of land with planning permission for employment uses. Across the NEDR is a small industrial estate which includes a hotel and restaurant. Beyond Scredda and the employment sites is an extensive tract of former china clay workings which include distinctive spoil tips and lagoons. To the west of the site, across Mount Stamper Road, agricultural land falls westwards towards the St Austell River, the fields being replaced by woodland on the steeper slopes in the south.
2.4 Along much of the eastern boundary of the site is residential development which forms the existing built edge of St Austell. In the north the dwellings front Treverbyn Road; in the central section a small network of residential streets take access from Treverbyn Road and Tregonissey Road. Further south a part of the site abuts the sizeable Cornwall College campus and,
4 Cala Homes (South) Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 97
close to the southern tip, it abuts St Austell brewery. The southern extremity of the appeal site, which is within easy walking distance of the bus and railway station and the town centre, comprises two small fields that are separated from the bulk of the site by a playing field.
PLANNING POLICY Development plan
3.1 Since reinstatement of Regional Strategies as a result of the High Court judgement in the first Cala Homes action, the development plan comprises Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10)5, the saved policies of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 (CSP)6 and the saved policies of the Restormel Local Plan (RLP)7.
3.2 The regional strategy in RPG10 (2001) seeks to focus growth, including urban extensions, on the Principal Urban Areas (PUA). There is no PUA in Cornwall, the nearest being Plymouth. Sub-regional objectives are set out in policy SS 3; in the Western sub-region appropriate housing and employment is encouraged in sustainable locations to reduce social exclusion and rural need, and St Austell is identified as one of the locations for major new employment, social and cultural investment. Policy SS 18 seeks regeneration of the main towns of Cornwall as employment and service centres for their population; it also seeks conservation and enhancement of the distinctiveness of the natural environment. Policy HO1 proposes an average of 2,050 dwellings per annum (dpa) for Cornwall over the period 1996-2016.
3.3 The CSP was adopted in September 2004 and covers the period 2001-2016. Policy 1 sets out principles to guide sustainable development in Cornwall; these include the conservation and enhancement of the County’s character and distinctiveness, meeting needs where they arise, and reducing the need to travel. Policy 3 seeks the prudent use of natural and built resources by, amongst other matters, giving priority to the re-use of previously-developed land (including derelict land reclamation), protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land, and utilising sustainable drainage techniques to deal with surface water run-off close to its source.
3.4 The housing requirement in CSP policy 8 is based on a total requirement for Cornwall of 2,000 dpa over the 1996-2016 period. The policy distributes the residual 2001-2016 requirement among the former districts, the figure for Restormel being 5,600 dwellings or an annual average of about 370. Policies 11 and 16 seek to focus both housing and employment development on the Strategic Urban Centres, one of which is St Austell. About 2,200 new homes between 2001-2016 are proposed for the St Austell area under policy 20, with (amongst other matters) development supporting the broadening of the area’s economic base. Policy 10 gives priority to the re- use of previously-developed land in urban areas, followed by other sites in
5 CD4/4 6 CD3/1 7 CD3/2
urban areas, then extensions to urban areas in locations with good public transport links.
3.5 The RLP was adopted in 2001 and covers the period 1991-2011. Policy 1 aims to concentrate new development in the urban areas of St Austell/St Blaise and Newquay. Development envelopes for these and other settlements are defined on the Proposals Map; policy 3 indicates that development within these envelopes is acceptable in principle, whereas the countryside outside the envelopes will be safeguarded. A total of 10,130 dwellings are proposed over the Plan period by policy 70 (3,000 for St Austell/ St Blaise), of which just 2,430 remained to be allocated, with 620 going to the St Austell area. Policy 74 sets a Borough target for affordable housing of 2,500 dwellings. Policy 52 proposes 54 ha of land for employment use, half of which is in the St Austell area. Other policies of the RLP address a wide range of matters relating to the detailed impacts of development and the achievement of sustainable development; a full list is included in the Planning SCG. Emerging development plan policy
3.6 The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (DRSS) for the South West 2006-20268 was published for consultation in 2006; following an Examination in Public, the Secretary of State published Proposed Changes to the Draft RSS9 in July 2008 (PCRSS). The spatial strategy aims to concentrate most growth in Strategically Significant Cities and Towns (SSCTs) which in Cornwall comprises the combined towns of Camborne-Pool-Redruth, Falmouth- Penryn & Truro. Outside the SSCTs, Development Policy B seeks housing, employment and other development at certain market and coastal towns which will increase their self-containment and enhance their role as service centres. The distribution of housing is given in Proposed Changes policies HD1 and HMA9; for Restormel the total requirement of 15,700 dwellings, at an average of 785 dpa, represents an increase from 430 dpa in the consultation DRSS.
3.7 The Cornwall Core Strategy (CCS)10 is at a very early stage of production – in November 2010 the Council agreed the strategic options that will be subject to public participation in early 2011. In respect of the amount of housing and population growth, three options are put forward. The first represents a continuation of the low migration levels experienced during the current economic downturn (38,000 dwellings over the 20 year period), the second envisages a return to average past trends of migration (48,000 dwellings), while the third option is based on the higher levels of migration experienced in the past (57,000 dwellings). Three options are also proposed for the distribution of future growth – a focus on Cornwall’s towns, a dispersed option which favours more development in smaller market towns and villages, and an economy-led distribution which seeks to align housing growth with economic investment. National planning policy
8 CD4/1 9 CD4/3 10 CD9/9
3.8 The most significant national planning policy statements are Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3: Housing; and PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. Other relevant national policy includes the PPS1 Climate Change and Eco-towns supplements; PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13: Transport; PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation; and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.
THE PROPOSALS
4.1 Of the 1,300 dwellings to be provided, 40% (520) would be affordable housing; 30% of these (156 dwellings) would be social rented homes, the remainder would be intermediate (shared ownership) housing. A range of dwelling sizes would be provided, from one bedroom flats to five bedroom houses. Housing density would vary from 35 to 55 dwellings per hectare; the highest densities would be located along the main spine route running through the centre of the elongated site, with the lowest densities in sensitive locations on the edges of the site. Buildings would range from 2 to 3 storeys high, the taller heights coinciding with the higher density development along key routes.
4.2 The employment provision would take the form of serviced land for the construction of 9,000 sq m of Classes B1, B2 and B8 floorspace, some of which may be in live/work units; the aim is to provide 650 jobs on the appeal site. One dedicated employment area would be located at the northern tip of the site; the other employment uses would be within mixed use areas distributed throughout the rest of the site. The primary school would be provided in the southern part of the site close to Cornwall College and Poltair Secondary School. The intention is to locate the care home at Carwollen Farm, re-using the existing buildings where possible. The Masterplan identifies three main areas of open space, the largest of which would be a centrally located park; both formal and informal open spaces would be connected via green corridors and retained hedgerows.
4.3 The main site access would be from Treverbyn Road at the northern end of the site; this would serve about 75% of the dwellings. The southern quarter of the site would take access from Hillside Road; apart from a route solely for buses, there would be no direct vehicular link between the two parts. A network of footpaths and cycleways would connect to the existing neighbourhoods to the east, the town centre to the south and the countryside to the west. A phased programme of implementation is envisaged, with development commencing in the north and the provision of infrastructure linked to key stages in the phasing of the development.
THE CASE FOR WAINHOMES (SOUTH WEST) HOLDINGS LTD
Introduction
5.1 The appeal site is a natural extension to the town of St Austell, lying just to the north of the town centre and to the west of existing urban development.
The proposals bring a mixed use, sustainable form of development which would deliver much needed affordable housing and high quality employment land and which would function as an extension to the urban area, being closely related to the town centre, local services and public transport. It would also bring necessary improvements to local infrastructure and benefits to the local community, including the provision of a primary school, public open space, improved drainage, and improved highways and public transport, which can only be delivered by development of a significant scale.
5.2 The application had been preceded by significant engagement with Council officers about development of the site for housing. It was first raised following the Council’s ‘Call for Sites’ in October 2007. Council officers actively encouraged development at the site due to continuing delays with the development of the Cornwall Core Strategy (CCS). The development was seen as an opportunity to deliver improvements to infrastructure in St Austell in a cohesive and significant manner. A series of meetings with Council officers took place11, as well as with consultees, to shape the final design of the appeal proposal. There was also extensive public consultation12 which accords with the principles behind the Government’s thinking on localism.
5.3 Following the judgment in Cala Homes, the development plan comprises the RSS in the form of RPG10, the saved policies of the Cornwall Structure Plan (CSP), and the saved policies of the Restormel Local Plan (RLP). All these elements of the development plan are now out of date to a varying extent, especially with regard to housing figures. An emerging development plan exists at the regional level, namely the Proposed Changes RSS, although in view of the Government’s proposals this is unlikely to proceed further. However, there is an evidence base with regard to housing need which is relevant in any event. There is no draft Core Strategy at present, though one is proposed to be published for consultation in 2011, having fallen significantly behind schedule.
5.4 The grounds on which the Council opposes this appeal have been narrowed to the following issues: (i) The extent to which there is a need for housing (including affordable housing), and in particular whether the Council has a 5 year housing supply and specific deliverable sites in years 6-10 (and where possible years 11-15) as required by PPS3; (ii) Whether the proposals are premature pending the LDF process; (iii) Whether there is adequate information to properly assess the implications for wildlife present on the site to enable a decision to be made on the outline application and to enable appropriate mitigation to be put in place; and (iv) The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding locality (which appears to turn primarily on whether there is a housing need).
Housing need
11 see CD 9/3 to 9/6 12 CD 1/9, 1/10
5.5 It is essential that housing land supply calculations are robust and clearly justified. This is made clear at paragraph 52 of PPS3 and underlined by the recent White Paper: Local Growth. It means that assessments should be based on real and not theoretical targets. The letter from the DCLG Chief Planning Officer dated 6 July 2010 (setting out the position even had the revocation of the RSSs been lawful) states in question 10 that: “Local planning authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area... Some authorities may decide to retain their existing housing targets that were set out in the revoked Regional Strategies. Others may decide to review their housing targets. We would expect that those authorities should quickly signal their intention to undertake an early review so that communities and land owners know where they stand.” The letter also states at question 12 that Option 1 figures could be adopted, “supplemented by more recent information as appropriate.” That recent information does nothing but support the existence of a need for more housing here.
5.6 In Cornwall Council’s case the “early review” is no more than the proposed consultation on the CCS, which is scheduled to commence in January or February 2011. A Core Strategy that will not be adopted until 2013 at the earliest, and which could be subject to further delays, does not represent an “early review” of housing figures. It will be neither early nor timely to meet the current shortfall, or the gap from year 6 which is apparent. The Council also has not undertaken any of the other measures identified in the 6 July letter, such as adopting the PCRSS or Option 1 figures, either in their own right or supplemented by more recent information. Recent evidence of need
5.7 It is untenable for the Council to contend that the only measure against which the housing requirement should be assessed is the 2004 CSP. The abundance of evidence post-dating 2004, including the recent SHLAA, recent household projections and recent Cabinet reports, as well as the Council’s assessments of housing need in other contexts, shows that the Council is not providing sufficient housing to meet demand. Further, it is clear that the Council knows that it is not meeting this demand. The PCRSS and its evidence base is a material consideration in light of the decision in Cala Homes, and it is partly this evidence that underscores the flawed reliance by the Council on the CSP figures.
5.8 All the evidence that post-dates the CSP provides for a housing requirement substantially in excess of the 147 dwellings per annum that the CSP stipulates for St Austell until 2016. This is as follows: (i) 2007 – West Cornwall Housing Requirements Study (HRS) assessment for St Austell of 380 houses per annum13; (ii) 2008 - PCRSS assessment for former Restormel Area of 785 houses per annum; (iii) 2008 - Growth Point Status14 projected a requirement of 9,090 dwellings for the period 2008 to 2016/17 across Restormel and
13 Planning SCG, paragraph 2.2
Kerrier: this was 20% higher than the projection in the 2006 draft RSS; (iv) 2010 – Cornwall Housing Market Strategic Evidence Base (HMSEB)15 assessment for St Austell of 145 affordable houses per annum: this equates to 370 houses based on affordable homes being delivered at 40% of supply (which is not a target that is likely to be achieved across all delivered housing meaning the total of 370 is a conservative target); and (v) ongoing - past building rates show 213 dwellings delivered per annum between 2001–2010.
5.9 The recently published (November 2010) SHLAA appears to show: (i) although there is likely to be a sufficient supply over the next 20 years as a whole there is insufficient housing provision for the next five years, both in the area including St Austell (the Central Delivery Area) and generally in Cornwall16; (ii) the CSP figures may be the development plan baseline but they are out of date17; (iii) the appeal site appears to form a significant contribution to the proposed supply18; (iv) the SHLAA acknowledges that St Austell and Truro “demonstrate the greatest scope to accommodate growth” in Cornwall19; (v) the remaining sites shown for the Central Delivery Area in Appendix G lie generally beyond the development envelope for St Austell and other urban locations and appear to involve both a greater greenfield land take and are less sustainable in terms of their relationship to St Austell centre and local transport and services. Current need and Core Strategy
5.10 The absence of up to date levels of housing demand identified by the Council might in some measure have been met by the housing figures set out in the emerging CCS, which for Cornwall range from 38,000 dwellings (low migration) to 57,000 (high migration) over the 20 year period. However, the composition of these figures is uncertain. During the inquiry the Council stated that the draft CCS figures did include the 6,000 dwelling backlog of affordable housing, despite the draft CCS and other recent Council documents stating otherwise. Other information shows that the draft CCS figures do not factor in the shortfall of affordable housing but look at future demand only, omitting the unmet demand at present. This is confirmed in a recent Housing Briefing Paper for the Truro area,20 which refers to a ‘technical target’ of 48,000 dwellings (low migration) to 66,000 (high migration) rather than the range identified in the CCS.
14 Mr Harris proof, Appendix EPP16, page 4 15 CD6/3 16 CD9/7 paragraph 5.3.2 pages 45-48 (CDA) and pages 39-40 (Cornwall generally) 17 CD9/7 pages 7-8; 39-40; 53-56 18 CD9/7 Appendix G R24 19 CD9/7 page 47 20 CD9/16 pages 8-9
5.11 It is now clear that the CCS options figures do not include the backlog and that the need is significantly greater than that assumed by the Council. The higher figures shown in the Briefing Paper are the only attempt by the Council to marry the future demand and backlog together and are based on the same need figures as are referred to in the Truro report21. If they are the most up to date, then they are only about 100 houses per year lower than the PCRSS proposed changes requirement and plainly imply a greater shortfall for Cornwall and St Austell in particular. They are also based entirely on earlier household projections and do not take account of the latest November 2010 projections. Consequently, no real weight can be given to the draft CCS figures given the uncertainty about their provenance.
5.12 The current picture is further confused by the intended production of a St Austell, China Clay and St Blazey Regeneration Action Plan22 (RAP). This is required, it is said, to address exactly the sort of needs that would be met by the appeal proposal, namely creating jobs, developing necessary infrastructure and redressing the affordable housing backlog. The RAP is to be consulted on with the CCS, but is intended to come into force in a short period of time. Whilst the draft RAP fails to clarify the precise level of housing requirement in the area, it is a yet further acknowledgment by the Council outside this appeal that there is a pressing housing need. Further, it shows an approach inconsistent with the prematurity argument run at this inquiry. By proposing an interim, criteria-based policy to bring forward development in advance of the CCS, the draft RAP demonstrates that new development is needed now and that awaiting the adoption of the CCS is not an option.
5.13 These recent reports reflect the sharp dichotomy between the real position as perceived by the Council and the unreal case it pursues at this appeal to persuade the Secretary of State to accept a judgment based on the CSP. This is further demonstrated by the grant of permission at Burlawn Farm, St Austell as recently as October 2010. There is no policy basis for asserting that one must only look at approved policies when determining the 5 year supply, nor is the DCLG Chief Planning Officer’s letter predicated on that basis. Moreover, the Council has not sought to dispute the recent evidence that the current housing demand is in excess of the requirement set out in the CSP. The lack of any substantive dispute is significant given the Council’s acceptance elsewhere that there is a housing shortfall. Five year housing supply
5.14 The Council’s focus at the inquiry has been to seek to demonstrate a purely theoretical and unreal case that there is a 5 year supply. Yet over the course of the inquiry the Council has steadily reduced its assessments of supply, and now accepts that there is not a 5 year supply23 for the former Restormel Borough when assessed even against the Council’s RSS Option 1 figure, the HRS, the PCRSS, completion rates post 2001 and completion rates post 2006. More importantly in relation to St Austell, the Council now assesses the projected completions in the 5 year period as 708 houses, meaning that the Council’s supply position is 1.7 years against the HRS, 3.5
21 CD 9/15 page 10 22 CD9/17 and 9/18 23 See Table 5 in Mr Harris’ proof
years against past completions since 2001, and 3.8 years against past completions since 2006.
5.15 The appellant contends the supply position is lower still than the Council’s now revised position in respect of the following three sites: (a) Site 48 (Duporth). The Officer Report leads to real concern that the site is not viable. The relaxation of conditions was applied for as a last ditch effort to make the development viable, but significant reservations are expressed as to whether it makes the position any better. Applying the PPS3 tests, the site should be deleted altogether or the contribution reduced by a significant amount (more than the Council’s original views of 204 dwellings before the Report was provided) given there is no reasonable prospect it will be able to deliver houses within the next 5 years. (b) Site 72 (Trevenson Road). It now appears that although there are negotiations with Taylor Wimpey over a delivery of 98 homes by the end of 2013, this has not been secured. Information from the site owner is that Taylor Wimpey does not have sufficient land to build out more than 78 houses and that the landowner is not willing to enter any agreement to deliver the remaining homes because it is not a developer. Therefore the appellant’s assumed 120 dwellings and the Council’s assumed 131 completions on this site are overly optimistic and should be discounted to zero for this site.24 (c) Site 8 (Tregarn Hotel). Although the architect advises that the development is planned to commence in May 2011, the appellant’s position remains that delivery of this site is still dependent on the housing market.
5.16 The doubts that exist over sites 48 and 72 suggest that the numbers may be reduced by up to an additional 257 houses (53 + 204) compared with those in the agreed table submitted to the inquiry. Whichever figure is used, it remains the case that there is not a 5 year supply.
5.17 Furthermore, there is a lack of housing sites coming forward from year 6.25 In St Austell, the supply is ever diminishing over the next 5 years and is zero from 2016 onwards. It is very doubtful that the 6–10 year supply gap will be met by any other large site coming forward prior to the CCS adoption. The site for Mercian Homes referred to by Barton Willmore is not proposed to be brought forward ahead of the CCS.26 The Council acknowledged that the prematurity objection raised against the appeal proposals would be a material factor in relation to any other major site, including any potential eco-town. Furthermore, with regard to potential eco- towns, the Council also agreed that the enormous funding gap27 has been exacerbated by central government cuts,28 and that it was possible that delivery of eco-towns in years 6-10 may also be in doubt. The SHLAA did
24 Inspector’s note: The information which led to this conclusion came from the appellant’s advocate after the housing evidence had been heard and was not tested in cross examination. 25 Mr Harris proof, Table 10 26 IP15, Barton Willmore letter of 24.11.10 27 Mr Harris Appendix EPP26, pages 18-21 28 Mr Harris Appendix EPP28
not expect the sites to contribute to the 5 year supply and would only contribute starting in the second phase, from year 6.
Conclusion
5.18 In relation to housing need, the clear position is that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as required by PPS3, even on its own case. Nor can it demonstrate a supply of specific, developable sites for years 6 – 10 and beyond as required by PPS3, paragraph 55. The PPS3 paragraph 71 presumption that this application should be favourably considered therefore applies.
