Broad Lane, Essington, Staffordshire Wv11 2Rj Application Ref: 14/00906/Ful

Katherine Evans Head of Planning and Environment Our ref: APP/C3430/W/15/3039129 One Redcliff Street Your ref: Bristol BS1 6TP By email: [email protected] 31 March 2021 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY WESTERLEIGH GROUP LIMITED BROAD LANE, ESSINGTON, STAFFORDSHIRE WV11 2RJ APPLICATION REF: 14/00906/FUL 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of David Nicholson RIBA IHBC, who held a public local inquiry commencing on 16 January 2019 into your client’s appeal against the decision of South Staffordshire Council to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for a crematorium with ancillary book of remembrance building, floral tribute area, memorial gardens, garden of remembrance and associated parking and infrastructure, application ref: 14/00906/FUL, dated 4 November 2014. The inquiry also considered an appeal against the decision of the Council to refuse planning permission for a proposed crematorium at land adjacent to Holyhead Road, Wergs (“the Wergs appeal”), South Staffordshire, in accordance with application ref: 14/00838/FUL, dated 14 October 2014. 2. On 22 March 2017, both appeals were 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. 3. The Secretary of State initially issued his decision in respect of both appeals by way of his letters dated 6 November 2017. Those decisions were challenged by way of an application to the High Court and subsequently quashed by order of the Court dated 23 March 2018. Both appeals have therefore been redetermined by the Secretary of State, following a new inquiry into this matter at January 2019 and the Wergs appeal decision can also be accessed via the link provided. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 4. The Inspector recommended that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions and planning permission granted. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 44 45374 Mike Hale, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 5. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions. 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 6. On 13 November 2020, the Secretary of State wrote to the main and interested parties to afford them an opportunity to update the evidence before him, primarily on need and on any rebalancing of the use of crematoria in the area that may occur should one or both crematoria be developed. The resulting representations were circulated to the parties on 8 December 2020 with further comments from three parties circulated on 30 December. A list of all representations about planning matters received post inquiry are all listed at Annex A. 7. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised in the other post-inquiry correspondence do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Policy and statutory considerations 8. 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. 9. In this case the development plan consists of the South Staffordshire District Local Plan, comprising the Core Strategy (2012) and Site Allocations Document (September 2018). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those in the Council’s Statement of Common Ground with Dignity UK and with Westerleigh Group Limited, with those set out at IR3.4 – 3.9. being of particular relevance. 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’), associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as material referred to in IR3.1 and 3.2. Emerging plan 11. 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. The emerging South Staffordshire plan is at a relatively early stage with the Local Plan Review Preferred Options consultation having been moved back to summer 2021. As there are currently no draft policies for consideration, consequently very little weight can be given to the emerging plan. Main issues Green Belt 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to policy in Paragraph 143 of the Framework, 2 and that it would encroach into the countryside, in conflict with Paragraphs 133-134 of the Framework (IR13.44). He further agrees that the scheme would cause significant harm to openness (IR13.45 and IR13.47). For the reasons given at IR13.31, he also agrees that the suggestion that the scheme would impact on the purposes of the Green Belt by leading to sprawl should be given very limited weight. He further agrees that the scheme would conflict with Core Policy 1 and Policy GB1 (IR13.55). In line with Paragraph 144 of the Framework, the Secretary of State considers that substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt. He has gone on to consider whether very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. Landscape Impacts/Loss of open space 13. For the reasons set out at IR13.32-13.36, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the site should be regarded as open space under paragraph 97 of the Framework, and that the replacement of 2.0ha with a crematorium landscape, with or without public access, would not amount to an equivalent provision for the loss of open space under paragraph 97b of the Framework (IR13.33). He further agrees that the site should also be considered a valued landscape under paragraph 170a of the Framework (IR13.34), this being due to presence of the community forest (IR13.51). Overall he considers moderate weight should be attributed to this harm, along with the harm from the loss of mature roadside trees (IR13.47). He agrees that the proposal would be contrary to Core Policy 14 and Policies HWB1 and HWB2 as well as advice in the Framework at paragraphs 97 and 142. Alternatives 14. For the reasons given at IR13.38-IR13.40 he agrees with the Inspector on the likelihood and timing of facilities at alternative locations. Need 15. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the quantitative need for both proposals as set out by the Inspector at IR13.2-13.14 alongside the updated evidence from the parties following the reference back exercise in November 2020. The Inspector considered that the evidence provided no definitive answer to the extent of quantitative need (IR13.14), but concluded there is an overall shortage of facilities near the West Midlands Conurbation which is only going to get worse (IR13.13). Overall he considers that there is a quantitative need for both appeals to relieve pressure on existing crematoria in the future (IR13.14). Having considered the updated information provided by the parties, the Secretary of State notes that forecast need is now greater than at the time of the inquiry. This reinforces his overall conclusions on the quantitative need for these developments. 16. In terms of the quality of experience (i.e. qualitative need) the Inspector considers that many of the existing crematoria are ageing, in need of investment and updating, and at or reaching capacity and also that this will only get worse until rival facilities offer competition and so drive investment (IR13.15). Moreover, and for the reasons given at IR13.16 the Secretary of State agrees that existing crematoria do not serve different parts of the community as well as they ought to. The scheme would provide a gallery and he agrees that this would be a significant public benefit (IR13.16). He considers this should be attributed significant weight. 3 17. Overall the Secretary of State agrees there is a substantial, if different quantitative and qualitative need for both proposals (IR13.17) and that the latest evidence before him demonstrates this remains the case. He gives this significant weight. It was common ground between all the main parties that at least one new crematorium is required to relieve pressure on Bushbury and that this need amounts to very special circumstances that could outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriate development, to the Green Belt (IR13.44). For the reasons given at IR13.48-13.50, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR13.50 that the consequences of chronic pressure at Bushbury would amount to very special circumstances, and also that taking account of the latest information on need and rebalancing, the need for both proposals (this proposal and the Wergs appeal referred to in paragraph 1 above) has increased. He agrees with the Inspector that taking account of rebalancing, the need for both proposals means that very special circumstances exist to justify both appeal schemes.

Load more