Case Details 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report to the Secretary of State The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House for Communities and Local 2 The Square Temple Quay Government Bristol BS1 6PN 0117 372 8000 By Michael Ellison MA(Oxon) An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Date: 17 August 2009 Communities and Local Government TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH APPEAL by NORTHANTS LLP in connection with the proposed development at UPPER REDHILL, WELLINGBOROUGH of 3,000 dwellings, retail and commercial facilities, non-residential institutions, a neighbourhood centre, open spaces and parkland, associated facilities and infrastructure and a reserve corridor for the Isham-Wellingborough road improvement Inquiry opened on 2 June 2009 File ref: APP/H2835/A/08/2093066 TABLE OF CONTENTS Case Details 1 1 Introduction and preliminary matters 2 2 The appeal site and the surrounding area 5 3 The proposed development 6 4 Planning policy 8 5 The case for the Appellants 15 6 The case for the Council 46 7 The case for the Highways Agency 62 8 The case for the County Council 62 9 The cases of the interested parties 64 10 Written representations 83 11 Conclusions 88 12 Recommendation 112 Appendix A – List of Documents 113 Appendix B – Recommended conditions 125 Appendix C – List of Abbreviations 137 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066 CASE DETAILS Appeal ref: APP/H2835/A/08/2093066 Land off the A509 Niort Way and the A510 Northen Way and south of Great Harrowden, Wellingborough, NN8 4UF • 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 Northants LLP (“the Appellants”) against the Borough Council of Wellingborough (“the Council”). • The application (ref: WP/2008/0150/OEIA) is dated 4 March 2008. It was amended by agreement with the Council on 13 October 2008, and it is the application as so amended which is considered in this report. • The development proposed is up to 3,000 dwellings, retail and commercial facilities, non-residential institutions (including primary schools and nurseries), a neighbourhood centre (comprising transport interchange, non-institutional and commercial facilities), open spaces and parkland, associated facilities and infrastructure (comprising utilities including gas, electricity, water, sewerage and telecommunications, and diversion to existing utilities where necessary) and a reserve corridor for the Isham-Wellingborough road improvement. • The case was recovered for determination by the Secretary of State by letter dated 13 January 2009. The reasons for recovery were that the appeal proposal would involve residential development of over 150 units on a site of over 5 hectares, and that it was considered that the decision on the appeal would have a significant impact on the Government’s objectives to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and to create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. • The then Secretary of State gave notice on 27 January 2009 that, on the information available to her at that time, the matters on which she particularly wished to be informed for the purpose of her consideration of the appeal were: a. The extent to which the proposed development would be in accordance with the Development Plan for the area. b. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and accompanying guidance The Planning System: General Principles, with particular regard to i) the achievement of sustainable development and sustainable communities through an integrated approach to social cohesion, protection and enhancement of the environment, prudent use of natural resources and economic development; ii) whether the design principles adopted in relation to the site and its wider context, including the layout, scale, open space, visual appearance and landscaping, are appropriate in their context and take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions, having regard to the advice in paragraphs 33 to 39 of PPS1; iii) the way in which the application takes into account the access needs of all in society, including people with disabilities – including 1 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066 access to and into buildings having regard to the advice in paragraphs 36 and 39 of PPS1; iv) advice on prematurity in paragraphs 17-19 of The Planning System: General Principles, having regard to progress towards adoption of any emerging development plan documents or saved policies under the transitional arrangements. c. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government planning for housing policy objectives in PPS3 Housing, with particular regard towards delivering: i) high quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard; ii) a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households in all areas, both urban and rural; iii) a sufficient quantity of housing taking into account need and demand and seeking to improve choice; iv) housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure; v) a flexible, responsive supply of land – managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate. d. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the advice contained in PPG13 Transport, in particular on the need to locate development in a way which helps to promote more sustainable transport choices; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and whether the proposal complies with local car parking standards and the advice in paragraphs 52 to 56 of PPG13. e. Whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form that these should take. f. Whether any planning permission granted should be accompanied by any planning obligations under Section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable. g. Any other matter that the Inspector considers relevant. • The inquiry sat for nine days on 2-5, 9-12 and 18 June 2009. It was closed in writing on 14 July 2009. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix B to this report. 1. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS .1 The Milton Keynes and South Midlands (“MK/SM”) area is one of four major growth areas identified in the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan of 2003 (Document CD6.1). Outside London, it is the biggest single growth area. The potential for growth in MK/SM to 2031 2 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066 is seen as being 300,000 jobs and 370,000 homes. Within MK/SM, that growth is to be concentrated in five major urban areas, one of which is Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby (Document CD6.1, page 54). .2 The MK/SM Sub Regional Strategy (“MK/SMSRS”) of 2005 (Document CD1.2) makes it clear that the towns of Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby should grow in a complementary way, while retaining their separate identities. Between the three towns, an increase of 34,100 dwellings should be accommodated by 2021, with an increase in employment of 43,800 jobs over the same period. Such an increase would require a step change in the rate of both house building and job creation in the area. .3 It is against that background that the detailed policies in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (“CSS”) were adopted in June 2008. Those policies seek to deliver the major growth required in the three towns through expansion of the town centres, redevelopment of other sites within the urban areas, and carefully planned Sustainable Urban Extensions (“SUE”s). .4 The appeal application represents a plan for one of the two SUEs which are to take place in Wellingborough. .5 It is an outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. .6 The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (“ES”), prepared under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (“the EIA Regulations”). The ES was prepared in February 2008, and comprises Documents AD5.1 to AD5.3 together with Document AD5.4, which is an addendum dealing with the potential environmental impacts of the amendments made to the application in October 2008 following discussions between the Appellants and officers of the Council. .7 Those discussions were partly prompted by a request made by the Council under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations for further information relating to an earlier application made by the Appellants for planning permission on the same site and in the same terms as the appeal application. That earlier application (ref: WP/2007/0750/OEIA) had been submitted in November 2007. It was determined by the full Council on 4 February 2009, but by that time the current appeal had been submitted, and jurisdiction in relation to the appeal application had already been recovered by the Secretary of State. .8 The earlier application was refused by the Council for the following reasons: a. In the absence of a reasonable prospect of IWIMP (Isham- Wellingborough Road Improvement) being delivered within the lifetime of this permission, this implies that the traffic impact arising from the proposed development cannot be 3 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/H2835/A/08/2093066 adequately/sufficiently mitigated.