5.19 It is of no avail for the Council to suggest that in some analyses the shortfall may only be a little below 5 years, or that the appeal scheme will only deliver a proportion of its houses within the next 5 years, or advance similar points. Given the position with supply on sites 48 and 72, the shortfall is likely to be much greater. In addition, the 6,000 unit backlog of affordable housing (which must be supported by market housing) must increase the figures currently in the draft CCS Options paper.
5.20 It is clear that large sites are needed to deliver the necessary infrastructure improvements and to ensure the sites are sustainable. The contribution from the appeal scheme of about 342 homes (including affordable homes) would go a significant way to addressing the current shortfall in the next 5 years and to meeting the objectives of the White Paper.
Prematurity
5.21 At the inquiry the Council agreed that it is unlikely that any prematurity objection would have been made if there not been a change of government. The prematurity objection is thus no more than a further manifestation of the Council’s position that there is no housing need and appears simply to ignore the Secretary of State’s policy in the White Paper.
5.22 PSPG at paragraph 18 states that “Where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question”. In the context of a Core Strategy which has not yet reached the consultation stage, and where further slippages from the February 2011 date may arise as a result of changes arising from the Localism Bill, the PSPG advice should be applied with even more rigour. It is far too early in the DPD process to invoke a rational objection based on prematurity, still less one bolstered by flimsy and unreal claims as to a 5 year supply which is contradicted by other Council documents.
5.23 The Council relies on paragraph 17 of PSPG, which indicates that there may be circumstances where a prematurity argument may be justified if a DPD is being prepared but has not yet been adopted. Paragraph 17 says that refusal may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in
the DPD. The Council relies on the size of the appeal proposal and the alleged 5 year housing supply as its basis for relying on the outcome of the CCS.
5.24 No evidence has been provided to clearly address how approval of this scheme would actually prejudice the outcome of the DPD process, as is specifically required by paragraph 19 of the PSPG. For the reasons given below, the evidence is to the contrary:
(i) There is a severe 5 year housing supply shortfall in St Austell and no provision in the 6 - 11 year period. This removes the central plank of the Council’s prematurity objection. It also shows that delivery of this proposal would still leave a significant shortfall of housing that would not prejudice the outcome of the DPD process. On the HRS figures, at least 850 further houses will be needed between 2013 (the current CCS adoption date) and 2015,29 and 942 further houses will be needed between 2015 and 2020.30 The SHLAA does not identify any source for the shortfall of 850 houses up until 2015, which will in turn create a backlog into 2015 – 2020.
(ii) There is also a severe shortage in affordable housing and a backlog of 6,000 homes. The Council’s decision in Burlawn Farm, and the Golphin Farm appeal decision, both support the need to provide an immediate solution to the affordable housing backlog. The appeal proposal addresses this backlog, but does not resolve it. A significant amount of market housing will additionally be needed to provide the required amounts of affordable housing and, after several attempts, the Council has still not shown that it has included that need in its draft CCS Options. Indeed, the Truro Report suggests that the backlog takes the Options up to a range between 48,000 and 66,000 dwellings.
(iii) No other sites have come forward which are specific and developable, as required by paragraph 55 of PPS3. The St Austell Eco-town proposal does not have planning permission and has a significant funding gap, so there is likely to be a very considerable time before it comes forward, assuming it proceeds. All that is currently proposed is a small pilot scheme of 50 houses, with a further 2,500 by 2020 (which do not meet the terms of the PPS on Eco-towns). The funding cuts cast doubt on whether the Eco-town can be developed at all. As to the land controlled by Mercian Developments Ltd to the south west of St Austell, all that is said is that early discussions have taken place with the Council. This in no way shows that this land is available, suitable and achievable (PPS3 paragraph 54).
(iv) As in the current development plan, St Austell will remain a centre of employment and other development and so attract significant amounts of housing. The draft CCS proposes three spatial options, two of which would focus housing in St Austell and a distributed option which would also do so, though to a lesser extent. The Council’s evidence was that the option involving widespread distribution was the least likely, and
29 If the Council’s 5 year supply of 708 is added to a suggested completion number up to 2015 of 342 homes, this amounts to 1,050. The five year requirement on the HRS figures is 380 x 5 = 1900. The difference is 850. 30 If the remaining homes are built up until 2020, this is a balance of 958 homes. 1900 – 958 = 942
that St Austell will remain a primary town for housing in any event. This is consistent with the SHLAA, which states that St Austell and Truro demonstrate the greatest scope to accommodate growth, and the draft RAP, which anticipates significant housing development to deliver regeneration benefits to St Austell and surrounding urban areas.
(v) The Council accepted that the only way to address St Austell’s housing need/focus is by urban extensions. In other words, a greenfield site of some kind will be required. It also agreed that the appeal site is easily the best site in terms of sustainable links to the town centre. The appellant believes that the site is by far the best site for an urban extension due to (a) its proximity to the town centre, schools, public transport, and employment areas to the north, east and south, (b) the fact that all other potential sites are also on greenfield land of similar agricultural quality, and (c) in light of CABE’s assessment of the site’s sustainable status. Other key sustainability benefits include highway mitigation measures contributing to the free flow of traffic, the achievement of Code for Sustainable Homes level 3, incorporation of micro technologies to meet energy reduction targets, and a potential biodiversity gain.
(vi) The SHLAA’s comparative assessment of sites scores the appeal site very highly among the large sites it identifies adjacent to St Austell.31
(vii) If the Council were right there would have to be an effective moratorium on the grant of permission on all sites not allocated in the previous development plan until the CCS process had run its course. That must be wrong - it is well established that the development plan process does not place a moratorium on normal development control.
5.25 The Council has also sought to rely on the Secretary of State’s decision in relation to Binhamy Farm, Bude. However the Secretary of State’s decision in that appeal was (1) based on the previous CCS timetable which has now slipped by at least 13 months, (2) based on revocation of the RSSs, now set aside, (3) made without reference to the PSPG and the need to demonstrate prejudice to the emerging CCS, (4) based on the finding of a five year supply of land which does not apply here, (5) made with regard to other factors which weighed against the proposals, and (6) related to a town that is not a strategic centre such as St Austell. For these reasons the decision in Bude does not assist the Council. It is suggested that the additional evidence that post-dates this decision, including the new household projections and the increasing evidence that the Council acknowledges the shortfall of affordable housing, should lead the Secretary of State to a very different conclusion to that reached in Bude on the evidence then available to him.
5.26 In the other two decisions the Council relies on, at Truro and St Anne’s, in each case there were site specific reasons for the refusal of permission. Consequently these decisions do not support the Council’s position at this inquiry.
31 CD9/19
5.27 The appeal proposal was the subject of public consultation, the extent of which was commended by CABE. It resulted in significant changes in the appeal proposal prior to submission and in response to local concerns, including in particular a reduction in the number of dwellings from 1,500 to 1,300, the drawing in of the development from existing houses, and further allotments. Approval of the appeal proposals would not therefore mean that the consultation which will feature in the CCS process has been wholly lost since it has already taken place with respect to the appeal site. Whilst it is true that the consultation is criticised by some local residents, it might be observed that it is unlikely that any consultation which did not bring the proposal to an end would have satisfied objectors.
5.28 There is no other emerging aspect of the development plan which the proposals are said to prejudice. It is therefore submitted that the Council’s objection with regard to prematurity should be rejected in any event, regardless of the conclusions reached on the 5 year housing supply. In addition, to delay the delivery of the site for 3-5 years would have serious consequences in that Convergence funding for the employment land, which can only be claimed by proposals approved by 2013, would be lost.
Ecology
5.29 There is no dispute as to the relevant duties to be observed under the EIA Regulations 1999 and the Habitats Regulations 2010. The Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that sufficient evidence has been obtained to enable a judgment to be reached with regard to the likely significant effects of the development and the mitigation or other offsetting works to be carried out, and that the duties under the 2010 Regulations (Regulation 9(5) in particular) are met.
5.30 This is not a case where corners have been cut. A Phase 1 habitats survey and initial assessment32 was carried out to inform the scoping exercise, followed by a validation exercise prior to scoping. Scoping was consulted upon and agreed with Natural England (NE) and the Council; it excluded breeding birds (including barn owls).33 Surveys were carried out in accordance with the scoping. The ES addresses scope, likely impacts (during works and residual) and mitigation for ecological impacts. Further work was done to survey reptiles and bats, which included two periods of 3- 4 days each of automated Anabat bat surveys. Thus the appellant has not sought to avoid carrying out additional survey work which was properly justified.
5.31 It is the Council which, following scoping and an initial email from Dr Turtle,34 changed the approach and began to raise issues regarding the adequacy of surveys. Even then, it did not take issue with matters now alleged regarding the scope of additional bat and reptile work. The circumstances appear to stem at least in part from the misunderstanding by the Council that NE was making the same error as was made 10 years ago in the Hardy case (see below). The Council had many months in which to react and at no stage was a request for further information made under
32 CD1/13 ES Volume 2 Appendix 6.1 CD1/13 33 See CD1/13 ES Volume 2 Appendix 6.1 page 13 34 Mr Gill’s Appendix 4 page 12
Regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations, or even threatened. These matters all go to the weight to be given to its objections. Natural England’s position
5.32 The appellant’s approach had the support of NE. NE had a significant involvement prior to 8 April 2010 in advising on the application, the EIA scoping and assessing the adequacy of the data provided. It considered that, with the addition of the additional bat and reptile survey subsequently scoped on 6 April 2010, the survey evidence was appropriate and sufficient.35 NE disagreed with Dr Turtle that further work was required with regard to greater horseshoe bats (GHBs). It is reasonable to conclude that Mr Hazlehurst of NE had far more longstanding and better knowledge of the site and issues, in order to reach judgments, than the Council’s witness at the inquiry.
5.33 NE’s email of 8 April 201036 cannot fairly be read, as the Council contends, as NE changing its position on the survey evidence. It was the point in time at which NE stated that it was adopting its recent generic approach to applications in which it does not now generally provide a site specific consultation response or advice, but instead points to general advice. In that context, it is clear that Mr Hazlehurst thought the scope of additional work had been agreed. The subsequent advice is not specific advice regarding the site circumstances or a change of position, but merely a confirmation of what NE sees as the Council’s duty in determining the application, having regard to the 1999 and 2010 Regulations. Simply because NE confirmed that it was for the Council to be satisfied that appropriate survey work was done and to satisfy itself of the likely impacts, does not suggest that NE had changed the view it expressed on 23 March 2010 when it was still considering the specific circumstances of this application. Council’s witness at inquiry
5.34 The Council’s stance at the inquiry, which for understandable reasons was given by a witness who has come very late to the issues, is not one agreed by NE, nor is it the professional judgment of the appellant’s own ecologists.
5.35 There is agreement that the issue between the parties for the Secretary of State is the matter of judgment as to whether the data provided for the purposes of the ES (including its addendum) and to the inquiry was sufficient to enable a proper judgment to be reached with regard to the impact and mitigation of the proposals. The appellant submits that the Council’s witness has been unduly prescriptive with his approach to the guidance, applying it mechanistically and over rigorously. He has chosen to overlook key issues of the use of professional judgment and the need for proportionality with data collection, which is underlined by all the relevant guidance.37 His approach also displayed a tendency to argue the Council’s case rather than to be appropriately objective.
35 Mr Gill’s Appendix 7 36 Mr Gill’s Appendix 9 37 CD7/1 paragraph 1.20 page 8; CD7/3 paragraph 5.2 page 21; CD7/9 paragraph 1.1 page 5, paragraph 2.12 page 12 & paragraph 4.1.2 page 34.
5.36 For example, he was all too ready to write-off the data collection as having failed to consider an external inspection of Carwollen Farm even though it is clearly said that this was done. He confused his lack of satisfaction with the stated methodology with the plain fact that the ES said that such an inspection was carried out. As another example, his recognition that his statement with regard to the advance establishment of reptile refugia was no longer tenable only emerged after several questions as to the identity of the unreferenced experts he had consulted. In this respect he appears to have placed arguing the Council’s position ahead of his professional duty to be objective. Moreover, despite the extensive cross examination over the issue of the possible use of the farmhouse by bats, his much shorter response in re-examination was that the evidence of the farmhouse should have lead to the conclusion that it was a potential bat roost. Yet this is precisely what the ES stated and on which it based its assessment of impact.
5.37 It is also not tenable for the Council to assert that NE was misguided in its guidance and repeated the fundamental error in R v Cornwall CC ex parte Hardy. This case is wholly unlike the Hardy case, where there was no survey evidence and the whole assessment exercise had been left to the reserved matters stage. The dispute here was over the adequacy of survey work which had been carried out, whereas the Hardy case involved no survey at all. There is no evidence of any such error or lack of understanding by NE. The Hardy case fits within a line of cases and followed the decisions of the High Court beginning with R v. Rochdale DC ex parte Tew (referred to in the Hardy judgment); it is difficult to conceive that the national ecological consultee could be so ignorant of the fundamental authority on EIA.
5.38 Moreover, it is plain that the Council’s witness had neither sent his evidence nor put his assumptions to NE. In view of his criticisms of NE’s stance and the 8 April 2010 email, that is the least he should have done to find some verification for his approach. His failure to do so, despite the importance of his claims, undermines the contentions he advanced to the inquiry. Bats
5.39 Apart from the issue regarding GHBs, the Council accepts that the surveys met the requirements of survey frequency and season in BCT Guidelines.38 On the adequacy of survey material regarding Carwollen Farmhouse, it was not possible to carry out an internal inspection because the buildings were derelict and had been vandalised. The external openings had been blocked up for safety reasons, with gaps and spaces retained should they be in use as a roost. Whilst the Council is critical of the methodology, the ES did note the “potential bat roosting opportunities” based in part on external inspections.39 As to the adequacy of tree surveys, trees were surveyed, though not in the winter; the guidance does not suggest it must only be done in winter.40
38 CD7/9 Table 4.7 page 39 39 CD1/13 ES Volume 1 paragraph 6.4.44 40 CD7/9 page 26 Table 3.3, note 2
5.40 Turning to the question of GHBs, despite many days of survey effort including two continuous periods of several days’ automatic monitoring, only one pass by a GHB was recorded (and one by a barbastelle). The Council’s witness insisted that the BCT guidance41 had to be followed to the letter despite the emphasis in the guidance on the use of judgment and proportionality, and his acceptance that much of the site was not optimum GHB habitat. Neither NE nor the appellant’s ecologists thought additional work (twice a month for a complete season) was justified. Attempts to reference another site in Norfolk with doubtless different circumstances simply added to the impression that the Council’s witness was seeking to justify a stance adopted late in the day by Dr Turtle, and not supported by NE, rather than applying proportionate judgment to the circumstances here.
5.41 The criticism regarding the “hot spots” and Menacuddle Farm fails to acknowledge that the hot spot there was identified by the automatic surveys, which led to conclusions regarding significance and mitigation in the ES. Whether or not Menacuddle Farm is a roost site, it is not within the appeal site or developed by these proposals. Any bats crossing the site to the east of Menacuddle Farm have been recorded, their impact assessed, and the mitigation designed with the importance of the location in mind. The area marked green on the Ecological SCG does not need to be protected in its entirety since it largely comprises fields which are not good bat habitat. The features proposed for retention and enhancement are those of significance for the bat population. Reptiles
5.42 The criticism that reptile refugia should be in place two months before survey was not maintained by the Council’s witness in cross examination. He accepted that the use of straw with the refugia was appropriate and that an appropriate density of refugia had been used. He then made allegations with regard to (i) the competence of the surveyor and (ii) the temperature on some of the days surveyed. This resulted in an email from the ecological surveyors with the details of the surveyor.42 Although the sheet clearly refers to the temperature only as “start”, no attempt has been made to ascertain the temperatures beyond the start times. Moreover, there clearly was usage of the refugia on most occasions, regardless of the start temperature, though not the sort of variation which suggests that there is a large population. An assertion was made that each of the reptiles surveyed was a different individual, with maybe 20 or more reptiles present. This is not supported by the evidence. Breeding birds and barn owls
5.43 Breeding birds and barn owls were scoped out by the Phase 1/preliminary survey. Whilst the Council’s witness sought to express some contrary views, he could not overcome the fact that the purpose of the Phase 1 exercise was to determine whether further work was necessary. Moreover, although barn owls were scoped out, as a precaution, joint surveys were made for them at the same time as the surveys for bats (including the emergence surveys), a process supported by NE. It is common ground that
41 CD7/9 page 25 42 Document WH9
such birds would be easy to identify. The criticism of this approach should be read in the context that birds were scoped out of the ES for reasons which are clearly explained in both the Phase 1 survey and in Chapter 6 of the ES. Furthermore, the Barn Owl Trust’s consultation response focused on habitat improvement and providing a roost by way of compensation or mitigation on a precautionary basis; the Trust did not object to the development. Mitigation
5.44 The mitigation and habitats enhancement has been designed on a precautionary and flexible basis. Even if it became clear, as a result of the supplementary surveys at the reserved matters stage, that there were larger numbers of species (e.g. reptiles) or a bat roost at the Carwollen Farmhouse, there is sufficient flexibility to design appropriate mitigation. The retention of the farmhouse and the enhancement of bat roosts have already been considered, and a decision would be taken at the detail stage once it is possible to obtain safe and licensed access to the building. Conclusion
5.45 For the above reasons, the ecology objection should be rejected. The Council’s concerns have been exaggerated. A fair appraisal of the material and of the guidance leads to the conclusion that the evidence is not deficient. NE’s support for this view lends it considerable weight. The Council witness’s misconceived attempts to question NE’s competence and at the same time to assert that NE had changed its view on 8 April 2010 only goes to support the conclusion that he found himself arguing the Council’s position in this case rather than providing an objective assessment.
Landscape and other matters
5.46 The appellant conducted a comparative landscape analysis as part of its assessment of the application. 43 This concluded that the appeal site was the most preferred site for development. Some of the sites listed in the SHLAA, for example, are subject to landscape and countryside designations which the appeal site is not. CABE, in addition, determined that the visual impact would not be great in wider views and that views out would be positive.
5.47 The Council’s objection to the appeal proposal on grounds that it would lead to harm to the countryside is based solely on the alleged lack of housing need. In contrast, the appellant does not consider that harm would arise, based on an assessment of all the relevant factors. While the site is visible from medium and longer views, St Austell sits in a bowl of development and the appeal proposal would present as an extension of the existing urban development. Its landscape expert concluded that there does not appear to be any basis in terms of landscape and visual impact as to why this appeal should not be upheld.44 The SHLAA45 also did not consider that there would
43 CD1/5 Planning Statement 44 Mr Harris Appendix EPP34 - statement Ms Katharine Mayhew of WSPE, paragraph 3.1.4 45 CD9/19
be objectionable landscape impact: it also shows that the site scores very highly, still better if account is taken of the agreed highways solution.
5.48 Local residents, including SOUL, have raised issues regarding flooding and highways. These are agreed by the Council and the Environment Agency to have been resolved. Further responses to late evidence by SOUL have been submitted on behalf of the appellant.46 These support the view that the measures proposed would not only deal with the issues arising from the development itself, but would also ameliorate the current off-site situation which has been described by local residents. Highways concerns would be addressed by improvements to local highway intersections and by the additional routes within the appeal site that would divert traffic away from existing highways.
5.49 Similarly, the flood prevention measures would result in an improvement to the existing situation. The surface water drainage strategy seeks to better the Environment Agency requirement which restricts the total discharge from the appeal site to no more than the theoretical greenfield run-off rates for 1 and 10 year storms. By ensuring that surface water run-off generated by development is dealt with entirely within the confines of the site, an overall reduction in flood risk would be secured. A network of infiltration trenches, swales and detention basins around the downhill perimeter of the scheme would accommodate substantial volumes of water, thereby intercepting the existing sheet water run-off from the site that causes flooding downstream.
