better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that both appeals be dismissed. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations and dismisses both Appeal A and Appeal B even though, for the reasons given below, he disagrees with some of the Inspector’s conclusions in respect of Appeal B. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural Matters 4. The Secretary of State is satisfied that an Environmental Statement was not required for Appeal A. In reaching his decision on Appeal B, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 in respect of that application (IR7 and IR430). He 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 Appeal B. Matters arising after the close of the inquiry 5. Following the close of the inquiry the Secretary of State received three representations about the proposals which he has taken into account. As these did not raise any new matters that would affect his decisions, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties; but copies can be made available upon written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy considerations 6. In deciding these applications, 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. In the case of these appeals, the development plan for the area in which their proposals lie includes the South East Plan 2009 (Regional Strategy – RS); the saved policies of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan (2001) (LP); and the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document adopted in February 2009 (CSPDP). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development plan policies most relevant to these appeals are those described at IR19. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the national planning policy documents listed by the Inspector at IR20-21. Main issues 7. The Secretary of State considers that the main considerations in these cases are those listed by the Inspector at IR270. The Secretary of State has noted that it is a fundamental plank of the Appellant’s case that the two schemes are inextricably linked, albeit that the extent of the linkage is largely financial (IR271). The Secretary of State does not consider such financial considerations to be valid planning grounds to be taken into account in determining these appeals. Nevertheless, for the reasons given at paragraph 27 below, he acknowledges that the terms of the section 106 Agreements as they stand depend on the implementation of both schemes and, for that reason alone, he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR272 that a full conclusion cannot be reached on one appeal until the implications of the assessment of the second appeal have also been considered. This decision letter therefore follows the format of the IR in considering Appeal B before Appeal A and then drawing overall conclusions. Appeal B Inappropriate development in the Green Belt and effect on openness and visual amenity 8. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR292 that, for the reasons given at IR275-291, the Appeal B proposal as a whole would be inappropriate development and therefore, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and thus in conflict with saved LP policy GB1. However, the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR301) that, for the reasons given at IR293-300, including his consideration of floodlighting and ball-stop fencing, the proposed development would, on balance, have a slight beneficial impact on openness to which a modest amount of weight should be attached in its favour. With regard to the impact on the visual amenities of the Green Belt, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR307) that although, on balance, this would not be adverse, neither would it result in any significant improvement to the visual qualities (IR302-306). The Secretary of State therefore agrees that the matter of visual amenity is a neutral matter which weighs neither for nor against the Appeal B proposal. Effect on the amenities of visitors to the adjacent cemetery 9. For the reasons given at IR308-320, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR321 that, although there would be likely to be occasions when visitors to the cemetery would be adversely affected by noise arising from the Appeal B proposal, this would only apply on a limited basis so that only a modest amount of weight should be attributed to this harm. Other considerations, including the extent to which there are very special circumstances to outweigh the harm 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR322) that, as the Appeal B scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and additional harm would arise from the noise to visitors to the adjacent cemetery, the onus lies with the Appellant to demonstrate why planning permission should nevertheless be granted. 11. With regard to the Appellant’s claim that London Irish need to relocate to secure the long-term stability of the Club, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR323-335, the lack of alternatives arises, at least in part, from the Appellant’s preferences rather than from absolute constraints. He therefore agrees with the Inspector that this matter adds no weight to the case for Appeal B. 12. For the reasons given at IR336-344, the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR345-346 that, while there is no firm evidence to suggest that the golf club could easily reverse the trends of falling profits and falling membership, that factor adds no material weight to the case for Appeal B. The Secretary of State therefore further agrees with the Inspector that, as the Appeal B proposal would simply replace the golf club with another sporting use, it would have a more or less neutral effect on the sporting use of Hazelwood which cannot be regarded as adding weight for or against the appeal proposal. 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR347-348) that the more compact form of the proposed clubhouse and the reduction in the amount of ball-stop fencing in relation to the existing buildings and facilities under the proposed scheme add a moderate amount of weight in the proposal’s favour in that they would have a slightly beneficial impact on openness (see paragraph 8 above). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR 351 and IR360 that, for the reasons at IR349-350 and IR352-360 respectively, the benefits of providing a Centre of Excellence would go wider than simply providing benefits to the Club and its own members, with additional benefits thereby flowing to the local community. He therefore also agrees (IR361) that these considerations should weigh appreciably in support of the Appeal B proposal. 14. For the reasons given at IR362-364, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, as the need for the remediation of the Appeal B site appears to be dependent on the proposed development itself, this cannot provide any significant weight in support of the proposal. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR365-367, the proposed ecological improvements should be accorded a modest amount of weight in the proposal’s favour. Finally, he agrees with the Inspector (IR368) that the concerns expressed by local residents that the proposed development would severely compromise their Human Rights are capable of being addressed through proposed mitigation measures. Preliminary conclusion on Appeal B 15. Having regard to the arguments set out in paragraphs 8-14 above, and taking account of the Inspector’s further reasoning at IR369-372, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s preliminary conclusion at IR373 that, although there would be clear harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness, this would be slight and outweighed by the benefits of the proposed scheme. He therefore also agrees that very special circumstances can be demonstrated to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm, making the Appeal B scheme acceptable in planning terms on its own merits. Appeal A Effect of the proposal on protected open space within the urban area 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR389) that, for the reasons given at IR374-388, if the Appeal B scheme were to be approved, such that the Appellant had no need for the Appeal A site to remain in its current use, then allowing the Appeal A scheme currently under consideration would not have an adverse affect on existing protected open space within the urban area and so would not be in conflict with CS policy EN4 in that regard. The effect of the proposal on outdoor sports facilities 17. For the reasons given at IR390-392, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR393 that, assuming that the Appeal B scheme were to go ahead, the implementation of the Appeal A scheme (and the consequent loss of sports facilities) would not have an overall adverse impact on the provision of such facilities and so would not be in conflict with CS Policy EN4 in that respect.