Kieron Gregson Our ref: APP/N1730/W/18/3204011 Carter Jonas Your ref: 16/03129/OUT 1 Chapel Place LONDON W1G 0BG 4 November 2019 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY WATES DEVELOPMENTS PALE LANE FARM, PALE LANE, FLEET, HAMPSHIRE, RG27 8BA APPLICATION REF: 16/03129/OUT 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Nick Fagan BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 8-16 January 2019 into your appeal against the decision of Hart District Council to refuse your client’s application for outline planning permission for the development of up to 700 residential dwellings, site for primary school and local centre, together with associated vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access, drainage, landscape works and provision of general open space. Full details for the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace and means of access, in accordance with application ref: 16/03129/OUT dated 17 November 2016. 2. On 14 June 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. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. 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 2017 and the environmental information submitted before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR12.1- 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 12.7, 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 6. The Secretary of State notes that the planning practice guidance relating to prematurity (referenced in IR7.89) was updated on 15 March 2019 by paragraph 014 Reference ID: 21b-014-20190315. The Secretary of State does not consider that this update to the guidance affects his conclusions on prematurity, or his decision on this case overall. He notes that the updated guidance reflects the advice in paragraph 49 of the Framework, which is referred to at IR7.88. Furthermore, the Secretary of State does not consider that the application of the planning practice guidance raises any matters that would require him to reference back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this appeal on this matter, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 7. On 6 September 2019, the Secretary of State wrote to the main parties to afford them an opportunity to comment on the emerging Hartley Wintney Neighbourhood Plan (HWNP). He also sought further comments in the event that the HWNP came into force before this decision was issued. A list of representations received in response to this letter is at Annex A. These representations were circulated to the main parties on 24 September 2019. 8. Following a referendum on 7 October 2019 the Neighbourhood Plan now forms part of the development plan (Paragraph: 064 Reference ID: 41-064-20170728 of the planning practice guidance). Policy and statutory considerations 9. 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. 10. In this case the development plan consists of the ‘saved’ policies of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) adopted in December 2002 and its first alterations adopted in June 2006 (HDLP), as well as ‘saved’ Policy NRM6 relating to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) in the South East Plan adopted in May 2009, and the HWNP, which came into force in October 2019. The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR3.2-3.3. 11. 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 revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018 and further revised in February 2019. Unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the 2019 Framework. 12. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or 2 their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. Emerging plan 13. The Secretary of State notes that the emerging plan comprises the Hart Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2016-2032 (eLP). The examination hearings concluded on 18 December 2018 and consultation on main modifications concluded on 19 August 2019. The Secretary of State considers that relevant emerging policies include those set out at IR3.6. 14. 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 Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the emerging plan is at an advanced stage (IR11.52). He has taken into account the Examining Inspector’s interim findings that the emerging spatial strategy is capable of delivering the necessary housing requirement over the Plan period, without including the appeal site, and that the Council recommends adoption of the Examining Inspector’s interim suggestions. Overall the Secretary of State considers that the emerging policies carry moderate weight. Main issues 5-year Housing Land Supply / Prematurity 15. The Secretary of State notes the main parties’ agreement that the Council can demonstrate 9.2 years of housing land supply (IR11.6). The Secretary of State has considered carefully the Inspector’s analysis at IR11.55-IR11.56 which considers that while this may be reduced as a result of the need to take on Surrey Heath’s unmet supply, the reduction would not be significant. He agrees that there would still be a supply of well in excess of 5 years (IR11.55). 16. For the reasons given in IR11.61-11.62, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that although the contribution to open-market and affordable housing provision carries significant weight, there is no need to deliver an additional 700 homes in this location (IR11.56). For the reasons given at IR11.50-11.58, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the eLP is at an advanced stage (IR11.52) and that allowing the proposed development through this appeal would predetermine the location of a significant urban extension that the plan-making process has decided is inappropriate for the District (IR11.56). He further agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR11.58 that the proposed development would be premature. In light of the criteria in paragraph 49 of the Framework, the Secretary of State considers that in this case the prematurity of the proposal can justify refusal. Heritage 17. For the reasons given at IR11.36-11.42, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that while the Grade II listed Pale Lane Farmhouse itself would be unaffected, the proposals would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the Farmhouse (IR11.41). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that considerable importance and weight can be attributed to this harm (IR11.38). Where a development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage 3 asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in line with the heritage test at paragraph 196 of the Framework. Effect on the countryside and the setting of Fleet 18. For the reasons given at IR11.10-11.35, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the effects on the landscape character of the site would be significant and adverse. He further agrees that its visual effects would be prominent and significantly adverse and would have a major adverse effect on the western setting of Fleet because it would unacceptably diffuse the clear and crisp transition between town and country in this location (IR11.34). He agrees with the Inspector at IR11.35 that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental effect on the character of the countryside due to its siting, size and prominence in the local landscape and would lead to the loss of an important area of open land around Fleet contrary to Hart District Local Plan policies RUR2 and CON22. 19.