Localism and Conclusion
5.50 This appeal is brought to address the concerns of the current Government in its recent White Paper Local Growth,47 namely (i) the requirement at paragraph 3.1 to meet housing demand, which is one of the main purposes of the planning system, and (ii) the acknowledgment that housing is an important driver of economic development. The Council and objectors fix on the Government’s localism policy as a reason to create further delay by putting off any significant degree of housing development for a significant period of time while the Core Strategy is prepared. The CCS has yet to be fixed upon by the Council, however, and even the earliest Options and Issues paper, which is currently due in January/February 2011, has yet to be approved finally by the Council.
5.51 The vice of the prematurity objection is recognised by long standing policy currently found in paragraphs 17-18 of PSGP. That vice is that the CCS will not be completed within a short period of time and has already slipped significantly in its timetable; further delay is a recipe for more uncertainty and a continuing failure to provide homes to meet demand. That uncertainty also undermines the site’s ability to contribute to sustainable economic development through the provision of new homes, high quality employment land and new community services, including a much needed new school. The Council’s interim RAP48 underlines the need for large scale
46 EPP35, EPP36 and EPP40 47 CD2/18 48 CD9/17 and 9/18
development to be released within the next few years to deliver community, economic and sustainability benefits.
5.52 Contrary to suggestions made, the appeal proposal is not inconsistent with the aims of localism. The needs sought to be met are consistent with demand, and there has been significant advance consultation with the local community. It is true that the proposal is contrary to the wishes of objectors, but there is a tendency to treat adequate consultation as meaning consultation that leads to a result that the consultee wishes to be achieved. The fact that some local people are vocal in their opposition does not mean there has been inadequate consultation (or that the objection represents a majority view, which it does not).
5.53 The proposals are in accordance with the development plan given the highly sustainable features they incorporate and which could not be replicated on a smaller scheme. PPS3 paragraph 72 does not allow the Council to rely on prematurity alone to defeat an application, which is what it seeks to do. In any event, the Council accepts that where housing supply is below 5 years, its prematurity argument falls away. In circumstances where there is a need within 5 years and an affordable housing need which is acknowledged regardless of the 5 year supply position, there are no other objections (such as development outside the St Austell envelope, loss of agricultural land, and so on) which justify refusal.
5.54 The concern with regard to ecological surveys was raised late and is not supported by NE. The credibility of the Council’s case is reduced by its failure to raise such concerns at the scoping stage or at the time of the submission of the ES; at no time was a Regulation 19 request made or threatened. The Council’s approach at the inquiry lacked objectivity and has been one of over-prescription and a dogmatic adherence to aspects of guidance which does not properly take account of the extent of survey work carried out. The pre-ES reports, the ES and the appellant’s evidence properly convey the level of relevant and likely significant effects and allow an informed decision to be made. The flexibility available for mitigation following supplementary surveys means that there is no difficulty with accommodating appropriate mitigation without breaching the 2010 Regulations. The Secretary of State can properly proceed on the basis that the statutory duties are complied with.
5.55 The appellant asks the Secretary of State to support its conclusion that his new policy of localism should not be permitted to be used as a means to delay delivery of much needed market and affordable housing, significant local benefits or sustainable sites to meet that need. Nor should the Council be able to meet that policy and the need for an “early review” by pursuing a Core Strategy which is unlikely to be adopted until 2013 or 2014.
THE CASE FOR CORNWALL COUNCIL
6.1 This is a strategic proposal of very great significance for St Austell. It is probably the largest single planning application for housing ever made here; possibly the largest scheme to come forward in Cornwall outside the policy framework of the development plan. In terms of housing alone it would add about 10% to both the existing population and stock of dwellings in the
wider St Austell area. Its scale was recognised by CABE who stated that “the expansion would be very significant for the town and the county” and “the impact of such a large scheme on the existing community would be immense”.49
6.2 The issue is whether there is a need for the development which overrides the clear policy objections to it; a need which it is claimed is so urgent that it cannot await the adoption of the Cornwall Core Strategy (CCS) in about April 2013. The evidence does not bear that assertion out.
Development plan and emerging policy
6.3 The appeal site is a large 52 hectare greenfield site lying beyond the identified development boundary for St Austell as delineated on the Proposals Map of the Restormel Local Plan, which runs to 2011.50 The appellant accepts that the proposal is accordingly contrary to the provisions of the development plan. It is the Council’s case that the proposal is contrary to policies 1 and 3 of the Cornwall Structure Plan, which runs to 2016, and RLP policies 3, 18, 19 and 66.51 Therefore, in accordance with section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, the appeal should be dismissed unless material circumstances indicate otherwise.
6.4 The scheme was conceived at a time when the previous Government was imposing top-down housing targets through the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West. Further, the emerging RSS was proposing ever increasing dwelling targets for both Cornwall and Restormel in the period 2006-26. At June 2006 the requirement for Restormel was stated to be 8,600 dwellings; by 2007 the Option 1 figure had risen to 10,200 dwellings; in June 2008 the Proposed Changes RSS figure was 15,700 dwellings. The Coalition Government is committed to abolishing the RSS and there is no prospect that the Secretary of State will adopt it in the South West.
6.5 The Coalition Government’s approach is quite different. It intends that local planning authorities should set their own targets through the LDF process, which is precisely what is happening at the moment. Cornwall Council is actively engaged in bringing forward a Core Strategy following its creation as a unitary authority in April 2009. The creation of a unified Cornwall Council has inevitably delayed that process, but consultation on Options is to commence in January 2011 with an anticipated adoption date for the CCS of April 2013. The Council resolved in October 2010 that the levels of growth for Cornwall will not be bound by previous drafts of the RSS, but will be developed through the CCS following consultation on a range of options.52
6.6 Even if the site does prove to be suitable for development through that process, it is a long-term proposal with an 8 year delivery programme according to the appellant; the Council believes it could take longer to build out. Thus taking the draft development programme53 at face value, only 76 houses would be completed by 2013, or 152 if the CCS were delayed to
49 EPP7 & EPP8 50 CD3/2 51 Inspector’s Note – RLP policy 66 is one of the polices listed as not being saved. 52 Mr Cookman Appendix LPA2C 53 EPP29
April 2014. In the 5 year period to March 2015, only 342 dwellings out of the 1,300 proposed are projected to be completed.
6.7 There is no guarantee that the appellant would achieve the timetable of its draft development programme. The Duchy land is not under the control of the appellant, there is no commitment to Wainhomes being the developer of their land, and it is currently a matter for the Duchy as to when they choose to bring their land forward. In relation to several of the other landowners the price for the land still has to be agreed; if the price is not agreed it will need to be decided by a third party, potentially leading to delay to a programme which only allows three months for “legals” to be agreed. Furthermore, given the amount of ecological survey work yet to be done (if the appellant’s case that this can be left until after planning permission has been granted is accepted), this too has the potential to put back the date when development can commence. There is no specific time allowed in the draft programme for ecological survey work to take place.
6.8 Thus the vast majority of houses would come forward beyond the 5 year period. If the appellant was genuinely wishing to address housing needs in the period before the CCS was put in place, it did not need to submit an application in relation to the whole site for 1,300 houses. The July 2010 application for 495 houses comprising the first 2 phases in the north of the site54 was submitted as a “standalone development that brings forward the first 495 dwellings” and “the approval of this application is not dependent on the remaining phases of the Northern Expansion as it meets its own development needs, for example open space.” The Council’s criticism of the scheme being detached from the urban area could no doubt have been addressed by bringing forward land in the southern part of the site which was originally proposed by the appellant to be part of the first phase of development of the whole site. The appellant’s evidence that had planning permission been granted for the 495 application, the 1,300 dwelling appeal would probably have been withdrawn, adds significant weight to the point. There is just no justification for a scheme of this size encompassing the whole of the site.
Five year housing supply
6.9 The appellant claims that the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply such that paragraph 71 of PPS3 is engaged. This is not accepted. The supply of 2,356 over the next 5 years for the Restormel (Mid 2) area implies an annual rate of 471 dwellings. This is significantly in excess of the original Structure Plan rate of 373,55 in excess of the draft RSS figure of 371 and equal to the Council’s Option 1 figure of 471.56 The Council places no reliance on the RLP as this has an end date of 2011.
6.10 In terms of the assessment of housing supply, the differences between the parties are in part due to judgements about the delivery of individual sites in the 5 year period in the current economic downturn. The Council’s evidence on the two remaining disputed sites, sites 8 and 72 in EPP12, should be accepted, both being sites where discussions have taken place
54 CD 9/15 55 Mr Cookman proof, Table 2 56 Mr Harris proof, Table 5
with the developers. Furthermore, the Council’s approach is a highly cautious and conservative one. Not only has a view been taken on the deliverability of individual sites, but in addition a further discount has been made of 20% for outline permissions and 5% for full permissions. There is at least an element of double discounting in this approach. A further potential source of supply comes from sites awaiting completion of a S106 obligation, as exemplified by the recent permission for a 500 dwelling site at Newquay; it is reasonable to anticipate some completions from this site within five years.
6.11 The 5 year housing land supply calculation for Restormel only falls below 5 years if done on the basis of the Proposed Changes version of the RSS.57 Given that the RSS will not be adopted, little weight can be attached to its draft figures. Although in light of the Cala Homes judgement it would be wrong to disregard the RSS figures, the Secretary of State is urged to take a similar approach to that set out at paragraph 16 of the Binhamy Farm, Bude decision letter,58 which gives greater weight to a housing supply based on the CSP than to one based on the PCRSS.
6.12 In relation to St Austell, a conventional residual calculation59 gives a 14.75 years supply (708/48). The appellant’s Table 9 shows that there is more than a 5 year supply based on projecting forward the annual Structure Plan requirement using the appellant’s assessment of supply, with which the Council now agrees. There is no other policy based method of calculating a 5 year supply for St Austell, given that the RSS does not give figures for individual towns.
6.13 The result is that the housing land supply calculation carried out on the basis of adopted and draft policy documents is at least 5 years with the sole exception of Restormel if done on the basis of the RSS Proposed Changes. Given that the RSS will not be adopted, little weight should be attached to that figure. Accordingly it is the Council’s case that paragraph 71 of PPS3 is not engaged.
6.14 Housing completions will not dry up in 2016 as the appellant might appear to suggest.60 The Council will continue to accept the principle of residential development on appropriate sites, as it did recently both at Golphin Farm (107 units) and Burlawn Farm (24 units). The Council is mindful that there continues to be a housing need in the area, including for affordable housing. However the need is not such as to justify the release of a strategic site for 1,300 houses in advance of the LDF process.
Housing proposals in Core Strategy
6.15 Three options for the level of future growth in Cornwall for the 20 year period 2010-2030 are being consulted on from January 2011 through the Cornwall Core Strategy Options Paper.61 The middle option of 48,000
57 See Mr Cookman’s Table 2 and Mr Harris’ Table 5, in each case adjusting the figure for the Council’s deliverable supply from 2,570 to 2,356 as per Mr Cookman’s revised table 5 calculation, reflecting the concessions made in relation to the list of contested sites in EPP12. 58 CD10/1 59 Mr Cookman proof Table 3, albeit with projected completions of 708 as per revised Table 6. 60 Mr Harris proof, Table 10 61 CD9/9
dwellings (2,400pa) corresponds to - although is somewhat higher than - the average number of homes built each year over the last 20 years, namely 2,250pa. The higher (57,000 or 2,850pa) and lower options (38,000 or 1,900pa) are based upon higher and lower rates of in migration.62 It should be noted that the middle option is fairly close to the RSS Option 1 figure of 52,000 (2,640pa). These figures include provision for affordable housing, including the backlog. They have been compiled using best fit locally available data rather than relying on national projections.
6.16 Whichever figure is selected will be subject to testing through the Core Strategy process. What proportion of the total housing should be identified for the Mid 2 area (former Restormel Borough) and how much of that should be directed to St Austell are decisions yet to be made. The SHLAA identifies what opportunities are likely to be available at St Austell. Any matters relating to how the backlog of affordable housing should be dealt with are for the CCS and not for this inquiry. The appeal site enjoys no special advantage over other sites in respect of affordable housing. Any site (other than a small site) will be expected to provide affordable housing at the same rate of 40% required of the appeal site.
Prematurity
6.17 The proper way forward for a scheme of this scale is to promote it through the LDF process. It is a major proposal which will shape the future of St Austell for many years to come and one which needs to be considered in a coordinated way and assessed against all other potential options. It is only through the LDF that all the options for the future expansion of St Austell can be considered and evaluated on a comparative basis, allowing a balanced judgement to be reached on what is the best solution for the town. The Council should be given the opportunity to address housing needs through the preparation of the LDF on which it is currently engaged.
6.18 In advance of the testing of alternatives that will occur through the LDF process, it is not known whether the appeal scheme is in overall terms the most sustainable of the development options for St Austell. The importance of assessing all options is emphasised by the Eco-town proposals which, if appropriate, would allow growth to take place on old mineral working land, thereby potentially avoiding or reducing the amount of high quality agricultural land that might otherwise be lost to development. Some 75% of the appeal site comprises grade 3A (the best and most versatile) agricultural land.
6.19 Nor is it known how development on the appeal site compares in landscape and visual terms with other options around the town. At the moment development in this part of St Austell has kept off the highest ground and below the skyline. The appeal scheme would take development above the skyline from many of the surrounding viewpoints. This is a clear disadvantage of the proposal which may not apply to the lower lying land to the south and south west of the town. Again the weight to be attached to this can only be assessed once it has been tested against other options
62 See pages 13-14 of the Main Document comprising CD9/9, as well as LPA10 - email from Laura Deverill dated the 7th December 2010 produced by Mr Cookman.
through the LDF process. Given the scale of the proposal, allowing the appeal would be premature in advance of the LDF process.
6.20 It is only through the LDF process that there can be full public consultation on all the options available. A decision to release this site now would shut off such consideration and limit the scope for identifying other options through the LDF. The decision of the Secretary of State at Binhamy Farm demonstrates the importance that the Secretary of State attaches to local planning authorities having the opportunity to address the matter through the LDF process63. The decision at St Annes, Lancashire demonstrates the importance attached to the LDF process even in a situation where there is a substantial shortfall in housing; there just 1.5 years was available.64
Ecology
6.21 It is common ground that the appeal site contains protected species, including bats which are a European protected species protected by the 2010 Habitats Regulations. The advice in paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 and paragraphs 4 and 6 of the advice on the Planning Inspectorate website65 is unambiguous. If survey information is missing or inadequate and is needed to establish the extent to which protected species may be affected by the proposed development, then the appeal can generally only be dismissed. That is the case here.
6.22 There has been no adequate survey effort in relation to the rare (Annex 2) Greater Horeshoe Bat (GHB). There are known roosts within 4km of this large 50ha site, as well as a record of a GHB on site close to Carwollen farmhouse in 2009. Good practice in such a situation is clear, namely that surveys be carried out on two separate evenings each month from May to September.66 No good reason has been given as to why this advice should not be followed; indeed the guidelines are engaged even when no GHB has been identified on the site, which is not the situation here.
6.23 Very little survey effort has been concentrated on Carwollen Farm buildings given their potential importance as a bat roost including, potentially, for GHB. If no internal inspection was possible, additional effort should have been expended on carrying out a thorough external inspection. The surveyors, Andrew McCarthy Associates, supply no evidence that a proper external examination took place; if a rigorous scientific examination had taken place one would expect to find it reported, with information given as to its findings. That no such data has been produced strongly suggests that no such examination was carried out. Furthermore, given that no internal examination was possible, one or more automatic bat detectors should have been installed outside the buildings to obtain data over a longer period. These results could have helped inform how the buildings might be used through different seasons when bats are at a different stage of their life cycle.
63 CD10/1 paragraphs 18, 20, 23, 24, 30 and 31 64 Mr Kirby Appendix J paragraphs 14, 15 and 28. 65 Mr Oxford Appendix LPA3B 66 CD7/3 English Nature’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines page 25, and CD7/9 The Bat Conservation Trust’s Good Practice Guidelines page 38.
6.24 The 2010 Anabat survey revealed considerably greater bat activity than had been revealed by the 2009 survey work. Various hotspots of bat activity were identified, particularly at areas D and F as shown on CD1/27. Area F lies to the east of Menacuddle Farm towards the southern end of the site. The Masterplan shows that it is proposed to build over much of this area. Without more survey effort directed to understanding how, why and for what purpose the bats use this area, we cannot know whether this area is particularly important to them and if so for what purpose.67 At the moment it is not possible to assess the potential impact of the loss of this area on the bats that would be affected because the baseline data has not been established.
6.25 Additional survey work is needed to establish what the implications of the appeal proposal are for bats in the various respects set out above. The survey work that has been done so far is inadequate with important data missing. Accordingly the only correct course is to reject the appeal on the ground that basic information which is needed now is not available.
6.26 It is also necessary to consider the 2010 Habitats Regulations. If the Council’s case is accepted, then the criteria which must be satisfied in order for a licence to be granted in relation to bats cannot be met. There is no ‘other imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ to justify the grant of a licence as required by regulation 53(2). Nor could the licensing body be satisfied under regulation 53(9)(a) that there is no satisfactory alternative; this is a matter that will be considered through the Core Strategy process; the evidence is that there may well be other more suitable sites. And given the Council’s evidence on missing and inadequate survey data, nor could the licensing body be satisfied as to regulation 53(9)(b), namely that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species (pipistrelle and GHB) at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.
Conclusion
6.27 Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, Cornwall Council submits that the appeal should be dismissed.
THE CASES FOR INTERESTED PERSONS
Save Our Unspoilt Land (SOUL)68 Introduction
7.1 This appeal is a test case for the Big Society aspirations of the Coalition Government. It is an excellent example of the Big Society at work, and has implications for the Government’s Localism policy as well as Cornwall Council's desire for local policy making and decision taking. The application attracted 1,386 local individual letters of objection and was unanimously rejected by the four bordering Parish Councils, the Town Council and Cornwall Council’s Strategic Planning Committee. Rejection of the appeal would be wholly consistent with the Government’s intention in the
67 Mr Oxford’s Proof paragraphs 7.6 – 7.12 68 The case reported is a summary of the cases presented to the inquiry by SOUL members Mr Henry, Mr Watkins and (for Mr Swales) Mr Preston – see Documents IP1-5 and IP11-14
forthcoming Localism Bill, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph, that "Residents will also be given the power to approve or reject proposals for new housing developments, schools and other buildings in their area".
7.2 SOUL believes that the timing of the appeal was inappropriate, for at the time it was lodged the Council was dealing with several unresolved objections from major consultees, including the Environment Agency on flooding grounds and Cornwall Council Highways on safety grounds. There was also the need for further public consultation on amendments made shortly before by the applicant, who argued that the revisions were only minor in nature and did not necessitate re-consultation. Given the volume of documentation submitted by the applicant at this stage, much of it in response to concerns raised by SOUL and other local people, it was essential that further consultation took place. SOUL contends that the appeal on grounds of non-determination was a strategy used to avoid the opportunity for proper scrutiny of the amendments. The site
7.3 The site is a working farm outside the development envelope of St Austell. There is a history of many previous applications for development on various parts of the site. Whilst the affordable housing tag is being used to try and unlock the proposal, the site offers the most fantastic views over the town and out to sea - SOUL believe this is the real reason for targeting it. Because the site is high ground with fantastic views, it is highly visible from many surrounding places. Currently it comprises the fields which form a green framework between the existing building line and the skyline. If approved, the development would cover the hillside and be seen as urban sprawl from many vantage points. It is misleading to claim this would not entirely change the character and identity of the area.
