28 August 2008

Mr Matthew Chard Our Ref: APP/V0510/A/06/2014221; Barton Willmore APP/W0530/A/06/2014216; Director of landscape planning and design APP/Q0505/X/07/2045815 7 Soho Square LONDON W1D 3QB

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT – SECTIONS 78 AND 195 APPEALS BY STANNIFER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED PROPOSED MEREHAM SETTLEMENT AND ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE A10 AND THE JANE COSTON BRIDGE APPLICATION REFS: 05/01116/OUM; S/1926/05/F; AND 06/1291/CL2PD

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (“the Secretary of State”) to say that consideration has been given to the report by Richard Ogier BA MRTPI who, assisted by William Wadrup BEng(Hons) CEng MICE FIHT, held a public inquiry between 9 October 2007 and 6 March 2008 into your client’s appeals:

(a) under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) against the decision by District Council (ECDC) to refuse planning permission for a new settlement comprising up to around 5,000 homes; up to around 8,000m² retail and related uses (including a foodstore of around 2,500m², comparison retail of around 4,000m² and A2/A3/A4/A5 of around 1,500m²); up to around 45,000m² employment uses (B1, B2 and B8); supporting leisure, community and education uses; and infrastructure including highway works to the A10 (“Mereham”) – Application Ref 05/01116/OUM (Appeal A);

(b) under Section 78 of the 1990 Act against the refusal by District Council (SCDC) to refuse planning permission for highway improvements to the A10 between the A14 Milton Junction and River Great Ouse in the parishes of Milton, Landbeach and Waterbeach – Application Ref: S/1926/05/F (Appeal B); and

(c) under Section 195 of the 1990 Act against the failure of Cambridge City Council (CCC) to give notice within the prescribed period on an application for a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC) for the replacement of the existing Jane Coston Cycle/Footbridge over the Department for Communities and Local Government 1/H1 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

A14, south of its junction with the A10 at Milton, with a new bridge for buses, pedestrians and cyclists – Application ref: 06/1291/CL2PD (Appeal C).

2. On 10 May 2006, Appeals A and B were recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of Section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The reason for the recovery was that the appeal raises issues relating to residential development of 150 or more dwellings or on more than 5 hectares of land which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. On 3 July 2007, Appeal C was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, in pursuance of Section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The reason for the recovery of Appeal C was that the appeal would be most efficiently and effectively decided together with two recovered planning appeals over which Inspectors have no jurisdiction. Appeal C was therefore linked to Appeals A and B.

Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision

3. The Inspector recommended that all three appeals are dismissed, that planning permission for Appeals A and B is refused and that a lawful development certificate is not issued for Appeal C. For the reasons set out below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendations. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.

Matters arising after the close of the Inquiry

4. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Secretary of State has received correspondence from a number of parties, including a request made under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 for the early release of the Inspector’s report. A schedule of this correspondence is at Annex A. The Secretary of State does not consider that the correspondence raises any new issues which would either affect her decision, or require her to refer back to parties, prior to reaching her decision. Nevertheless, the correspondence can be made available upon request to this office.

5. On 22 July 2008 the Secretary of State received a letter from SJ Berwin LLP on behalf of the appellant enclosing a signed and dated Unilateral Undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State is satisfied that since the final Undertaking is not different in any material way from that presented to the Inquiry and no substantive changes have been made to the schedules which contain the actual planning obligations, the final Undertaking does not raise any new issues which would either affect her decision, or require her to refer back to the parties, prior to reaching her decision. Her consideration of the submitted Undertaking is at paragraphs 54-57 below.

Procedural matters

6. At the inquiry an application for costs was made by East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC), South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) and Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) against Stannifer Developments Limited. There is also an application for costs by County Councillor W Hunt on behalf of the Say No to Mereham Campaign Group against Stannifer Developments Ltd (IR2). These applications are the subject of a separate decision letter.

7. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Supplementary Environmental Information submitted on 3 August 2007 is admissible (IR4). She also considers that, for the reasons in IR5, it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to consider the proposed mitigation measures for the A10 proposals set out in document SCG/6/2. She does not consider that any party is prejudiced by this course of action.

8. The Secretary of State notes that the appellant and Cambridge City Council agreed that Appeal C should be considered on the basis of written submissions by both parties (IR6). The Secretary of State has therefore determined Appeal C on the basis of the pre-inquiry statements submitted by the appellant and CCC and the Statement of Common Ground (SCG1), together with the Inspector’s report.

Environmental Statement

9. In reaching her decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (documents CD2 and CD3), and the accompanying Supplementary Environmental Information (IR3), which were submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement, together with its Supplementary Environmental Information, and all the environmental information supplied, comply with the above regulations, and that they are sufficient to ensure that the environmental effects of the development can be rigorously assessed.

Policy considerations

10. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises:

(a) for Appeal A: the Regional Spatial Strategy for the , published in May 2008 and which replaces Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia to 2016 (RPG6); the saved policies of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 (CPSP); the saved policies of the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan (ECDLP), adopted in June 2000; the saved policies of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Local Plan, adopted in October 2003; and the saved policies of the Cambridgeshire Aggregates (Minerals) Local Plan 1991; and

(b) for Appeal B: the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, published in May 2008 and which replaces Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia to 2016 (RPG6); the saved policies of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 (CPSP); the South Cambridgeshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document, published in January 2007; and the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD, published in July 2007.

