APP/M1900/W/17/3178839 Mr Douglas Symes (Agent) D.K
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Our ref: APP/M1900/W/17/3178839 Mr Douglas Symes (Agent) D.K. Symes Associates Appletree Farmhouse 39 Main Road Middleton Cheney Banbury 4 April 2019 Oxfordshire OX17 2ND Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 AND 79 APPEAL MADE BY RJD LTD AND GOWLING WLG TRUST CORPORATION LIMITED LAND AT WARE PARK, WADESMILL ROAD, HERTFORD APPLICATION REF: 3/0770-16 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of John Woolcock BNatRes(Hons) MURP DipLaw MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 1-4, 9-11, 18 May and 23-25 October 2018 into your client’s appeal against the decision of Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for the phased extraction of sand and gravel, mobile dry screening plant, stockpile area, weighbridge, wheel cleaning facilities, ancillary site offices, construction of a new access onto Wadesmill Road with phased restoration to landscaped farmland at a lower level, in accordance with application ref: 3/0770-16, dated 4 March 2016. 2. On 23 February 2018, 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 planning permission be refused. 4. The Inspector further recommended that your client’s request to determine the appeal on the basis of an alternative 1.25 Mt scheme be declined. 5. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendations. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. He also declines your client’s request to determine the appeal on the basis of the alternative 1.25 Mt scheme. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1624 Maria Stasiak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 6. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the environmental information submitted before the inquiry opened and during the inquiry (IR5). Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR351, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other additional information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Procedural matters 7. As set out by the Inspector at IR2, the original application was for the extraction of 2.6Mt sand and gravel, but this was subsequently changed to 1.75Mt. It is the scheme for the extraction of 1.75Mt which was refused by HCC in determining the application and that is now the appeal scheme. 8. As outlined by the Inspector at IR4, a second scheme proposed by the appellants would omit Phase 4 and the stockpile area from the 1.75Mt scheme, and reduce the tonnage of sand and gravel extracted to 1.25 Mt. The 1.25 Mt scheme was the subject of a separate planning application (Ref.3/2352/17), which was refused by HCC on 26 April 2018. The appellants have requested that the current appeal be decided by the Secretary of State on the basis that the 1.75 Mt scheme be considered first, and if found to be unacceptable, that a condition limiting the scheme to 1.25 Mt be imposed. All the written representations to HCC about the application for the 1.25 Mt scheme were submitted to the Inquiry. 9. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex A. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Copies of these letters may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutory considerations 10. 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. 11. In this case the development plan consists of the East Herts District Plan (EHDP), adopted in October 2018 and the saved policies of the Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan Review (MLP) 2007. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR38-42. 12. 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’), and those other matters set out in IR55-56. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018, and unless 2 otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the revised Framework. 13. In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Emerging plan 14. Consultation on a review of the Minerals Local Plan (eMLP) was undertaken between December 2017 and February 2018. The consultation draft plan did not include the appeal site as a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction. The Local Mineral Planning Authority intends to submit the plan to the Secretary of State for examination in summer 2019. The Secretary of State considers that the emerging policies of most relevance to this case include draft policies 3, 4, 12, 14, 15 and 16. 15. The Bengeo Neighbourhood Plan is at an early stage of development, and has not yet been submitted to the local planning authority. Bengeo Field is identified in the draft as an area of designated local green space. 16. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. Given the early stages of development, the Secretary of State considers that the eMLP carries limited weight and the emerging Bengeo Neighbourhood Plan carries little weight. Main issues Location of site 17. The Secretary of State notes that significant areas of the appeal scheme would be located outside the boundaries of the Preferred Area for mineral extraction. He agrees with the Inspector’s analysis at IR441, and agrees that the scheme would not accord with MLP Policy 3. Green Belt 18. The Secretary of State has considered carefully the Inspector’s findings at IR362-374 about the impact of the scheme on the Green Belt. He agrees with the Inspector at IR366 that plant, equipment, access and activity associated with the mineral extraction here would, to some extent, impair the openness of the area, but not enough to exceed the threshold or tipping point for the purposes of applying paragraph 146 of the Framework. 19. He has also considered the Inspector’s reasoning at IR366-374 in relation to the effect of the bunds and tree planting on the openness of the Green Belt and the setting of historic Hertford. In reaching his conclusion, the Secretary of State has taken into account that the bunds could exist for up to 10 years, which for GLVIA3 in landscape terms marks a boundary between medium term and long term effects (IR367), and that the adverse effects on openness would be fully reversible in time (IR368). He has also taken into account that there would be no permanent built development impacting on the openness of the Green Belt, and that tree planting does not constitute development and therefore is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. He does not consider that the tree 3 planting would be in conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. Overall the Secretary of State considers that the exception for mineral extraction at paragraph 146 of the Framework does apply, the proposed mineral extraction is therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and there is no conflict with local or national Green Belt policies. Character and Appearance 20. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis at IR375-388. He agrees with the Inspector that while not subject to any designation given to landscape, the appeal site is a landscape resource and visual amenity of considerable importance because of its proximity to the urban area (IR378), and the fact the appeal site retains its natural landform makes it important in its local context (IR379). For the reasons given in IR375-382, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the operational development to extract, screen, stockpile and transport sand and gravel would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area of major significance, albeit of a limited duration (IR388). 21. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider impacts following restoration.