7.4 The statements about the site’s sustainability and good accessibility to the town centre are misleading, for they do not take full account of the steepness of the hillside. Whilst the assumption that people will walk or cycle to the town, or to the train and bus station, might apply to the downhill journey, it is unrealistic to expect many to walk back up the steep hill to the top of the site. Moreover, the very few who did attempt it would be at personal risk because there are no pavements or lighting for safety. Another aspect of the sustainability argument is the current use of the land for agriculture. It is hard to believe that the use of this farm, which is important for food production, could be thought of as sustainable whilst it is surrounded by brownfield sites as a consequence of the area’s china clay history. Flooding
7.5 The appeal site is 52 hectares of steeply sloping land characterised by a field pattern with boundaries formed by low 'Cornish Hedges'. In periods of heavy rainfall the pasture land has acted as a giant sponge and, together with the hedgerow system acting as barriers, has helped to prevent rainwater rushing down the steep slopes and flooding developments below the site. However, severe flooding has occurred at locations on the southern boundary such as Gribben Road, Ropehaven Road, Hillside Road and recently in Lewis Way. All of these incidents resulted from disturbances to hedgerows or changes to farming practices. More than 800 objections to the development expressed serious concerns about the real possibility of flooding
downstream of the site. The Environment Agency (EA) has stated that "The development of this site has the potential to increase the flood risk in St Austell."
7.6 SOUL commissioned consultants Pdp Green to conduct a peer review of the Flood Risk Assessment. It was very critical of the limited amount of site investigation carried out. This view was shared by the EA, who said that the number of infiltration tests carried out was the number it would usually expect on a 5 hectare site. The EA subsequently withdrew its objection after additional trial pit tests were conducted, yet these were carried out during one of the driest April/May periods on record. The trial pit tests confirm that the conditions on site are variable and can be completely different within just a few metres. SOUL maintains that more trial pits should have been carried out within ten metres of each other in the areas being considered for infiltration, in accordance with SUDS guidance. The actual spacing for the trial pits seems to be more in the region of 50 metres.
7.7 As the most southerly field on this site is already responsible for discharging surface water onto Poltair School playing field, due to a lack of ability to absorb the water currently draining onto it, it is difficult to understand the claim that all surface run-off generated can be disposed of within the site. Both infiltration basins and detention basins require an overflow discharge to cater for 'extreme events', but it is not clear how this would be achieved. Positive discharge has been rejected by the EA and there are no areas of land below most of the proposed basins. And as the areas of infiltration are becoming more restricted, it is questionable whether infiltration is a feasible option for this site. 7.8 It is a requirement at the outline planning stage to demonstrate the principles by which a drainage scheme is to function, but this has not been established. Given the proven flood risk, SOUL believes that it is not acceptable to leave such important matters to be resolved through planning conditions or obligations. Traffic and Highways
7.9 A high percentage of the objectors to the appeal proposal were very fearful of any further increase in traffic volumes, particularly on Tregonissey Road which carries all the traffic destined for Cornwall College and Poltair School. The only meaningful access to the site is the Scredda junction; this would increase further the congestion on Treverbyn Road and subsequently the Tregonissey Lane End junction and Tregonissey Road itself. Carclaze Road also would be affected as it serves the infants schools in that area.
7.10 SOUL commissioned consultants TPP to conduct a peer review of the Transport Assessment (TA). TPP does not believe that the TA complies with current best practice or the latest Department for Transport guidance. The level of traffic generated by the site has been calculated and the impact on the highway network has been assessed using industry standard software. Improvements to local junctions have been proposed and tested to accommodate the proposed level of traffic. Consequently the approach is too focused on car-borne trips and is more in line with the outdated 'predict and provide' methodology. It does not adequately assess the potential demand or impact of trips generated by public transport, walking and cycling, as required by
current national and local policy, which seeks to reduce the need to travel and encourage travel by more sustainable modes.
7.11 Consultants for Wainhomes considered that 15 junctions in St Austell would be affected by the proposals and these were assessed for base years 2010 and 2019, with and without development. SOUL believes that the assessments have not factored-in traffic generated by recent housing development in the area, or those schemes which have planning permission, and accordingly the flows seriously underestimate the real situation. TPP had concerns over 9 of the 15 junctions and demonstrated that a number would operate over capacity as a result of the development. Although the impact of some development traffic can be mitigated through junction improvements, not all of the impact can be mitigated in this way.
7.12 In addition, some of the suggested mitigation measures are considered unsuitable, inappropriate or undeliverable. The proposed carriageway widening and removal of ‘built-out’ pavements at the Treverbyn Road/ Tregonissey Road crossroads is a complete reversal of work carried out a few years ago to slow down vehicles using the junction and improve pedestrian safety. By speeding up traffic using this junction, the proposal would reintroduce the hazard to pedestrians and potentially cause more accidents.
7.13 The introduction of ‘build-outs’ along Tregonissey Road is also questionable. These would remove some of the gaps where vehicles currently pull in to allow other vehicles to pass, and given current levels of on-street parking, they would have little effect on driver behaviour. Cyclists would face more hazards on Tregonissey Road as a result of the build-outs and the realignment of the junction with Lewis Way. As to the additional bus journeys necessary as a consequence of the steep gradients preventing any significant modal shift to walking and cycling, the majority of these buses will end up on Tregonissey Road. Taking account of how much traffic congestion is already caused by buses on this road, this would cause major problems, especially when 'build-outs' are introduced.
7.14 The developers have proposed Hillside Road as a secondary access with traffic signals on Tregonissey Road to control the amount of traffic using this access. It is envisaged mainly as a public transport route. There are several concerns about this, one of which is the gradient of Hillside Road, which makes it difficult to eliminate the possibility of buses grounding. Secondly, to discourage the use of private vehicles, delays at the traffic signals would have to be greater than the alternative route via Treverbyn Road and Tregonissey Road. However, significantly constraining the traffic on Hillside Road would be detrimental to existing residents.
7.15 In conclusion, the transport proposals are poorly thought out and do not demonstrate that the transport impacts of the development would be properly mitigated. The bulk of the strategy is based on old data and outdated techniques. The majority of the issues raised in SOUL’s report have remained unresolved and in most cases have not even attracted any formal response from the appellant. Simply ignoring difficult questions and choosing instead to dismiss SOUL’s claims on the basis that the modelling techniques are not understood is not an appropriate response. Based on SOUL’s evidence, this application should be refused on the grounds that the transport strategy is unacceptable.
Design and community involvement
7.16 The proposed urban design is "not well done" and does not "secure the highest possible quality or design", to quote Development Policy E and the equally clear guidance in PPS1. It is acknowledged, however, that this lack of real quality is not easily demonstrated. What is required is a designer with a proven track record, yet a representative of the appellant’s design company was unable to provide examples of his urban design work, nor give any comfort as regards architecture. The CABE publication By Design states "good design depends on the skills of the designer and the commitment to good design in new development" and that "better practice guidance cannot substitute for skilled designers (who) can design with flair and sensitivity". In this case we have a developer without commitment and a designer without flair.
7.17 The link between design and community (or client) involvement is fundamental to successful design development in any proposal. In St Austell the developer has refused to meet the public (ignoring the two so-called consultations, called a sham by one Councillor). This is confirmed in a letter from a senior Council planner to the Town Clerk, where it is stated that the developer felt unable to fully comply with advice as to best practice in connection with community involvement. Indeed, the developer was so keen to avoid meaningful public consultation that he hired a public relations team to "neutralise the well organised opposition". Had there been proper engagement with the local community, the widespread public objection might not have materialised.
Dennis Bennett, St Austell Town Councillor
7.18 Whilst St Austell Town and its Council are not against development per-se, there is concern about the volume and extent of development which is either proposed or in the pipeline and the lack of planning and coordination which appears to exist at the moment. In terms of housing need, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the validity of the RSS and which housing targets should be worked towards. Whichever targets are used, however, there are more than enough dwellings in the pipeline without building a further 1,300 homes on this totally unsuitable site.
7.19 Planning permission has already been granted for approximately 1,100 dwellings in the St Austell area, while the Eco-town has received Government approval and preliminary funding and could deliver 5,500 dwellings. Two large scale developments to the west of St Austell are at the pre-application advice stage and could potentially deliver over 700 more dwellings, and over 500 dwellings are planned at Carlyon Bay (although many of these may be for holiday use). These schemes clearly demonstrate that there is no overriding need for this development now. Further work is being undertaken by Cornwall Council to develop robust new housing targets and to identify the best areas for future development around St Austell. Therefore the application is clearly premature.
7.20 The site comprises steeply sloping, south facing farm land characterised by irregular field patterns with small areas of woodland and boundaries formed by low Cornish hedges. The whole area and the gardens adjacent to the site contain diverse animals and birds such as badgers, bats, owls, green and greater spotted woodpeckers, bull finches, goldfinches and many other species. All of this could be lost if the character
of the area is allowed to be significantly changed. When surrounded by the scarred landscape created by years of china clay workings, which could be used for development, it seems ridiculous to develop such valuable greenfield land. Furthermore, the removal of the green framework to St Austell would change the character to the northern part of the town in a detrimental way. Maintaining a green buffer between St Austell and the proposed Eco-towns is important to the biodiversity of the area, the quality of life and the overall visual impact of the town.
7.21 The Cornish hedges are critical as barriers to prevent rainwater rushing down the steep slope. Yet despite these hedges there is considerable water run off from this site during periods of heavy rainfall. Recently large swathes of St Austell experienced terrible flooding - currently around 230 households and 400 businesses are recovering from the aftermath of the devastation. The developer has undertaken some infiltration testing on the proposed site but this is believed to be totally inadequate; the Environment Agency has expressed similar concerns. The developer has described the site as "freely draining" and thinks that it can improve the drainage here with a holding tank and SUDS system. Because St Austell is surrounded by clay and there is granite on the site, the claim that it is freely draining is hard to believe.
7.22 South West Water has confirmed that all the existing sewage treatment plants serving St Austell are at capacity and overflows are already causing pollution of the local bathing areas of Par, Crinnis and Pentewan. This development would impact significantly on the Menagwyns sewage treatment plant and South West Water would have to undertake substantial improvements and upgrading of the site in order to accommodate any additional capacity. The Council has major doubts about South West Water's ability to cope with the increased capacity required.
7.23 One of the main concerns of members of the public is the inadequate highways infrastructure in this part of St Austell. The junction of Tregonissey Road and Treverbyn Road has long been congested and over recent years Cornwall Council has tried, unsuccessfully, a number of improvements to this junction. Tregonissey Road, which serves a busy Further Education College, a large secondary school and the biggest brewery in Cornwall, is narrow and regularly congested and at peak times grinds to a virtual standstill.
7.24 There is no feasible southern access to this site. The assumption that Hillside Road could be used is totally unrealistic, the road is far too narrow and steep and the junction into Tregonissey Road is particularly dangerous with very poor visibility. It has been demonstrated that buses would ground unless significant changes are made to the gradient, and large vehicles could never pass on this road. The option of creating a road through the college site would be a marginal improvement; however a large proportion of the site's traffic would still be directed into Tregonissey Road, which is already inadequate for the existing usage.
7.25 The assumption that traffic flows can be mitigated by encouraging walking and cycling from this site appears naïve given the gradients. The top of the site is 260 feet higher than at the bottom of the site, which in turn is about 160 feet higher than the town centre. Elderly people and people with children and pushchairs would find these gradients challenging, if not impossible. Unless local bus services are significantly improved and expanded, which seems highly unlikely in the current economic climate, people will revert to car usage, thereby defeating the object of sustainability.
7.26 The appellant proposes to provide land sufficient to accommodate 9,000 sq m of employment floor space. A recent review of employment sites suggests that there are over 32,000 sq m of Bl, B2, and B8 employment premises in the St Austell area which have planning permission but which are either under construction or not yet completed. This compares with approximately 9,000 sq m of accommodation completed since 2006 and indicates that there is a number of years' supply already built or approved. Employment units remain
unoccupied at the Brunel Business Park, at Charlestown, on the Carclaze Industrial Estate and in the town centre. No work appears to have been done to test the demand for particular types of industrial units or in identifying how meaningful, sustainable jobs can be created in this area.
Graham Walker, Cornwall Councillor and St Austell Town Councillor
7.27 The proposed education provision is totally inadequate. There is virtually no capacity in nearby schools (a total of 25 places in 7 primary and 1 secondary school), some of which are over-subscribed. The offer of land for a primary school and £1.42m towards the buildings would fall far short of meeting the education needs of the development. The education budget in Cornwall has been severely cut back – Poltair school has had £7m funding taken away, and no replacement schools are currently programmed. The current backlog for school maintenance in Cornwall is £26.5m in the primary sector and £45m for secondary schools. It is reasonable to assume that a new school would cost £4-5m, but this would simply not happen given the number of existing schools requiring an up-grade. As a consequence of the development, overcrowding in schools would increase and standards would inevitably fall.
(Inspector’s note: Cllr Walker’s presentation was based on the original education proposal, which was revised before the inquiry. The S106 obligation now proposes either to build a new primary school or to fully fund its provision by the Council).
Steve Double, Cornwall Councillor
7.28 Cllr Double stated that he had lived in the Poltair/Carclaze area of St Austell all of his life. About 75% of the proposed development falls within the Poltair Division which he represents. He has not known a development that has been so unwelcomed by the community. The proposal to build a huge number of houses whilst offering very little to the local community is completely out of step with the desires of the people who live here. The appellant’s claim that extensive public consultation had been undertaken is not shared by the local community, many of whom are still waiting for responses to questions raised at the two public exhibitions. In reality, very little true consultation took place.
7.29 The appellant’s justification for the proposal is that it would address a need for housing in St Austell which is based on RSS projections. But the RSS has been discredited and is being abolished. The intention of the new Government is very clear - it is purely a matter of timing. The housing need figures for St Austell are under review and are being reassessed by Cornwall Council, which is consulting on a new Core Strategy. The current proposals are likely to put the housing need at substantially less than the RSS projections. As has been demonstrated in the Council’s evidence, the five year housing supply for St Austell has been met by existing permissions. Therefore this development would go way beyond what is required.
7.30 The new Government has stated that local communities should be able to determine the housing requirements for future development. Cornwall is embarking on this process. To bring forward a development of this nature at this time would undermine the right of the local community to determine the development it desires and requires. Consequently the application is premature and opportunistic. The local community is not against development in St Austell, for it accepts that the town needs to grow. It is important, however, that the local community is able to determine how and where any development is allowed.
7.31 The appellant argues that this is the only site that would deliver the required housing. This is simply not the case. The Council has had pre-planning discussions with a developer proposing to build a new development west of St Austell, and an application is expected in the near future. In addition, the Eco-town cannot be ignored. The appeal site is only a few hundred metres from the proposed site of the first stage of the
Eco-town development. This project has backing from Government and, despite funding concerns, it is believed it will proceed. This would not only provide a significant amount of housing, but also employment sites and investment in infrastructure that is so desperately needed. Thus there are clearly other options in terms of providing both housing and employment sites.
7.32 The benefits of so-called 'affordable housing' are questionable, for the experience in St Austell is generally not a good one. Many affordable houses built in recent years have done virtually nothing to meet the housing needs of local people, who have been unable to afford them or raise the finance to buy them. Many have ended up being put back on the market as market value houses. Recently produced figures show that the population of this part of Cornwall has grown 10% since 2001, which is far higher than other parts of Cornwall or indeed the country. This level of growth is only achieved by people moving into the area. The appeal proposal would add significantly to this situation and do very little to meet the real need for housing which is accessible to local people.
7.33 Another issue is that of sustainability. This seems to hang largely on the question of proximity to the town and whether or not it is within walking distance. However, it is important to take account of the fact that the site is at the top of a very steep hill. Hardly anyone would consider walking into and back from the town simply due to the steepness of the hill on the way back. Therefore the view that this site is sustainable is open to debate.
7.34 One of the biggest needs in St Austell is the provision of good quality, well paid jobs. There is concern that this development would not actually provide jobs. If the employment space is not developed within 5 years the scheme provides for the land to be sold to Cornwall Council for £1. With the current state of local government finance it seems unlikely that the Council would be able to finance such a development, so it would be left with a liability. The question of Convergence funding has also been raised. To my knowledge the priority projects for the remaining pot of Convergence funds have been drawn up and do not include this site, so there is little prospect of the scheme attracting such funding. Consequently it is very likely that, once again, a very significant amount of housing would be built with no accompanying jobs.
7.35 The Council is proposing to adopt a new planning policy for the St Austell, Clay Country and St Blazey area (the RAP) which will put regeneration at the heart of all new development. Indeed it specifically states that at least one new job must be created for every house built. It also requires all future construction to achieve the highest environmental standards and quality of design, thereby raising the communities' aspirations. The appeal proposal falls far short of these standards. If allowed it would be completely out of step with not only the current desire of the local community, but also the policy for the future. Given the long-term nature of the appeal scheme (10 years or so), to have a situation whereby a development would be out of step with, and indeed contrary to, current planning policy would be counter- productive and detrimental to the community.
Peter Wyper, Treverbyn Parish Councillor
7.36 Part of the appeal site is within Treverbyn Parish, and the Parish Council has submitted a strong objection to the proposal on the general headings of: an exception site outside the development envelope; development not sustainable due to its poor infrastructure; lacks employment opportunities (as distinct from employment land); lacks community facilities; inappropriate use for agricultural land; highways problems have not been addressed;
increased flood risk lower in catchment area; inadequate archaeological surveys; environmental damage, particularly in views of the site from the south.
7.37 Another reason the appeal should be rejected is the issue of community involvement, which PPS1 recognises as being vitally important to planning. Although the appellant argues that proper community engagement took place, both before and during the application stage, the process is widely seen by the local community as a sham. Firstly, not all properties around the edge of the site received letters informing them of the exhibition. Secondly, the questionnaire which sought people’s views is flawed in a number of ways. Thirdly, the second exhibition took place after the application had been submitted, making a mockery of the appellant‘s claim that feedback had been used to modify the proposal. Instead it appears that the developer has chosen to ignore the wishes of the local community. If decision makers are to do more than pay lip service to community involvement, then this appeal should be rejected on grounds which include the failure to properly involve the affected communities.
Richard Ward, Campaign to Protect Rural England
7.38 CPRE objects to the proposal for the reasons set out in its letter of 29 July 2010. In brief the reasons are: • The proposal represents a major expansion of St Austell which is not allocated for housing in the development plan. As the appellant’s reliance on RSS housing targets is outdated, the provisions of the development plan should prevail. • There is no basis for the claim that the site is the only one available for the future expansion of St Austell. Under the plan-led system, decisions about the future growth of St Austell are for the LDF process, which enables the community to be fully engaged and all options assessed. • The claim that there is not a five year supply of housing land, as required by PPS3, is disputed. All parties agree that the supply would not be exhausted in the next two to three years, so any argument based on a mathematical need is a desperate attempt to gain approval for this site in advance of others which might be more suitable. • The land is classified as ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land which should be protected to help sustainable food production. • The infrastructure in St Austell is at capacity and cannot cope with any further development. The contributions proposed would not be sufficient to prevent a deterioration in local infrastructure. • The sustainable construction benefits claimed by the appellant are no more than national requirements for new homes and are below Eco- town standards. • The claim that the site is the most sustainable for St Austell’s expansion requires a thorough comparative assessment which should be addressed through the LDF process. The Eco-town proposal should also be part of this process. • The Government’s localism agenda requires decisions for St Austell to be taken by the local community using the vehicle of the LDF.
• Although the developer is intending to provide a significant amount of affordable housing, a better approach would be to bring back into use the 8,000 empty homes in Cornwall, thereby obviating the need for new capacity.
