Mr Michael Braithwaite Robert Doughty Consultancy Ltd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mr Michael Braithwaite Our ref: APP/N2535/W/16/3146208 Robert Doughty Consultancy Ltd Your ref: 606 10A 32 High Street Helpringham SLEAFORD Lincolnshire NG34 0RA 06 July 2017 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY GIN PROPERTY LTD LAND AT RYLAND ROAD, DUNHOLME, LINCOLN, LN2 3NE APPLICATION REF: 132726 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Y Wright BSc(Hons) DipTP DMS MSc MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 13-15 September 2016 into your client’s appeal against the failure of West Lindsey District Council (“the Council”) to determine your client’s application for outline planning permission for a proposed residential development of up to 65 no. dwellings to include public open space, affordable housing and staff car park for St Chad’s Primary School, in accordance with application ref: 132726, dated 27 February 2015. 2. On 26 September 2016, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and outline planning permission refused. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, and agrees with her recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 5. On 13 January 2017, the Secretary of State wrote to the main parties to afford them an opportunity to comment on further information relating to the Dunholme Neighbourhood Plan (DNP) received from the Council, together with the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) on ‘Neighbourhood Planning’ which was laid in Parliament on 12 December 2016. The responses received were circulated to the main parties on 16 February 2017. Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF The Secretary of State then wrote to the main parties on 24 March 2017 to afford them an opportunity to comment on the publication of the Schedule of Post-Submission Main Modifications to the emerging Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP); and he wrote again on 25 April 2017 confirming the publication of the final Inspectors’ Report on the CLLP. 6. Representations were received from your company on behalf of the appellants on 8 February, 20 February and 17 March 2017; from the Council on 9 February, 23 February and 28 March 2017; and from Dunholme St Chads CofE Primary School on 2 February and 7 February 2017. Copies of all the correspondence received may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. The Secretary of State is satisfied that no further issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back. Policy and statutory considerations 7. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8. In this case the development plan consists of the CLLP, adopted on 24 April 2017, the DNP made on 23 January 2017, and the Welton-by-Lincoln Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) made on 5 September 2016. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are CLLP policy LP22, DNP policy 11 and WNP policy EN4. These policies are all aimed at preventing the physical merging of settlements, preserving their separate identity, local character and historic character and protecting the open and rural character of the land between settlements. 9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’); the Written Ministerial Statement on Neighbourhood Planning of December 2016; and the final report by the CLLP Examining Inspectors. Main issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR 201. The 5 year housing land supply 11. As the final Examining Inspectors’ Report into the CLLP has been published and the CLLP has been adopted since the inquiry into the appeal closed, the Secretary of State has given careful consideration to that report and to the responses received from the parties to this appeal. In particular he has taken account of the conclusion in paragraph 228 of that report that, although there is a five year housing requirement of 10,141 (2,028 dpa), there is a good prospect of an up-to-date supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of housing against the requirements of the plan upon adoption. On that basis, and given the subsequent adoption of the CLLP, the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a 5 year housing land supply across the CLLP and he gives no weight to the appeal Inspector’s conclusions on the 5 year housing land supply as set out at IR219-243. 2 Effect on the undeveloped break between Dunholme and Welton 12. The Secretary of State has considered carefully the Inspector’s assessment of the effect of the appeal scheme on the undeveloped break between the villages of Dunholme and Welton (IR202-218). He notes in particular that the appeal site forms one of only two fields on the western side of Ryland Road that separate Dunholme and Welton (IR204), and that the site forms an integral part of the undeveloped break that is seen and experienced when travelling between the two settlements and from the nearby public footpaths (IR207). 13. He also agrees with the Inspector’s view (IR211) that, whilst the proposed scheme would not result in the two villages actually merging and there would continue to be a degree of visual separation because of the existing and proposed trees and hedgerows, the overall perception would be a distinct narrowing of the gap due to the loss of the vast majority of the field to development. Overall, therefore, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR217 that the proposed development would result in significant and harmful permanent erosion of the undeveloped break. It would create an incongruous addition to the settlement, reducing the gap between the villages and increasing the perception that the villages were close to merging, and so would not accord with CLLP Policy LP22, WNP policy EN4 and DNP Policy 11. The Secretary of State gives significant weight to this consideration against the scheme. Other Matters 14. Given that, in the light of the adoption of the CLLP, the Secretary of State is satisfied that a 5 year housing land supply has been demonstrated, he gives only moderate weight to the ability of the scheme to help to satisfy the unmet need for affordable housing (IR244). Furthermore, he agrees with the Inspector that the other social and environmental benefits to which she refers at IR245 should also be afforded moderate weight. 15. The Secretary of State also notes at IR248 that, although concerns relating to the impact on local infrastructure have been expressed by local residents, relevant infrastructure providers have not objected, albeit subject in some cases to the provision of planning obligations. Similarly, he agrees with the Inspector that the concerns considered at IR 249 could be addressed by the imposition of suitable conditions or through careful consideration of design at the detailed reserved matters stage. Planning conditions 16. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR195-199, the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them, and to national policy in paragraph 206 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test set out at paragraph 206 of the Framework. However, he does not consider that the imposition of these conditions would overcome his reasons for dismissing this appeal and refusing planning permission. Planning obligations 17. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR185-193, the planning obligation and paragraphs 203-205 of the Framework, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR194. He is satisfied that the obligation complies with Regulation122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 204 of the Framework and is necessary to 3 make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. However, the Secretary of State does not consider that the obligation overcomes his reasons for dismissing this appeal and refusing planning permission. Planning balance and overall conclusions 18. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the scheme is not in accordance with Policy LP22 of the CLLP, Policy EN4 of the WNP or Policy 11 of the DNP and is not in accordance with the development plan as a whole. He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. 19. Whilst the Secretary of State notes that the appeal scheme would provide economic and social benefits through the provision of market and affordable housing, he agrees with the Inspector that the environmental harm which would be caused by breaching the undeveloped break between the settlements significantly and demonstrably outweighs these benefits.