Stephen Gilbert MP (statement read by Mr Champion)
7.39 The proposal would see 1,300 new houses installed to the north of St Austell. Currently, the town has about 10,000 homes and about 20,000 people. Already the town feels full. Like many, Mr Gilbert had been stuck on Holmbush Road during rush hour for what felt like an eternity, and had spent 30 minutes trying to get out of the ASDA car park. As an MP he sees many people who have suffered the consequences of this over population - families whose children are split between schools, or pensioners who can't find a dentist without travelling for hours on the bus. The problem is the infrastructure. St Austell lacks the roads to cope with the cars and the drainage facilities to service the homes. This would become much worse if St Austell were extended by an extra 13%, especially when there is no need.
7.40 Much has been said about the need for affordable housing. There is no doubt that the cost of buying a home in Cornwall is a great problem for young people. But the way to address this problem isn't just through building more and more housing stock. Mr Gilbert is pleased that the Coalition Government has a commitment to finding a way to bring the 8,000 empty houses in Cornwall back into use. These houses are lying untouched, derelict and in need of repair. But with the right investment, they could help provide a quality first home for young people without ruining the beautiful countryside that makes Cornwall so special.
7.41 As well as his concern about the impact of the development on the town, and the absence of any real need, Mr Gilbert does not feel the residents of St Austell have had any chance to have a say. The exhibition that the appellant undertook was far removed from a full, proper and comprehensive public consultation. And now, by taking this application to appeal, there is concern that the future of St Austell might no longer be decided by a group of elected representatives but, instead, by the Secretary of State. These aren't the actions of a company interested in helping the community through the provision of affordable homes and new public services. Instead, they are the actions of a company trying to use the back door to put profit before need. Eileen Oatey
7.42 My house on Tregonissey Road was flooded in November 2010, causing £2,000 damage. 59 houses and flats have been built on the hill above my property, taking much of the land that used to act as a soakaway. Given the totally inadequate drainage now, the proposed development would exacerbate this problem, particularly as weather patterns are becoming more extreme.
David Champion
7.43 The ecology section of the ES is deficient in that it fails to mention species of birds that are seen in the area. These include green woodpeckers, buzzards, barn owls (though not seen often) and pheasants. The countless acres lost to the development would destroy the habitat used by these birds.
David Brokenshire
7.44 Mr Brokenshire submitted photographs of (i) flooding close to the appeal site in 2000 and (ii) traffic congestion on nearby roads.69 He read out a newspaper item on flooding at St Blazey where a development of 150 houses by Wainhomes had taken place.
Mike Husband
7.45 It is important to observe traffic conditions on Tregonissey Road, it is not good enough merely to read the submitted statements. The regular flooding that occurs on this hillside demonstrates that soakaways do not currently work; the proposed development would make matters much worse.
Sylvia & Peter Williams
7.46 There is a big diversity of bird life on the site which has not been taken into account. Mistle thrushes, barn owls, goldcrests, sparrows, swallows and other species have been observed and cuckoos have been heard. These would be lost for ever if the development took place.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
8.1 Some 22 individual letters of objection70 were submitted in response to publicity about the appeal. Most writers focus on the same main issues as those who spoke at the inquiry, including: • Loss of a greenfield site outside the development envelope for St Austell. • Loss of high quality agricultural land which should be retained for food production. • Development on a highly visible skyline would be detrimental to the setting of St Austell. • Absence of need now that the RSS housing target no longer applies and a five year supply of housing land can be demonstrated. • The nearby Eco-town would be more sustainable, for it would provide houses on previously-developed land. • Land to the west of St Austell is a potential alternative site for major expansion. • The proposal is premature pending preparation of the LDF. • Much of the affordable housing developed recently is too expensive and does not meet the needs of local people. • On-site percolation testing was poor and proposals for dealing with surface water run-off are inadequate, leading to further flooding in future. • Inadequate local sewerage network and lack of capacity at treatment works which will take many years to up-grade. • Heavy traffic congestion on the surrounding road network, particularly Tregonissey Road.
69 Photographs 1 and 2 70 IP15
• The proposed highways modifications would reduce pedestrian safety and increase the risk of accidents. • Hillside Road is completely unsuitable to take 25% of site traffic and would cause significant problems for existing residents. • Reliance on increased cycling and walking does not take into account the steep topography of the site. • The infrastructure in St Austell is stretched to a maximum. • The ecological appraisal was inadequate, and the development would lead to a significant loss of wildlife. • High density housing backing on to existing dwellings would be out of character and cause loss of residential amenity. • The employment proposals provide no certainty that jobs will be created, especially if the land transfers to the Council. • There is already a plentiful supply of employment sites and buildings in the locality. • There was no proper consultation with the public, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the development. • The local community should be allowed to determine the future growth strategy for St Austell through the LDF process. • The Secretary of State’s decision at Binhamy Farm, Bude, in which a five year supply was found to exist and the proposal was considered premature in advance of the LDF, sets a clear precedent.
8.2 The Highways Agency does not object to the development subject to the imposition of certain conditions. It initially responded on the understanding that the stated proportion of affordable housing (which has lower trip rates than market housing) would be achieved. A subsequent response advised that, following sensitivity testing, any variation in the proportion of affordable housing would not significantly alter the impacts of the development on the A30.
CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS Conditions
9.1 Lists of planning conditions were produced throughout the inquiry and discussed between the parties. The final version (INQ12) is, for the most part, an agreed list. At Annex A to this report I attach a suggested list of conditions, with reasons, which is based on the final version and the discussion at the inquiry session on conditions. Where necessary I have made minor adjustments to the wording to ensure compliance with Circular 11/95: The use of conditions in planning permissions or to improve consistency.
9.2 I am satisfied that, for the reasons given, the suggested conditions are necessary and meet the other tests of the Circular. Most are self- explanatory and are based on policy requirements. In accordance with DCLG: Greater flexibility for planning permissions I have added a condition
which requires the development (other than that subject to reserved matters approvals) to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Section 106 Obligation
9.3 A completed S106 unilateral obligation71 was submitted on the final day of the inquiry; the appellant made revisions to the draft72 in response to matters raised by the Council and me during the inquiry. An explanation of the provisions of the obligation and their phasing is given in document WH8. The principal matters are summarised below:
(i) Affordable housing: 40% of all dwellings would be affordable housing (520 homes on the assumption of 1,300 dwellings). 156 homes (30% of that 40%) would be social rented dwellings. Social rented dwellings would be provided to Code 3/HCA design standards if there is public subsidy; if not they would be built to Building Regulation standards. The rest of the affordable housing would be intermediate (shared ownership) tenure. The affordable housing would be delivered in a phased manner alongside the open market housing.
(ii) Education: Either provision of 1.5 ha of land for a new primary school and a contribution of £3,771,678 (being the estimated cost of building the school) to the Council prior to the occupation of the 200th dwelling, or construction of a primary school and transference of the site to the Council for a nominal sum prior to the occupation of the 500th dwelling (or if earlier, 2 years after the occupation of the 200th dwelling). The school is needed because there is no spare capacity in the existing schools in St Austell; the size of the facility (minimum 5 classrooms) would be directly proportionate to the number of children that the development would produce.
(iii) Healthcare: A contribution of £577 to the Council for every open market dwelling. This figure is based on the cost of improvements to one or more existing doctors’ surgeries in St Austell to accommodate one additional GP.73
(iv) Public transport: Provision of a bus service to the town centre and a community transport hub, together with a contribution of £320,000 towards funding public transport. This sum is derived from the cost of providing an additional bus and driver (£80,000 pa) for 4 years.74
(v) Transport infrastructure: A phased programme of off-site highway improvements, pedestrian and cycle links, signalisation and bus control measures, and other enhancements to the local transport infrastructure. A Travel Plan would be implemented, managed by a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. A contribution of £1,660 per dwelling would be paid in tranches for wider transport measures in St Austell. This figure is taken from the lower of two formula-based assessments of the cost of a range of specific transport improvements programmed in
71 WH11 72 WH5 73 See CD1/31 pages 41-42 74 LPA12
the town to alleviate problems caused by the additional traffic generated by development.75
(vi) Employment: Provision of sufficient land, ready for employment development, to accommodate 9,000 sq m of employment floorspace, and provision of live/work units. The Council has an option to acquire for £1 any employment land in the first phase that has not been developed within 5 years.
(vii) Environment/sustainability: Construction of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. Reduction in the carbon footprint of the development by ensuring that either 20% of the energy consumed is derived from renewable resources, or that the energy consumed is reduced by 20% below the requirements of the Building Regulations.
9.4 The Council stated at the inquiry that the structure, content and wording of the S106 obligation is considered to be fit for purpose and would deliver what is intended. It also confirmed that there were no substantive matters that had not been included either within the obligation or in conditions. The sole remaining matter of concern was the inclusion of clause 3.15, which says that no contribution shall be payable unless the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspector states in the decision letter that the requirement for that contribution is a material consideration pursuant to Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, and sets out why the three Regulation 122(2) tests are met. The Council believes that there is no power which would require the Secretary of State to make such statements.
9.5 The appellant indicated that clause 3.15 had been inserted because, prior to the inquiry, it had not been provided with sufficient information to satisfy it that the contributions would be lawful under the three tests. It was now satisfied, from evidence supplied by the Council to the inquiry, that all contributions were necessary, directly related to the development and of a reasonable scale. The appellant submitted that clause 3.15 should not cause a problem because the decision maker is required in any event to reach a view on the Regulation 122 tests.
75 LPA12
CONCLUSIONS
(In this section the numbers in square brackets refer to the relevant paragraphs in the preceding sections of the report)
10.1 Based on the evidence given at the inquiry, the main considerations in this appeal are: (i) whether there is a pressing need for the proposed housing, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and PPS3; (ii) whether the release of this large site would be premature in advance of the Council’s Core Strategy; (iii) whether the ecological information is sufficient to enable a determination which complies with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
Housing need Development plan
10.2 The appeal site is an extensive tract of farmland which abuts but lies outside the north-western edge of the development envelope for St Austell, as defined in the Restormel Local Plan. The proposal is contrary to RLP policy 3, which seeks to safeguard the countryside outside development envelopes for its beauty and landscape and for its ecological, agricultural and recreational value. The RLP is somewhat dated and, with an end date of 2011, its relevance is limited. RPG10, which at present remains part of the development plan, runs to 2016. It identifies St Austell as one of the locations for major new investment and encourages appropriate housing and employment development in sustainable locations. [2.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.3]
10.3 The RPG10 dwelling requirement for Cornwall is carried forward in the Cornwall Structure Plan, which was approved in 2004 and is the most recent component of the development plan. The CSP proposes 5,600 dwellings for Restormel and 2,200 for the St Austell area by 2016. Housing sites should be within existing built up areas, preferably using previously-developed land, or if such land cannot be found, on urban extensions with good public transport links. Strategic CSP policies seek sustainable development through conserving the County’s character, meeting needs where they arise, reducing the need to travel, and using resources prudently by, amongst other matters, protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land. [3.3-4]
10.4 There is a potential conflict between the RLP, which seeks to protect land outside defined urban areas, and the acknowledgement in the CSP that land for housing development may require urban extensions. Being the later plan with an end date of 2016, the CSP has greater weight. Both RPG10 and the CSP identify St Austell as one of the key locations for development. Thus, interpreting the development plan as a whole, it is reasonable to conclude that if the CSP housing need to 2016 cannot be met from land within the St Austell urban area, urban extensions such as the appeal site are not necessarily in conflict, subject to the sustainability and other criteria being satisfied. [3.2, 3.4]
Calculation of housing supply
10.5 The future housing supply position is broadly agreed between the parties, though differences on three sites remain. It is based on the individual site trajectories (for sites over 10 dwellings) set out in the Housing Land Supply SCG, updated to reflect the concessions made by the Council at the inquiry. The agreed position for St Austell and the parties’ respective positions for Mid 2 (the former Restormel area) are set out in INQ10. The starting point is the total sites with planning permission (column 1); these figures exclude (i) sites where a resolution to grant planning permission has been made but a S106 obligation has not been completed, and (ii) allocated sites without planning permission. [5.14]
10.6 From this total supply the five year supply is calculated by a two stage deduction process. Firstly, an assessment is made of the likely yield from each large site (10+ dwellings) over the five year period, based on the PPS3 criterion of ‘deliverability’. This requires sites to be available, suitable and achievable, having regard to the further guidance at stage 7 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance. The deductions from the total supply comprise the agreed completions for years 2015/16 and beyond identified in the SCG site trajectories, plus the completions conceded by the Council at the inquiry to be outside the five year period (or, for Mid 2, the appellant’s view of additional completions outside the five year period). This gives the figures in column 2 of INQ10. Secondly, a non-implementation allowance is made, reducing the completions on sites with outline planning permission by 20% and those with full planning permission by 5% (column 3 of INQ10). The resultant figure for completions in the five year period April 2010 to March 2015 is given in INQ10 column 4: for St Austell the agreed supply is 708 dwellings, for Mid 2 the Council’s figure is 2,356 dwellings and the appellant’s is 2,284 dwellings. [5.14, 6.9-10]
10.7 The difference in the Mid 2 figures arises from two specific sites. For site 8, Tregarn Hotel at Newquay, recent information from the developer indicates that the scheme of 64 dwellings will be built out in one phase commencing in May 2011. On this basis it is reasonable to adopt the Council’s position that the site will be completed by March 2015. For site 72, Trevenson Road at Newquay, the parties’ positions became polarised during the inquiry, the appellant moving from its initial assumption of 120 completions to zero, while the Council acknowledged a likely reduction from 150 to 131 completions. Given that a major developer is actively involved in negotiations to build a specific number by 2013, the forecast of zero completions by 2015 appears most unlikely. Whilst it might be argued that the Council’s figure of 131 dwellings by March 2015 is optimistic, its justification is that it represents completion of the phase 1 reserved matters approval. It seems to me that the yield from this site is likely to be much closer to the Council’s position than the appellant’s. Consequently, overall the Council’s five year supply figure of 2,356 dwellings for the Mid 2 area is to be preferred. [5.15, 6.10]
10.8 In closing submissions the appellant cast doubt upon the agreed figure of 204 completions from site 48, the Duporth holiday village redevelopment at St Austell. Whilst the evidence clearly suggests problems with viability, the
recent application by one developer to lift the holiday occupation restriction on 48 flats was made with the aim of overcoming this constraint. There would be little point in a developer submitting a planning application and subjecting itself to a thorough viability appraisal if its proposal was not designed to resolve the problem it faced. Bearing in mind that there are two housebuilders on this site, and that the appellant witness’s figure of 204 completions is some 10% below that of the Council, there is no compelling reason to depart from this agreed figure. As a result, the agreed supply of 708 dwellings for St Austell is unchanged. [5.15]
10.9 There is merit to the Council’s argument that the assessment of supply is conservative. The double discounting approach to large sites with planning permission appears rigorous; moreover, nearly all the concessions made by the Council at the inquiry were based solely on the ‘achievability’ criterion of PPS3, specifically the viability of development in the current economic downturn. It is apparent that there is a sizeable potential source of supply waiting to come forward when economic conditions improve; these sites are excluded only because of uncertainty about whether there will be sufficient improvement to enable them to yield completions within five years. [6.10]
10.10 In addition, other sites will be developed. Sites awaiting completion of a S106 obligation, such as the 500 dwelling site at Newquay that now has planning permission, are a likely source of supply, while new windfall sites such as Burlawn Farm at St Austell will come forward and yield dwellings within five years. Thus the supply figures are robust and will probably be exceeded. Moreover, because of the rigorous approach this conclusion stands even if the yield from the disputed sites turns out to be lower than has been assumed. [6.10, 6.14] Assessment of five year supply
10.11 The future housing requirement for the Mid 2 area and for St Austell is not straightforward, for a wide range of figures exists. The starting point for determining a five year supply is the development plan. No reliance is placed on the housing requirement of the Restormel Local Plan, given that it has an end date of 2011. RPG10 remains extant, covering the period 1996- 2016, and proposes an average of 2,050 dwellings per annum (dpa) for Cornwall. However, this figure is not broken down into smaller areas, so no assessment is possible for Mid 2 or St Austell. [3.2, 6.9]
10.12 The Cornwall Structure Plan also runs to 2016 and remains in force. The CSP overall requirement of 2,000 dpa for the County over the 20 year period is slightly below the RPG10 figure, though not significantly so; the CSP can therefore be regarded as broadly in compliance with the RPG. The overall CSP figure is updated to a residual requirement of 1,970 dpa over the 2001-2016 period. These dwellings are distributed across the County, with 5,600 proposed for Restormel at an average rate of 373 dpa. Some 2,200 of these dwellings are proposed to be located at St Austell, giving an average of 147 dpa. [3.4, 5.8, 6.9]
10.13 Updating the CSP figures to April 2010 reveals that, for the Mid 2 area, completions of 5,896 have already exceeded the 5,600 requirement to 2016, so there is no requirement for the remaining years of the plan period. For St Austell, completions of 1,915 give a requirement of 285 for the
remaining 6 years, an average of 48 dpa. Thus, based on a residual calculation under the CSP, the Mid 2 provision has already been met, while forecast completions of 708 dwellings at St Austell represent a supply of 14.75 years. The high probability that considerably more dwellings will be built by 2016 in both Restormel and St Austell than are required to meet these housing targets means that there is no need to release further land to achieve compliance with the development plan. [6.12]
10.14 PPS3 indicates that, in determining planning applications, the assessment of housing supply should be made against an “up-to-date” five year supply of deliverable sites. In determining the appropriate level of housing, PPS3 seeks an evidence-based approach which takes account of current and future levels of need and demand having regard to local and sub-regional evidence from sources such as Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs), Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs), and the government’s latest published household projections. In the time that has elapsed since the CSP was published, an evolving body of evidence connected with the preparation of the replacement RSS and the Council’s Core Strategy has suggested ever increasing levels of housing provision for Cornwall. [5.8, 6.4]
10.15 The first of these, the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy of June 2006, proposed a requirement of 8,600 dwellings for Restormel in the 2006-2026 period, an average of 430 dpa; this is not subdivided, so there is no figure for St Austell. This was followed by a substantially increased requirement arising from revised DCLG 2003 household projections; Cornwall County Council’s response was to propose in January 2007 a rate of 510 dpa for Restormel (the Option 1 figure). After deducting completions of 2,660 dwellings in the 2006-2010 period, the DRSS requirement for Restormel reduces to 5,940 dwellings by 2026, which is 371 dpa or 1,855 over five years. The Option 1 figure of 10,200 dwellings by 2026 becomes 7,540 once completions are deducted, which equates to 471 dpa or 2,355 over five years. As I have determined that 2,356 dwellings are likely to be built in the Mid 2 area by 2015, there exists 6.35 years supply assessed against the DRSS and exactly 5.0 years supply under the County Council’s Option 1 figure. [6.4, 6.9]
10.16 The 2007 West Cornwall Housing Requirements Study (HRS) proposed a range of 520-660 dpa for Restormel, of which more than half (380 dpa) are suggested for St Austell. The supply for St Austell would be substantially below five years if assessed against the findings of this study. The RSS Proposed Changes of July 2008 forecasts a requirement of 15,700 dwellings for Restormel over the 2006-2026 period, an average 785 dpa; as with the DRSS, no figure is given for St Austell. The residual figure of 13,040 dwellings at 2010 equates to 815pa or 4,075 over 5 years; the projected completions of 2,356 dwellings represents 2.89 years supply. [5.8, 6.11]
10.17 The Secretary of State has made quite clear his intention to revoke RSSs, so there is no realistic prospect of the PCRSS housing requirement being imposed on Cornwall. Instead, local planning authorities are currently advised that they will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision for their area, either by retaining the RSS targets or by undertaking an early review of them. There remains the need to collect and use reliable information to justify the targets, as required by PPS3.
Authorities are further advised that if it is considered the right thing to do, they may base revised housing targets on the Option 1 figures, supplemented by more recent information as appropriate. [5.5, 6.4, 6.11]
10.18 In response to the Government’s pronouncements, Cornwall Council has determined that the levels of growth and the strategy for distribution will not be bound by previous drafts of the RSS but will be developed following local consultation upon a range of options. The Cornwall Core Strategy Options (agreed in November 2010) is proposing a range of between 1,900 dpa and 2,850 dpa for the County; the middle of the three options would require some 48,000 dwellings in the period 2010-2030, an average of 2,400 dpa. The middle option lies between the DRSS figure of 2,250 dpa and the Option 1 figure of 2,640 dpa. Because of alternative strategies for the distribution of housing (and other factors) it is not possible to say with certainty whether the forecast completions for Mid 2 or St Austell amount to a five year supply against the emerging CCS. Nevertheless, in broad terms it seems likely that only if the high growth option is chosen would the predicted supply be significantly less than five years. [6.5, 6.15]
10.19 It is true that, notwithstanding the Government’s intention not to progress the RSS for the South West, the evidence base which led to the PCRSS housing requirement for Cornwall is up-to-date and demonstrates a much higher level of need than would be met by the low or middle CCS options. The high level of need is also supported by other studies, such as the HRS, and by average levels of completions over the past 10 years (about 655 dpa for the Mid 2 area and 213 dpa for St Austell). On the other hand, the Council is developing its own population and household projections which underpin the CCS growth strategies, using locally available data rather than relying on national projections, and has supplied a brief outline of the process. [5.8, 6.15]
10.20 At the inquiry there was no analysis of the models and assumptions that have led to any of the forecasts of housing demand. Moreover, this appeal is not the appropriate forum to determine the future growth strategy for Cornwall or St Austell - a detailed examination of the housing requirement and the models on which it is based are the concern of the CCS process. Nevertheless, in the context of a five year supply of housing it is pertinent to focus on the prime determinant of the growth in housing demand in Cornwall, which is net in-migration. The CCS high growth strategy is based on a return to 2000-2005 levels of net in-migration, whereas recent (2007- 2009) levels of in-migration are consistent with the low growth strategy. [6.15-16] 10.21 It is likely that the recent slow-down in migration is connected, at least in part, with the economic downturn. In circumstances where recovery from the downturn is widely predicted to be gradual, especially in the housing market, it seems unlikely that a rapid return to high levels of migration is imminent. Thus if the Council does decide to adopt the higher growth option in the CCS, it is unrealistic to expect that level of growth to occur in the immediate future. This adds a degree of robustness to a housing supply which is likely to be sufficient to accommodate the lower and middle growth options over the next five years. Moreover, even if there is a rapid return to high levels of migration, this is most likely to be associated with accelerated growth in the economy. In such circumstances it is reasonable to assume
that at least some of the potential housing sites that were discounted for viability reasons will come forward, thereby increasing the supply of housing at the same time and partly mitigating any five year shortfall.
10.22 Information about whether or not the affordable housing backlog is included in the CCS growth figures is not conclusive. The draft CCS documents state in terms that backlog is not included, and the Truro report which refers to low and high migration targets of 48,000 and 66,000 dwellings respectively appears to support that position. Yet a note to the inquiry from the Council’s Strategic Development and Policy Manager claims that the sentence about backlog not being included is an error, and affirms that the backlog is included in the Council’s projections. Because there was no opportunity to test this conflicting evidence with a witness who had direct knowledge of the modelling process, it is not possible to reach a firm conclusion on this issue. That said, the most recent evidence, which is from a senior Council officer who would be expected to know, states that the backlog is included. Consequently, whilst acknowledging the importance of affordable housing provision and accepting that the backlog should be factored into the housing need calculations, the uncertainty means that it is not possible to conclude that the CCS growth options are fundamentally flawed for this reason. [5.11, 6.16]
10.23 The appellant argues that the Council’s approach to the appeal proposal is inconsistent with that taken in the recent past to other applications for housing development, where the authority has acknowledged a substantial shortfall against the five year supply. Notwithstanding the important difference of scale (this site being of a wholly different order in terms of its size), the assessments in the other cases were predicated on the high housing demand figures that were anticipated following the publication of the PCRSS. Whilst these assessments were appropriate at the time, the Council has subsequently made clear its intention to use locally derived projections of housing need in its emerging CCS in response to the fundamental change of approach announced by the Coalition Government. As indicated above, the soundness of the projections now being used will be tested through the CCS examination process. [5.13]
10.24 As the appellant points out, most of the identified supply is on sites that will be fully developed over the next five years, leaving a substantial gap in provision for years 6-10. Although PPS3 requires local planning authorities to identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 (and for years 11-15, where possible), that is clearly in the context of plan making through Local Development Documents. Whilst there is explicit reference to the need to demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites under the “Determining planning applications” heading of PPS3, there is no mention here of years 6-10. In the context of a CCS which will establish the strategy for growth over the next 20 years and which is expected to be adopted in 2013, it is both appropriate and desirable that the housing supply beyond five years should be determined through the development plan process. Even if, as the appellant submits, the CCS is delayed by a year or so, the strategy and main areas for growth should be decided in sufficient time to enable sites to provide houses without there being a gap in delivery. [5.17, 6.6]
10.25 In conclusion, when assessed against the CSP (which is the most recent component of the development plan), there exists a substantially greater than five year housing land supply for both St Austell and the Mid 2 area. Nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account the evidence of a rising housing need which has emerged since the CSP was prepared. The most up-to-date indicators of need are the PCRSS and its evidence base, and the emerging CCS. In light of the Government’s intention to abolish RSSs, very little weight should be attached to the PCRSS. Its evidence base is potentially more significant, however, and together with certain other indicators, leads to a finding that the land supply is appreciably less than five years. [5.14]
10.26 On the other hand, adopting current Government advice, the Council has decided not to adhere to the PCRSS-based housing requirement. An assessment against the emerging CCS finds that a five years supply (or thereabouts) is likely to exist for all but the high growth option. Little weight can be given to the CCS given its very early stage of preparation. At the same time, however, the Council’s decision to produce locally-based growth strategies, thereby giving effect to the Government’s desire to see local decision-making replace top-down targets, lessens the weight that should be accorded to the higher housing growth projections based on the PCRSS evidence base. [6.13]
10.27 There is a significant tension between these considerations and no obvious way forward. In these circumstances it might be argued that there is insufficient reason to depart from the conclusion based on the development plan. That approach, however, would ignore the consistent predictions of higher housing need that have emerged since the CSP was adopted. Reliance on the highest of these projections does not reflect the most likely outcome, given the clear intent of the Council to move away from the PCRSS and its evidence base. A stronger case can be made for using the middle growth option proposed in the draft CCS, for despite the lack of testing, it is broadly congruent with the Option 1 figure which the Government has indicated might be an appropriate yardstick. Against this outcome, it is probable that a five year supply of housing land exists. On this basis, the PPS3 paragraph 71 presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission where there is not an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites does not apply. [6.9, 6.13]
Prematurity
10.28 In circumstances where a proposed development is so substantial that granting planning permission could prejudice decisions about the scale or location of new development which are being addressed in a DPD that is being prepared, PSPG says it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity. It also says that where a DPD is at consultation stage, refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay this would impose on determining the future of the land in question. If prematurity is to be used as a ground of refusal, PSPG requires evidence of how the development would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process. PPS3 advises that applications should not be refused solely on the grounds of prematurity, though that does not apply in this case because the proposal is contrary to the development plan. [5.22- 23]
10.29 The appeal proposal is one of the largest housing applications ever made in Cornwall and would increase the housing stock of the St Austell area by about 10%; thus it is plainly “substantial”. Whatever strategy is decided by the Council through the CCS process, it seems highly probable that land for a sizeable number of new dwellings will need to be identified in the St Austell area in the period to 2030. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of the CCS process, it is conceivable that the proposed 1,300 dwellings could represent around 40% of the total requirement for St Austell; even if the high growth option is favoured, the proportion could still 76 be about one quarter. [6.1]
10.30 The SHLAA identifies a significant number of potential strategic sites around the town, including the appeal site and various parts of the eco-town proposal, with an estimated total capacity of almost 15,000 dwellings. The appeal site scores quite highly under the comparative evaluation process and the Council does not dispute that it is a sustainable location for development which is well located to St Austell town centre. The SHLAA is just one aspect of the evidence base that will inform future decisions about site selection, however, and it would be wrong to place undue reliance on its findings. The thorough comparative testing of all potential options, which is such an important part of the LDF process, is the best way of reaching a balanced judgement about the optimum choice of housing sites for St Austell. All that can reasonably be said at this stage is that the appeal site is one of a number of potential candidates which may be required to deliver the housing needs of the town. [6.16-17]
10.31 Consequently, the grant of planning permission now would inevitably reduce the choices otherwise available to the forthcoming LDF site selection process and could prejudice future decisions. In particular, it could affect the eco- town proposal given the Government’s advice that such schemes should be a minimum size of 5,000 homes. The St Austell eco-town has the potential to be highly sustainable, both in terms of the zero carbon and other standards set out in the PPS supplement, and also because it would be built on former mineral workings rather than the high quality agricultural land of the appeal site. It may be, as the appellant alleges, that there are funding and other difficulties confronting the eco-town proposal, but on the evidence submitted to the inquiry it is not possible to reach even a tentative conclusion about whether or not it will proceed, or at what pace. As with the other large sites identified in the SHLAA, the eco-town proposal remains an option that should be considered fully through the LDF process. [5.24, 6.18, 6.20] 10.32 Because of the finding that a five year supply exists, little weight should be given to the argument that there is an immediate need which could not be met by other large sites which have not progressed to the advanced stage of the appeal proposal. There is no compelling reason to suppose that sites selected during the LDF examination process, when factors such as deliverability will be taken into account, would not be able to meet the predicted shortfall in years 6-10 (and beyond). But even if the appellant’s predictions of further delays in CCS preparation were accepted, leading to a
76 My estimate based on the very rough approximation used by the Council of one third of the Mid 2 requirement going to St Austell.
potential gap in supply, that does not justify releasing the whole of the appeal site at this stage. [5.20, 5.24]
10.33 It is clear from the application for 495 houses that the possibility of a phased release of the appeal land has been countenanced; moreover, as the Council points out, a different first phase that is better related to the town might be more likely to succeed if a justifiable need were identified. Of course, the same argument applies - with even greater force - if the Secretary of State were to determine that a five year supply of housing land does not currently exist. Self evidently, the release of a smaller site in advance of the LDF outcome would cause less prejudice to the DPD process. [6.8] 10.34 The intended production of an interim Regeneration Action Plan to guide regeneration in the St Austell and China Clay areas does, as the appellant contends, send a mixed message about the Council’s treatment of large scale land releases in advance of LDF completion. In broad terms the RAP appears to offer the prospect of sizeable mixed use and highly sustainable developments being permitted outside the CCS process. Whilst it is unclear how the RAP will be progressed in tandem with the CCS, it is difficult to understand why any schemes permitted under the RAP would not themselves be prejudicial to the CCS site selection process. Nevertheless, in the determination of this appeal, no weight can be attached to the possible emergence of a non-statutory plan of this nature. [5.12]
10.35 It is true that the employment element of a scheme permitted after completion of the CCS process would be beyond the 2013 end date for European Convergence funding. However, even if this appeal is allowed, there is no guarantee that European money would be forthcoming as there are currently more projects than available funds. Moreover, it is likely that much of the employment development would take place after the Convergence funding programme has closed, so the potential benefit to the appeal scheme as a whole is limited. In addition, it is not part of the appellant’s case that Convergence funding is essential to the viability of the proposal. In these circumstances only limited weight should be given to the potential loss of Convergence funding. [5.28, 7.34]
10.36 The grant of planning permission now would deny the local community the opportunity of determining its preferred choice of housing sites for St Austell. This is particularly important given the Coalition Government’s strong message that such decisions should be taken at a local rather than national level. Without full public consultation on all potential options, such as would occur through the LDF process, a complete representation of local opinion would not emerge and the greater democratic accountability and local ownership of decisions sought in the Local Growth White Paper would not be achieved. The Secretary of State has already demonstrated the importance he attaches to local decision making through the LDF process in his appeal decisions at St Annes and Bude, the former being a case where the housing supply fell substantially below five years. Whilst the specifics of each proposal are different, the principles underlying the localism agenda apply equally to this case. [6.20, 7.30]
10.37 Taking all these factors into account, there is a strong argument that the appeal proposal is of such a scale that to permit it now would prejudice
decisions that ought properly to be taken as part of the LDF process. The full range of options and choices that would otherwise be available to meet the housing needs of St Austell would be constrained if permission for such a potentially large part of that need were granted now. Although the CCS is not yet at consultation stage (albeit that is imminent), the existence of a five years housing supply and the emergence of a variety of sites that have potential to meet the needs in years 6-10 and beyond means that there is no pressing need for the immediate release of this land. Instead, in the interests of local decision making and accountability, the choices should be left to the LDF process. Whilst this would cause some delay in determining the future of the appeal site, a similar delay will occur in any event to the other potential sites identified through the SHLAA process. In the absence of a pressing need, there is no compelling reason to treat the appeal site differently. [6.17-20]
Ecological Information
10.38 The appeal site is characterised by agricultural fields in both grazed pasture and arable uses, subdivided by more intensively managed Cornish hedgebanks. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken as part of the ecological appraisal of the site, supplemented by additional surveys in 2009 (prior to submission of the ES) and 2010. These surveys established that, in broad terms, the site provides habitats of generally low ecological value. Two small areas of higher ecological value were identified, in the vicinity of Menacuddle Farm and around the former Carwollen farmhouse; these are considered to be representative of more traditional farming landscapes and comprise established habitats present at a smaller working scale. [2.1, 5.30] 10.39 There is no dispute that an appropriate level of survey work and assessment has been undertaken to establish the likely presence of, and therefore the potentially significant impacts upon, most habitats and species. The Council’s concern relates to the level of information provided in respect of bats, reptiles and breeding birds.77 For these species, there is evidence of a disagreement between Natural England (NE) and the Council over the amount of survey work required. Nevertheless, there was no formal request for further environmental information (under Regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations) from the Council. [5.31-32]
10.40 The appellant worked closely with NE at the ES scoping stage and throughout the processing of the application. Whilst NE’s final position is difficult to establish as a result of its changed approach to applications, I consider the 8 April 2010 email to be saying that the additional works agreed with the Council in March 2010, with their focus on additional bat and reptile surveys, were all that was necessary to secure compliance with PPS9 and the relevant legislation. These surveys were subsequently carried out. Although NE is careful to emphasise that it is for the Council to be satisfied that adequate environmental information has been supplied, there is nothing in its correspondence to suggest any dissatisfaction with what was proposed. Moreover, this is consistent with NE’s earlier view that a pragmatic approach was warranted. [5.32-33]
77 The Ecology Statement of Common Ground (Document INQ5) sets out the position in greater detail.
Bats
10.41 The appeal site is within 4km of four known roosts of greater horseshoe bats, a rare (Annex 2) European protected species. In such circumstances, English Nature (as then was) advises that surveys to detect commuting routes and feeding areas should be carried out on two occasions each month from May to September. In this case 9 surveys were conducted (over 2009 and 2010) between late April and the end of July. A single instance of greater horseshoe bat activity was detected during the surveys, along with a single instance of barbastelle activity (another rare species). The pipistrelle bat was most commonly recorded, with concentrations of activity around Carwollen farmhouse and to the east of Menacuddle Farm. No bat roosts were discovered. The appellant concluded that there is low- level use of the site by foraging and commuting bats. [5.40, 6.22]
10.42 The Council accepts that the survey times and frequencies satisfy the Bat Conservation Trust recommended guidance for all bat species apart from greater horseshoe. Because this species is rare and therefore difficult to detect, and because bats use different foraging and roosting locations at different times of the year, the authority believes that without survey information for mid-August and September, it is not possible to conclude that the site is not important to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of greater horseshoe bats. It is also concerned that Carwollen Farm was not surveyed in sufficient detail to support the ES finding that it is not used by bats as a roost site. [6.23, 6.26]
10.43 Relevant guidance indicates that the extent of survey work is a matter of professional judgement and should be proportionate having regard to site specific circumstances. In this case the single record of a greater horseshoe bat flying outside the areas of concentrated bat activity, coupled with the fact that the sheep-grazed pasture and arable land of most of the site is not natural foraging territory for this species, suggests that the likelihood of a significant number of greater horseshoe bats being detected during late summer surveys is slim. The failure to comply fully with the guidelines was not identified as a shortcoming by NE, and in my view does not result in a finding that the information is significantly deficient. [5.35, 5.40]
10.44 As to Carwollen Farm, it is true that there is no evidence of a detailed survey of the buildings for signs of bat use, partly because internal inspection was not possible for safety reasons. Limited emergence surveys were conducted and revealed a very low level of use of the buildings by pipistrelles. Crucially, however, the potential of the farm buildings for use by bats was recognised in the ES and it was acknowledged that suitable mitigation would need to be incorporated into the detailed design of the development. Furthermore, because this large scheme would be phased over many years, supplementary surveys would be necessary at reserved matters stage to inform the detailed design. Thus suitable mechanisms would be put in place to ensure the provision of up-to-date information and the deployment of suitable mitigation at the appropriate time, which is shortly before any disturbance to bats would occur. [5.39, 5.41, 5.44]
10.45 Similar considerations apply to the hot spots of bat activity, for the most valuable (albeit small) areas of hedgebank and woodland would be retained within the development. Menacuddle Farm is outside the application site, so
even if it were the focus for the adjacent hot spot, it would not be directly affected by the development. There is no convincing reason why the existing information (supplemented by surveys at reserved matters stage) is not sufficient to enable suitable mitigation to be drawn up which would protect the habitats which are most important for commuting and foraging. Overall, there is sufficient evidence to be confident that the development would not cause significant harm to the favourable conservation status of any bat species, having regard to the commuting and foraging habitats available off-site. [5.41, 5.44] Reptiles
10.46 Following the Council’s withdrawal of its criticism about the time that the refugia had been in place prior to survey, there is no significant dispute about the survey methodology for reptiles, which conformed to good practice guidelines. The surveys were conducted during appropriate weather conditions at a suitable time of the year, while the density of refugia substantially exceeded the guidelines. The notion that each reptile recorded on separate days might be a different individual seems unlikely. The low numbers of slow worm and common lizard identified confirmed the initial assessment, which is that the habitats within the site offer limited opportunities for reptiles. And as much of the most suitable (hedgebank) habitat is to be retained within the development, the information is sufficient to ensure that suitable mitigation can be implemented. [5.42] Breeding birds and barn owls
10.47 Information gathered during the baseline surveys found only common and widespread bird species on the site, while data searches did not identify any rare species in the locality that would be reliant on the habitats present on the site. On this basis, and subject to a suitable mitigation strategy being developed, it was considered that there was no requirement for a detailed survey of breeding birds or barn owls. This strategy was agreed by NE and, at that time, by the Council. In practice, barn owls were surveyed at the same time as bats but none were observed. [5.43]
10.48 It is always possible to argue, as the Council did from May 2010, that the absence of a survey means that it is impossible to establish whether any bird species of principal importance for conservation are breeding on the site. However there is little subsequent indication that noteworthy species might be present and, given the limitations of the habitats to support such species, there is no compelling reason to doubt that the initial (agreed) assessment was wrong. A mitigation strategy to ensure that all birds are properly protected during the breeding season is proposed. This is sufficient to ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [5.43] Ecological information - conclusion
10.49 Circular 06/2005 states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected by development, is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed. It also says that developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development. From the evidence
available, it is reasonable to conclude that all species likely to be present have been surveyed and the impacts of the development on them have been appropriately assessed. The additional information sought by the Council very late in the process, contrary to its earlier advice and that of NE, is not necessary to enable a determination which satisfies the legislative requirements and the relevant case law. [5.29, 6.21]
10.50 This is an outline application for a very large site which is likely to have a long (8-10 year) development period. At this stage it is not possible to establish with certainty how protected species would be using the last phases of the site to be developed, nor what the layout and design of those phases would be. Consequently, supplementary surveys would be undertaken at reserved matters stage to up-date the information base and to ensure that an appropriate mitigation strategy is developed. In the context of a site of generally low ecological value and an overarching strategy which seeks to ensure that the most valuable habitats for wildlife are retained, the proposed conditions and S106 obligations are appropriate mechanisms to ensure that there would be no threat to the maintenance of populations of protected species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. [5.44]
Other matters Landscape and agricultural land
10.51 The appeal site comprises the elevated fringe of farmland between the north-western edge of the built-up area of St Austell and the ridge that is traversed by Mount Stamper Road/ Menacuddle Hill. From many parts of the town this ridge is visible on the skyline, so the area just below it (the site) is perceived as a rim of countryside on the edge of the bowl that contains the settlement. The Masterplan shows development up to the crest of the ridge, resulting in the loss of this countryside rim in views from the south and south east. Although the most prominent locations would be retained as open space, they would essentially be viewed as open areas within the extended settlement rather than part of the surrounding countryside. Based on inspections of the site from many surrounding locations, I consider that the development would have a substantial impact on the setting of St Austell within the immediate landscape. In more distant views the site is either hidden by local topography or seen against a backdrop of higher ground, so the impact of the development would be noticeably less. [2.1, 5.47, 6.19, 7.3]
10.52 Many local people regard the loss of the countryside setting to this part of St Austell as a significant shortcoming of the proposal. It may be, as the appellant submits, that potential alternative sites for major housing development to the south and west of the town would also have significant landscape impacts. They would also involve, like the appeal site, the loss of agricultural land. On the other hand it is reasonable to assume that the Eco-town proposals, by virtue of their location in worked-out china clay pits, are likely to have appreciably less impact on both the landscape and agricultural land. Although the SHLAA gives a preliminary view on these (and many other) matters, this is in the context of an exercise intended to identify sites with potential for development, not to identify those sites which are most suitable. [5.46-47, 6.19, 7.20, 7.31, 8.1]
10.53 The choice of sites is a matter for the LDF process in which candidate sites would be subject to a thorough comparative evaluation; it is not the concern of this inquiry. All that can be said in the context of this appeal is that: (i) the loss of part of the countryside setting to St Austell and the loss of good quality agricultural land are matters that weigh against the proposal, and (ii) it is not possible to reach a considered view on whether, in terms of landscape impact and agricultural land quality, the appeal scheme would be better or worse than other potential sites for large scale housing development. [6.19] Flooding
10.54 Parts of St Austell situated lower down the hillside from the appeal site experience flooding in periods of very heavy rainfall. There is persuasive evidence that a significant volume of flood water originates on the appeal site and takes the form of a sheet flow off the farmland once the ground becomes saturated. The surface water drainage strategy proposes to intercept the peak run-off through a network of infiltration trenches, swales and detention basins constructed across the site and particularly around its south-eastern edge. By restricting the total discharge from the site to less than that required by the Environment Agency, the strategy aims to reduce the existing sheet water run-off during storms and thereby alleviate the flooding that currently occurs. [7.5]
10.55 SOUL believes that, because ground conditions are so variable across the site, the infiltration testing was inadequate. It is also highly sceptical of the proposed drainage strategy, particularly the ability of the attenuation measures to accommodate storm water when the capacity of this greenfield site to act as a sponge would be substantially reduced by development. There is evidence that the Environment Agency had similar concerns about infiltration, though after further tests it was satisfied that the strategy would function satisfactorily. [7.6-7]
10.56 Flooding is clearly a serious problem locally, so SOUL’s points – including its concern about the risks associated with leaving the detailed design to reserved matters stage – are not without merit. There was no testing of the technical evidence at the inquiry, however, and given the acceptance of the strategy by the Environment Agency, the weight of evidence does not support the view that the development would result in greater surface water run-off and exacerbate downstream flooding. Indeed, the design objective of reducing storm water run-off from the site gives the scheme a degree of robustness. [5.48-49, 7.8] Traffic and highways
10.57 Because some routes through St Austell in the vicinity of the site already suffer from peak-time congestion, it is understandable that local residents are concerned about a proposal which would add substantially to traffic flows. A wide range of measures and techniques intended to cater for the additional traffic are proposed. Whilst many of the improvements to existing highways appear unspectacular, they have been subject to normal testing procedures and the overall package of measures has been found to
be satisfactory by both the Highways Agency and the local highway authority (Cornwall Council). [5.48, 7.9-11]
10.58 SOUL criticises what it regards as a manual-based approach, yet without detailed expert scrutiny of the technical evidence at the inquiry, the appellant’s case was not seriously challenged. There is some merit to the argument that the steep gradients limit the prospect of a significant increase in journeys on foot and by bicycle, but some modal shift is likely as a result of the bus service through the site. Overall, in the absence of compelling evidence that the solutions identified would not work, an objection on traffic and highways grounds cannot be sustained. [7.4, 7.11- 15, 7.33]
Employment
10.59 The provision of 9,000 sq m of serviced employment land as part of a mixed use development is unquestionably a significant benefit of the proposal. There is no evidence of an immediate shortfall in the supply of employment land, though much of the existing accommodation available is in older buildings. With Convergence funding ending in 2013, and the programme already over-subscribed, there is little realistic prospect of the employment element of the scheme benefiting from such assistance. In the absence of any cogent case for the early release of additional employment land, the choice of sites to meet longer term needs of the area would be more appropriately addressed through the LDF process. [5.28, 7.26, 7.34] Miscellaneous
10.60 The objections to the form and manner of consultation have some justification insofar as the Council required the initial exercise to be repeated. It may be that the exhibitions provided little opportunity for fully engaging the local community, though some alterations were made to the scheme as a result; moreover it seems likely that, for many local people, the only successful outcome of the consultation process would have been the abandonment of the proposal. The allegation that the design is of poor quality is not borne out by CABE’s endorsement of the proposal. The Masterplan appears to be consistent with much of the best practice guidance, including By Design, and there is no real basis for thinking that a poor quality or unsustainable environment would be created. [5.52, 7.2, 7.16-17, 7.28, 7.37]
10.61 Neither these nor any of the other concerns raised by local people add materially to the case against the proposal. Section 106 obligation
10.62 I find no reason to doubt the Council’s view that, in terms of its structure, content and wording, the S106 obligation is fit for purpose and would deliver what is intended. It is also necessary to consider whether the individual obligations satisfy the three tests of Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 - that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. [9.4]
10.63 Given the substantial shortage of affordable housing in the locality, the need for such provision cannot be in doubt; the 40% proportion achieves an appropriate balance between housing need and the viability of the development. The same can be said for the education provision, for there is no capacity in existing schools and the contribution would cater for the number of school children produced by the development. The public transport contribution is specifically targeted towards one additional bus for four years, a period that is often cited as a reasonable subsidy to allow a new service to become viable. The healthcare and transport infrastructure payments are based on a tariff per dwelling; the Council has provided justification for the need and indicated that the mitigation would be proportionate to the impacts caused by the development. All other matters included in the obligation are a necessary and integral part of the scheme and are required by current planning policy. [9.3]
10.64 On this basis it can be concluded that all of the tests of Regulation 122(2) are satisfied. The one outstanding matter is the Council’s concern about the inclusion of clause 3.15, which requires the decision letter to state whether or not each contribution does accord with Regulation 122(2). I share this concern, for it does place the onus on the Secretary of State, who is not party to the undertaking, to carry out a specific course of action in his decision if certain elements of the obligation are to have effect. Whilst there is some merit to the appellant’s point that these are matters on which the Secretary of State is required by statute to reach a conclusion in any event, there remains a doubt in my mind as to the appropriateness of clause 3.15. If the Secretary of State is minded to grant planning permission for this development, he may wish to seek legal advice on this matter. [9.4-5]
Balance of considerations
10.65 The appeal site lies in the countryside beyond the limits of St Austell as defined in the RLP. This part of the development plan is out-dated; although the more recent (2004) CSP does allow for the possibility of urban extensions if there is a housing need, it is certain that the housing targets of the CSP will be met. In Restormel the required number of dwellings has already been built, and in St Austell the target is likely to be substantially exceeded by 2016. Consequently the proposal is contrary to the development plan. [10.13]
10.66 The housing need figures used in the CSP are somewhat dated, so this is a situation in which development plan policies are capable of being superseded by those in PPS3. PPS3 requires there to be an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. Such a supply exists when assessed against the CSP, the DRSS and the Council’s Option 1 figures. Although there is less than a five year supply when assessed against the PCRSS, there is no real prospect of this target being imposed on the Council; moreover, the Council has stated its intention to replace the PCRSS targets with strategies based on locally derived projections. Three strategies are about to be issued for public consultation as part of the LDF process. There is likely to be a five year supply under two of the growth options; only if the high growth option were adopted would there be a significant five year supply shortfall, though factors related to the economic downturn and the subsequent recovery could partly reduce that shortfall. [10.14-21]
10.67 In these circumstances, greater weight should be placed on the factors which point to a five years supply of housing land than those which do not. Judged against PPS3, the paragraph 71 presumption that the proposal should be considered favourably does not apply in this case. PPS3 supports the strategy of planning for the location of new housing through the LDF process, so matters such as the absence of specific developable sites for years 6-10 and beyond do not add materially to the case for the proposal. Overall, the considerations in PPS3 which promote a sufficient quantity of housing, including affordable housing, do not justify the grant of permission now. [10.27]
10.68 The appeal site is one of a number of potential options to meet the longer term need for housing in the St Austell area. The size of that need, and a thorough analysis of the benefits and disbenefts of the options for satisfying the need, will take place shortly through the LDF process. The appeal site is very large and, if it is allocated for development, it is likely that one or more of the other potential sites would not be allocated. Thus the full range of options and choices that would otherwise be subject to testing and public consultation as part of the LDF process would be constrained if permission for a sizeable part of the housing need were granted now. In light of the Coalition Government’s emphasis on local decision making and accountability, there is a strong case that to permit the proposal now would prejudice decisions that ought to be taken during preparation of the LDF. [10.37] 10.69 The appeal site is mostly of low ecological value and, from the outset, was not thought likely to include important habitats for protected species. Statute and case law require the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected by development, to be established before planning permission is granted, though the Government advises that it is not necessary to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of them being present. Following supplementary surveys of bats and reptiles, as required by the Council, the evidence points to there being sufficient environmental information to enable a decision to be made which accords with the legislation. Moreover, as most of the small areas of locally important habitats are proposed to be retained, and a suitable programme of ecological mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures would be secured by planning conditions, there is no real justification for believing that the development would threaten the maintenance of populations of protected species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. [10.49-50]
10.70 The appeal site is in an elevated location on the edge of St Austell; its development would result in the loss of a prominent part of the countryside setting to the town and the loss of good quality agricultural land. It is not possible to say whether the appeal scheme would be better or worse than other potential sites for large scale housing development; that is a matter for the LDF process. Local people have raised a wide range of other objections to the development which the appellant has sought to address. It is evident that matters such as flooding and traffic congestion are a serious concern to many living close to the site. Despite much scepticism in the community, there is no compelling evidence that the solutions proposed to address such matters would not work. [10.51-58]
10.71 There are clearly some important benefits of the proposal. In particular, the early provision of a sizeable number of affordable homes would assist in meeting the needs of the large number of local people who are unable to compete in the housing market. The increased choices in the supply of both market housing and serviced employment land, a range of improvements to local infrastructure, and the prospect (albeit limited) of obtaining Convergence funding for the employment development, are other factors which count in favour of the development. Overall, however, these and other benefits are not sufficient, in the absence of a pressing need for the immediate development of such a large number of houses, to outweigh the conflict with the development plan and the Government’s strong desire that decisions about the future strategy for an area should be taken by the local community through the LDF process.
RECOMMENDATION
11.1 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission be refused.
Conditions if planning permission is granted
11.2 If the appeal is allowed, then consideration should be given to the imposition of conditions on the planning permission as set out in Annex A to this report, for the reasons outlined therein.
Martin Pike
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Adrian Trevelyan Thomas instructed by Solicitor to Cornwall Council of Counsel He called Mr M Cookman Special Projects and Monitoring Group Leader, BSc(Hons) MRTPI Cornwall Council Mr S Kirby Senior Planning Officer, Cornwall Council BA(Hons) DipTP DipUD MRTPI Mr M Oxford Consultant Ecologist BSc MSc
FOR THE APPELLANT: David Elvin QC instructed by Mr Harris, Emery Planning Partnership He called Mr S Harris Associate Director, Emery Planning Partnership BSc(Hons) MRTPI Mr R Gill WSP Environmental Ltd BSc(Hons) MIEEM
INTERESTED PERSONS: Mr S Henry Local resident and SOUL representative Mr N Watkins Local resident and SOUL representative Mr P Wyper Parish Councillor Mrs L Uren Local resident Mr D Bennett Town Councillor Mr R Preston Local resident (read statement from Mr T Swales) Mr G Walker Cornwall Councillor Mr S Double Cornwall Councillor Mr R Ward Planning and Development Manager, Campaign to DipTP MRTPI Protect Rural England - Cornwall Mr D Champion Local resident Ms E Oatey Local resident Mr D Brockenshire Local resident Mr M Husband Local resident Mr & Mrs Williams Local residents
CORE DOCUMENTS
CD1 Planning Application Documents Application Submission - 18 December 2009 CD1/1 Letter 17/12/2009 to Cornwall Council; Letter 09/11/2009 – original application letter; Copy of application form 11/11/2009; and Copies of notice letter to owner(s) / agricultural tenants 10/11/2009
CD1/2 Byways and Highways - Non-Motorised User Audit – October 2209 BH09008/R03/Rev 1 CD1/3 Byways and Highways – Transport Assessment November 2009 BH09008/R01/Rev 3 CD1/4 Byways and Highways – Travel Plan November 2009 BH09008/R02/Rev 3 CD1/5 Emery Planning Partnership – Planning Statement (PS1A-7570-SH-dr November 2009) CD1/6 Ashfords - Planning Obligation by Agreement (not dated/signed); and Outline of S.106 Agreement CD1/7 Focus on Design – Design and Access Statement November 2009 CD1/8 Original Plans - See separate list CD1/9 Nex Communications – Pre-application Public Consultation Report November 2009 CD1/10 Nex Communications – Addendum to Consultation Report December 2009 CD1/11 Vickery Holman – Employment Development / Review of Alternative Development – GO/JP/16937 dated 30/10/2009 CD1/12 WSP – EIA Non-Technical Summary CD1/13 WSP – Environmental Statement CD1/14 WSP – Flood Risk Assessment CD1/15 WSP – Infiltration and Geo CD1/16 WSP – Open Space Statement CD1/17 WSP – Renewable Energy Assessment CD1/18 WSP – Sustainability Appraisal CD1/19 WSP – Utilities Strategy CD1/20 WSP – Waste Management Study CD1/21 WSP – Photomontages and cross-sections rev A Revised documents/ plans - 24 May 2010 CD1/22 Emery Planning Partnership – updated Planning Statement May 2010 CD1/23 Focus on Design – revised Design and Access Statement May 2010 CD1/24 Revised Plans - See separate list CD1/25 WSP – Addendum to Flood Risk Assessment May 2010 CD1/26 WSP – Assessment of Agricultural Land April 2010 CD1/27 WSP – Environmental Statement Addendum May 2010 CD1/28 WSP - Supplementary Transport Assessment May 2010 CD1/29 WSP – by CD Rom 27/05/2010 – Framework Travel Plan May 2010 CD1/30 Ashfords – Planning Obligation by Agreement (draft) CD1/31 Committee Report (09/01525) dated 6th August 2010 CD1/32 WSP EIA Scoping Report June 2009 CD2 National Planning Policy, Acts, Circulars and Guidance CD2/1 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) CD2/2 Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to PPS1 (December 2007) CD2/3 Ecotowns - Supplement to PPS1 (July 2009) CD2/4 PPS3 – Housing (June 2010) CD2/5 PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009) CD2/6 PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010) CD2/7 PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (August 2004) CD2/8 PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August 2005) CD2/9 PPG13 – Transport (April 2001)
CD2/10 PPG17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (July 2002) CD2/11 PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk (March 2010) CD2/12 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 CD2/13 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 CD2/14 Wildlife and Countryside Act 9181 (as amended) CD2/15 Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC CD2/16 Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System CD2/17 Consultation on revisions to Circular 06/2005 Draft government circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System CD2/18 Government White Paper “Local growth: realising every place’s potential” 28 October 2010 CD2/19 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments Practice Guidance (DCLG, 2007) CD3 Development Plan Documents CD3/1 Cornwall Structure Plan 2001-2016 (October 2004) CD3/2 Restormel Local Plan (October 2001) CD4 Regional Documents CD4/1 Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (June 2006) - extracts CD4/2 Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West Panel Report (December 2007) - extracts CD4/3 Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy For The South West Incorporating The Secretary Of State's Proposed Changes (July 2008) - extracts CD4/4 RPG10 (September 2001) - extracts CD4/5 Functional Analysis of Settlements 2005 CD5 Other Cornwall Council Documents CD5/1 Supplementary Planning Document for Affordable Housing 2008 CD5/2 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Planning Guidance Note 2004 CD5/3 Restormel Annual Monitoring Report 2007-08 CD5/4 Cornwall Annual Monitoring Report 2008-2009 CD5/5 Strategic Investment Framework and Economic Strategy (Restormel BC – St Austell, St Blazey and Clay Area) CD5/6 Cornwall Local Transport Plan (LTP2) 2006-2011 CD5/7 Restormel Interim Strategic Policy Statement 2008 CD5/8 Cornwall Towns Study 2005 CD5/9 Affordable Housing DPD Consultation Draft (September 2010) CD6 Housing Documents CD6/1 West Cornwall Housing Requirements Study 2007 Findings for Restormel (April 2008) CD6/2 West Cornwall Housing Requirements Study 2007 Main Report and Findings (April 2008) CD6/3 The Cornwall Housing Strategic Evidence Base 2010 Update (July 2010) CD7 Ecology Documents CD7/1 Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom
2006 IEEM CD7/2 Herpetofauna Workers' Manual 2003 JNCC CD7/3 Bat Mitigation Guidelines 2004 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. CD7/4 Badgers & Development CD7/5 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Planning Good Practice for Cornwall, CC November 2007 CD7/6 Project Barn Owl Survey 2001 BTO CD7/7 Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: Technique for Environmental Audit JNCC CD7/8 Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and Lawful Standards 1998 HGBI CD7/9 Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines 2007 Bat Conservation Trust CD7/10 Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment 1997 IEMA CD7/11 Barn Owls and Rural Planning Applications “What needs to happen” A Guide for Planners (BOT 2009) CD8 Countryside/ Landscape Documents CD8/1 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Landscape Character Study 2007 CD9 Miscellaneous Core Documents CD9/1 Manual for Streets (2007) CD9/2 Table produced by Appellant dated 24 November 2010 to establish the potential residual requirement for St Austell for the period 2010-2030 CD9/3 Pre application meeting notes, 23 June 2009 CD9/4 Pre application meeting notes, 30 July 2009 CD9/5 Pre application meeting notes, 2 September 2009 CD9/6 Pre application meeting notes, 21 October 2009 CD9/7 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, November 2010 CD9/8 Appendices to Housing Land Availability Assessment, November 2010 CD9/9 Planning Policy Advisory Panel - Core Strategy Topic Paper, 19 November 2010 CD9/10 Planning Policy Advisory Panel – Eco-town, 19 November 2010 CD9/11 2008 Based Household Projections (November 2010) CD9/12 Committee Report for Duporth Holiday Village for Site Ref 48 CD9/13 Draft Employment Statement of Common Ground and email correspondence CD9/14 Cornwall Council Committee Report, Decision Notice and Minute - application for 495 dwellings, 4,500 sq m employment, ancillary retail and leisure, 60-bed care home and associated works at Treverbyn Road, St Austell for Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd CD9/15 Planning Policy Advisory Panel – Truro, 10 December 2010 CD9/16 Planning Policy Advisory Panel – Truro Appendix 2, 10 December 2010 CD9/17 Planning Policy Advisory Panel – Regeneration Action Plan, 10 December 2010 CD9/18 Planning Policy Advisory Panel – Appendix 1 - Regeneration Action Plan, 10 December 2010 CD9/19 Agreed statement on Strategic Sites in the SHLAA CD9/20 Plan showing the location of the area to area to be covered in the proposed Regeneration Action Plan CD10 Other Appeal Decisions and Associated Documents CD10/1 Binhamy Farm, Bude APP/D0840/A/09/2115945
CD10/2 Higher Newham Farm, Truro APP/D0840/A/09/2109056 CD10/3 Woolley v Cheshire East Borough Council – 2009 EWHC 1227 CD10/4 Jill Hardy v Cornwall County Council - JPL page 790, 2001 CD10/5 Blackwood, Caerphilly APP/K6920/A/05/1176315 CD10/6 Hempnall, Norfolk APP/L2630/A/08/2084443 CD10/7 Land at Redbridge Lane, Nursling, Hants APP/C1760/A/10/2127652
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
INQ1 Notes of Pre-Inquiry Meeting INQ2 Planning Statement of Common Ground INQ3 Housing Supply Statement of Common Ground INQ4 Employment Land Position Statement INQ5 Ecology Statement of Common Ground INQ6 Planning conditions – first draft INQ7 Planning conditions – second draft INQ8 Draft ecological conditions INQ9 DCLG Note following High Court decision to remove stay in Cala Homes 2 judicial challenge INQ10 Agreed update to Housing Supply position INQ11 Planning conditions – third draft INQ12 Planning conditions – final draft
WAINHOMES (SOUTH WEST) DOCUMENTS
WH1 Rule 6 Statement WH2/1 Proof of Evidence of Mr Harris WH2/2 Appendices to Mr Harris’ Proof – Documents EPP1 to EPP34 WH2/3 Summary Proof of Mr Harris WH3/1 Proof of Evidence of Mr Gill WH3/2 Appendices to Mr Gill’s Proof – Documents 1 to 16 WH3/3 Summary Proof of Mr Gill WH4 Opening submissions WH5 Draft S106 Planning Obligation WH6 Response to Ecology survey information request from Mr Oxford WH7 E-mail re cancellation of PINS “5 Year Supply of Deliverable Sites” note WH8 Note on key elements of S106 Obligations WH9 Mr Salmon’s reptile survey experience WH10 Response to Council’s comments on S106 WH11 Completed S106 Planning Obligation WH12 Closing submissions
Note – documents EPP1 to EPP34 are in Mr Harris’ appendices (WH2/2) EPP35 Response to SOUL Review of Transport Assessment EPP36 Response to SOUL Assessment of Flooding and Drainage issues EPP37 Note from Ashford’s concerning deliverability of appeal site land EPP38 Response to Newspaper Articles submitted by SOUL EPP39 Current Housing developments of Wainhomes within 5 miles of St Austell EPP40 Revised Response to SOUL Assessment of Flooding and Drainage issues (document EPP 36)
CORNWALL COUNCIL DOCUMENTS
LPA1/1 Proof of Evidence of Mr Kirby LPA1/2 Appendices to Mr Kirby’s Proof – Documents LPA1A to LPA1L LPA1/3 Summary Proof of Mr Kirby LPA2/1 Proof of Evidence of Mr Cookman LPA2/2 Appendices to Mr Cookman’s Proof – Documents LPA2A to LPA2F LPA3/1 Proof of Evidence of Mr Oxford LPA3/2 Appendices to Mr Oxford’s Proof – Documents LPA3A to LPA3F LPA4 Rule 6 statement LPA5 Updated table of delivery from housing supply sites LPA6 Copies of PINS “5 Year Supply of Deliverable Sites” note (with dates) LPA7 Note re housing target options for Core Strategy LPA8 Update of housing planning permissions in St Austell LPA9 Note about Convergence funding LPA10 Letter from applicant’s agent accompanying application for 495 dwellings (Ref:10/00993) LPA11 Note about population forecasting process for Core Strategy LPA12 Map showing location of Doctors’ Surgeries in St Austell LPA13 Justification for developer contributions to Transport Infrastructure LPA14 Locations of Greater Horseshoe Bat roosts LPA15 Land subject of Barton Willmore representation LPA16 Closing submissions
INTERESTED PERSONS DOCUMENTS
IP1 Statement and Appendices of Mr Henry for SOUL IP2 Statement and Appendices of Mr Swales for SOUL (read by Mr Preston) IP3 Review and Analysis of Transport Assessment by Mr Watkins for SOUL IP4 Revised Assessment of Flooding and Drainage issues by Mr Watkins for SOUL IP5 Supplementary Statement of Mr Henry IP6 Statement of Mr Wyper IP7 Statement of Cllr Bennett IP8 Statement of Cllr Double IP9 Statement of Stephen Gilbert MP (read by Mr Champion) IP10 Extracts from Wainhomes website IP11 Additional observations from Mr Watkins on Flood Risk and emails to Environment Agency IP12 Additional observations from Mr Watkins on Transport Assessment IP13 Press cuttings from Mr Watkins IP14 Closing statement from SOUL – Mr Henry IP15 Bundle of written representations
PLANS
Application Submission - 18 December 2009
A 0361/100 Site Survey B 0361/101 Location Plan C 0361/102 Master Plan D 0361/103 Land Use Plan E 0361/104 Density Plan F 0361/105 Building Heights Plan G 0361/106 Space Typology H 0361/107 Urban Design Strategy I 0361/108 Open Space Plan J 0361/109 Phasing Plan K 0361/110 Character Areas L 0361/111 Constraints Plan Revised Application Plans - 24 May 2010 M 0361/102 /A Master Plan N 0361/103 /A Land Use Plan O 0361/104 /A Density Plan P 0361/105 /A Building Heights Plan Q 0361/106 /A Movement Plan R 0361/107 /A Urban Design Strategy S 0361/108 /A Open Space Plan T 0361/109 /A Phasing Plan U 0361/110 /A Character Areas
PHOTOGRAPHS
1 Photographs of flooding from Mr Brokenshire 2 Photographs of traffic from Mr Brokenshire
ANNEX A
CONDITIONS
1) Approval of details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To comply with the provisions of section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. 2) Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and in accordance with the requirements of Articles 1 and 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended). 3) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of first of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 4) In respect of those matters not reserved for later approval, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 0361/100 Site Survey 0361/101 Location Plan 0361/102/A Master Plan 0361/103/A Land Use Plan 0361/104/A Density Plan 0361/105/A Building Heights Plan 0361/106/A Movement Plan 0361/107/A Urban Design Strategy 0361/108/A Open Space Plan 0361/109/A Phasing Plan 0361/110/A Character Areas 0361/111 Constraints Plan Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Pre-reserved matters 5) No development shall take place in any of the geographical phases identified in the approved Design and Access Statement (May 2010) until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a detailed Masterplan and Design Code for the geographical phase in question. The Masterplan and Design Code shall be so approved before the submission of applications for the approval of the reserved
matters within that phase. The Masterplans and Design Codes for the various geographical phases shall be in accordance with the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design and Access Statement (May 2010) and shall achieve: • a minimum of a Good rating against the Building for Life Criteria published by CABE; and • the "Secured by Design" accreditation awarded by Devon and Cornwall Police. Reason: To ensure that high standards of urban design and comprehensively planned development designed and phased to ensure maximum practical integration between different land uses within and beyond the site is achieved to accord with policy 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and policy 6 of the Restormel Local Plan.
6) The detailed Masterplan for each geographical phase, submitted pursuant to condition 5, shall be the regulating plan for the associated Design Code. The Design Code for each geographical phase shall include detailed Codes for all of the matters listed below: (i) building form (ii) building height (iii) private and public space (iv) street typology (v) access and circulation (vi) car parking (vii) landscape/public realm treatment (viii) mix of units and distribution of affordable units. Reason: To ensure that high standards of urban design and comprehensively planned development designed and phased to ensure maximum practical integration between different land uses within and beyond the site is achieved to accord with policy 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and policy 6 of the Restormel Local Plan. Reserved matters 7) Applications for approval of the reserved matters shall be in accordance with the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the Design and Access Statement (May 2010) and with the approved detailed Masterplan and Design Code for the geographical phase to which the reserved matters application relates. A statement shall be submitted with each reserved matters application which demonstrates that the application proposals comply with the Design and Access Statement and with the relevant detailed Masterplan and Design Code, or (where relevant) explaining why they do not. Reason: To ensure that high standards of urban design and comprehensively planned development designed and phased to ensure maximum practical integration between different land uses within and beyond the site is achieved to accord with policy 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and policy 6 of the Restormel Local Plan. Environmental Statement
8) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in general accordance with the measures identified in the Environmental Statement
dated November 2009 and the Addendum Environmental Statement dated May 2010. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Statement and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
9) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with all mitigation measures in the Environmental Statement dated November 2009 and the Addendum Environmental Statement dated May 2010. The mitigation measures set out therein shall be carried out in accordance with a detailed management strategy for the site including a timetable of works and future management that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All the measures shall be implemented before occupation of the penultimate open market dwelling in each geographical phase subject of this permission on this site. Reason: To ensure that the development and final design conform to the mitigation measures and recommendations set out in the Environmental Statement subject of this permission.
Construction Method Statement and Hours 10) No development shall take place in any geographical phase of development subject of this planning permission, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: (i) means of access for construction vehicles including routes to and from the site; (ii) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; (iii) a scheme to encourage the use of public transport for contractors; (iv) loading and unloading of plant and materials; (v) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; (vi) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; (vii) wheel washing facilities; (viii) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; (ix) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; (x) the operation of plant and machinery associated with engineering operations; (xi) site security; (xii) fuel, oil and chemicals storage, bunding, delivery and use; (xiii) how both minor and major spillage will be dealt with; (xiv) containment of silt/soil contaminated run-off; (xv) disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations;
(xvi) site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness; (xvii) a scheme to dispose of surface water run off during the construction phase. Reason: To minimise the environmental impacts of the construction process for local residents and users of the adjacent highway network and prevent pollution of the water environment. 11) Deliveries, demolition or construction works shall not take place outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents.
Pollution Control 12) If any contamination is found during the site investigation, a report specifying the measures to be taken to remediate the area to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The area shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures before development begins. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been identified in the site investigation, additional measures for the remediation of this source of contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation shall incorporate the approved additional measures. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with the aims and intentions of Saved Policy 3 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and in accordance with the guidance contained in PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control.
Waste management 13) No development shall take place until a waste management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that a suitable waste management strategy is secured and implemented for the development.
Landscaping 14) No development, except that associated with the exempt infrastructure and site preparation works, shall take place on land to which the reserved matters application in question relates until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works for the site covered by that application have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include: proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting); proposed and
existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines, manholes); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration where relevant. Soft landscape works shall include: planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and an implementation programme. Reason: To ensure that the landscape proposals for all external areas of the site form an integral part of the design for the site as a whole.
15) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the final dwelling on land to which the reserved matter relates or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the landscape proposals for all external areas of the site form an integral part of the design for the site as a whole.
External Boundaries 16) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected in each phase of development subject of this permission. The boundary treatment shall be completed before occupation in accordance with the approved details in each phase of development and shall thereafter be retained without alteration. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring residents.
External Lighting 17) Before commencement of development in each phase hereby approved, a scheme of external lighting, including plans and technical lighting information, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The external lighting scheme shall be completed in each phase of development subject to this permission in accordance with the approved lighting scheme and not altered thereafter without the written consent of the local planning authority. Reason: To minimise night time light pollution from the development in the wider area.
Sustainable Drainage 18) Prior to the commencement of each development cell listed in Appendix H of the Flood Risk Assessment dated May 2010 by WSP and Drawing 1051/PH/01 Rev B; details of a scheme for surface water drainage of that cell shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include: (i) detailed ground investigation to assess the appropriateness of infiltration drainage; (ii) details of the final drainage scheme; (iii) a construction quality control procedure;
(iv) provision for overland exceedance flow routes from surface water. The scheme shall be designed in accordance with the Surface Water Management Strategy detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment dated May 2010 by WSP and shall be fully implemented in accordance with the phasing embodied in the scheme. Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory management of surface water from the site during construction and to prevent pollution of controlled waters. 19) Prior to occupation of the first unit within a development cell it shall be demonstrated that relevant parts of the surface water drainage scheme have been completed in accordance with the details agreed. The scheme shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and minimise the risk of pollution of surface water by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water control and disposal.
20) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a sewerage scheme for each phase of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any proposals for the improvement or upgrade of the existing sewerage system must also be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The sewerage schemes(s) shall be implemented as approved. The units approved by this permission shall not be occupied until the above scheme(s) have been completed. Reason: To ensure that each phase of the development has adequate sewerage provision.
21) There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage or trade effluent from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
Highways and Transport 22) No development shall commence until the access into the site subject of this permission located off Treverbyn Road has been constructed, surfaced, drained, marked out and completed strictly in accordance with Drawing No 31051/PHL/06D. Reason: To ensure that the means of access to the site is constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
23) No dwellings shall be occupied until the estate road carriageways and footways to be constructed in association with the development hereby permitted shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the Cornwall Council’s specification for housing estate roads, including street lighting, except for the application of the final wearing course, over such lengths as are necessary to provide access from a County Road to that particular dwelling. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access is provided to each dwelling before it is occupied.
24) Within three months of the occupation of the penultimate dwelling in each phase of development subject of this permission, the road works shall be completed in accordance with Cornwall Council’s Current Requirements and Specification for Housing and Industrial Estates (or any document that amends these specifications over the period of implementing this permission). Reason: To ensure the road works are completed to an adoptable standard.
25) A comprehensive Travel Plan shall be developed for all elements of the development hereby permitted. The acceptability of the Travel Plan shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority in advance of occupation of the development. The Travel Plan shall be prepared in line with prevailing policy and best practice and shall include as a minimum: • The identification of targets for trip reduction and modal shift; • The methods to be employed to meet these targets; • The mechanisms for monitoring and review; • The mechanisms for reporting; • The penalties to be applied in the event that targets are not met; • The mechanisms for mitigation; • Implementation of the travel plan to an agreed timescale or timetable and its operation thereafter; • Mechanisms to secure variations to the Travel Plan following monitoring and reviews. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the efficient operation of the local trunk road networks, and in order that the development promotes public transport, walking and cycling and limits the reliance on the private car.
Car and cycle parking 26) Prior to the commencement of development on land to which the reserved matters relate, except that associated with the exempt infrastructure and site preparation works, detailed plans showing the provision of car and cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development on land to which the reserved matters relate shall proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking facilities in the interest of highway safety and the amenity of the area, and to maximise the efficient use of land.
27) The buildings on the land to which the reserved matters relate shall not be occupied until the associated parking areas and manoeuvring areas have been drained and surfaced in accordance with the details approved in writing by the local planning authority. The facilities so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking facilities in the interest of highway safety and the amenity of the area, and to maximise the efficient use of land.
Utilities
28) Any installation or maintenance of underground or overhead utility services shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority prior to installation and undertaken in accordance with the National Joint Utilities Group publication 10 ‘Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and maintenance of Utility Services in Proximity to Trees’. Reason: To ensure that no underground or overhead utility services have an adverse impact on the health of trees and mature hedgerows that are an intrinsic part of the landscape character and are identified as being retained within the development site, to accord with Policy 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policy 31 of the Restormel Local Plan 2001.
Archaeology 29) No development shall take place within the site until the applicant has secured and implemented a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of heritage assets before they are lost in accordance with PPS5 Policy HE12.
Ecology 30) Prior to the submission of the pre-reserved matters Masterplan the following measures shall be adopted with regard to the features and species of ecological and nature conservation value: (i) The scope and timing of supplementary survey works shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority, ensuring that there is sufficient lead-in time to undertake steps (ii) and (iii) below. (ii) Following the completion of supplementary survey works outlined above, an appropriately detailed assessment qualifying and quantifying likely and potential impacts on species and habitats of ecological value, shall be submitted to the local planning authority to inform the process of preparing an Ecological Design Strategy (EDS). (iii) The EDS shall include appropriate mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures such that impacts and opportunities can be addressed, as identified and agreed with reference to step (i) above. The EDS shall also include an appropriate timetable for the delivery of the various measures proposed, and identify the location of these features on a site-wide plan. The EDS shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall be implemented as approved. (iv) The EDS shall be regularly reviewed to establish its continued relevance to the remaining phases of the development, as the scheme progresses, and amended where necessary after agreement in writing with the local planning authority. (v) The EDS shall identify ongoing monitoring requirements throughout the construction period and beyond. The scope of post- construction monitoring shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that there is appropriate mitigation for any ecological interest on the site as required by Policy 19 of the Restormel Local Plan. 31) The submission of the reserved matters applications shall demonstrate that they have taken full account of the relevant requirements and measures specified within the EDS and will implement all measures in accordance with the EDS. Reason: To ensure that there is appropriate mitigation for any ecological interest on the site as required by Policy 19 of the Restormel Local Plan.
32) The long-term management of the mitigation, compensation and enhancement areas identified on the site-wide plan in the EDS shall be set out within an Ecological Management Plan (EMP). The EMP shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The EMP shall include details of the mechanisms by which the long term implementation of the EMP will be secured. The EMP shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure the long term management of the proposed mitigation works as required by Policy 19 of the Restormel Local Plan.
33) Where any species listed under Schedule 2 or 4 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is present on the site (or part thereof) in respect of which this permission is hereby granted, no works of site clearance, demolition or construction shall take place in pursuance of this permission unless a licence to affect any such species has been granted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations and a copy thereof has been produced to the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures are in place to protect any protected species on the site as required by Policy 19 of the Restormel Local Plan.
Code for Sustainable Homes 34) The dwellings shall achieve a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes or equivalent standard to be agreed with the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate or equivalent standard has been issued. Reason: To improve the building standards for dwelling houses within the development in the interests of reducing environmental impacts of the development in accordance with PPS1 (Planning and Climate Change). Live/work units 35) The business floorspace of live/work units shall be finished ready for occupation before the residential floorspace is occupied and the residential use shall not precede commencement of the business use. Reason: To ensure the employment floorspace within the live/work units so defined are brought into use as part of a mixed development of the site.
36) The business floorspace of live/work units shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes within Class B1 in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential properties within the locality of a live work unit.
37) The residential floorspace of the live/work units shall not be occupied other than by a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed in the business occupying the business floorspace of that unit, a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. Reason: To ensure that the building/floorspace designed and laid out as a live/ work unit is maintained for that purpose as part of the mix of land uses contained within the development.
Retail floorspace limitation 38) The retail floorspace (Classes A1, A2 and A5) hereby approved shall not exceed 2,500 sq m. The use classes are those set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to those classes in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification. Reason: To limit the gross retail floorspace within the development to serve the development and for the purpose of controlling size and attraction of the development for larger retail outlets that attract journeys by the private car conflicting with the aims of the travel plan for this development.
Noise levels 39) The rating level of noise emitted at the industrial and commercial development hereby approved shall not exceed the background noise level at any time. The noise level shall be determined on the boundary of the nearest residential areas shown on the approved strategic master plan and shall be measured and assessed in accordance with the British Standard BS4142: 1997 (as amended) “Method for Rating Industrial Noise”. Reason: To minimise disturbance to neighbouring occupiers.