11. The Secretary of State observes that the majority of policies of relevance to these appeals in the development plan have been saved under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (IR9). She considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeals are those set out by the Inspector at Appendix 1 to his report (IR556), with the exception of the RPG6 policies.

12. Since the close of the Inquiry, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (the East of England Plan) was published. As mentioned in paragraph 10 above, this replaces RPG6. The Secretary of State does not consider that the new Regional Spatial Strategy raises any matters requiring wider reference back to the parties, either under Rule 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, or in the interest of natural justice, prior to making her decisions. She considers that the East of England Plan policies most relevant to determining these appeals are SS1-SS4, E1-E4, H1 and H2, T1 and CSR1,2 and 4.

13. Material considerations taken into account by the Secretary of State include: Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Creating Sustainable Communities and its supplement Planning and Climate Change; Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing; Planning Policy Guidance note 4 (PPG4): Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms; Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6): Planning for Town Centres; Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7): Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Biological Diversity and Geological Conservation; Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Sustainable Waste Management; Planning Policy Statement 11 (PPS11): Regional Spatial Strategies; Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities Through Local Spatial Planning; Planning Policy Guidance note 13 (PPG13):Transport; Planning Policy Guidance note 15 (PPG15): Planning and the Historic Environment; Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (PPG16): Archaeology and Planning; Planning Policy Guidance note 17 (PPG17): Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation; Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22): Renewable Energy; Planning Policy Guidance note 24 (PPG24): Noise; Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk; Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions; and Circular 5/2005: Planning Obligations.

14. The Secretary of State has also taken into account draft PPS4: Planning for Economic Development, published for consultation on 17 December 2007, and the proposed changes to PPS6: Planning for Town Centres which were published for consultation after the inquiry on 10 July 2008. As these documents are still in draft and may be subject to change, she affords them little weight. A revised PPS12: Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities Through Local Spatial Planning was published on 4 June 2008. The Secretary of State does not

consider that this document has resulted in a material change in circumstances in the matters relevant to the appeals to an extent that would affect her decision or require her to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching her decision.

15. Given that the Appeal A site is located in close proximity to the and Conservation Areas, the Secretary of State has also paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of those areas, as required by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Main issues

16. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues are those set out in IR555.

Development Plan

17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the specific new settlement of Mereham is promoted as an exception to the development plan (IR556).

18. The Secretary of State has had regard to the policies in the East of England Plan. She notes that policy CSR1 remains unchanged from the proposed modifications stage which was discussed at the public Inquiry. She therefore agrees with the Inspector that, in the light of this, the Mereham proposal would continue not to accord with an important element of a key development plan policy (IR561). Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that the proposal is contrary to the development plan. She has therefore gone on to consider whether there are other material considerations which would lead her to determine the appeals other than in accordance with the development plan.

Housing Land Supply

19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is a deliverable supply of housing land in East Cambridgeshire to meet PPS3 five year requirements (IR562, IR615). She also agrees with the Inspector that there is no convincing evidence, given the number of committed and allocated housing sites identified in evidence, that on-going supply in the District would be insufficient to satisfy the guidance in PPS3 that the source of supply in the ensuing five years should also be clear (IR584).

20. The Secretary of State has had regard to the appellant’s claims that the needs of the CSR as an entity should also be considered (IR562). Paragraph 32 of PPS3 states that the level of housing provision should be determined taking a strategic, evidence-based approach that takes into account relevant local, sub-regional, regional and national policies and strategies achieved through widespread collaboration with stakeholders. However, she considers that, consistent with paragraph 54 of PPS3, the focus is necessarily directed towards individual planning authorities responsible for the housing supply in their Districts (IR563).

21. In this particular case, the Secretary of State has had regard to the fact that the housing figures given in policy H1 of the East of England Plan are to be regarded

as minima (IR565). She agrees with the Inspector that the East of England Plan provides no clarification as to the proportion of each constituent District’s housing requirement that should be directed to the CSR (IR564). She also agrees with the Inspector that policy CSR1 sets out the CSR locational strategy, but does not clarify the housing requirements any further (IR564).

22. The Secretary of State has taken into account the housing supply situation in the CSR. For the reasons set out in IR567-IR584, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is a clear possibility that strategic and other sites identified by the Councils would fall slightly short of ensuring a five year supply of housing in the CSR (IR615). However, she also agrees with the Inspector that the scale of that shortfall is not so substantial as to justify a new settlement that does not comply with the policy provisions of the development plan (IR615), particularly given the potential delays that could occur to the implementation of the Mereham development (see paragraphs 24-25 below).

Affordable housing

23. The Secretary of State has had regard to ECDC’s view that 40% of the total affordable housing provision at Mereham should be provided in the form of completed units, rather than free serviced land as proposed by the appellant (IR586). For the reasons set out in IR585-IR594, the Secretary of State considers that the appellant’s affordable housing proposals are acceptable insofar as they do not contravene the provisions of the development plan and are realistic, although they may not fully satisfy the needs of the social rented sector (IR615). However, as explained in paragraphs 54-55 below, she has concerns with the delivery of such housing through the proposed Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking.

Deliverability of Mereham housing development

24. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions in IR595-IR596 and IR600-IR606. She accepts that the company did not by the close of the inquiry own or have an option on all the land required for the built component of the new settlement (IR597). However, she notes that the signed Undertaking has resolved the land assembly concerns highlighted by the Inspector, and she considers that this would no longer be an impediment to progress being made with the new settlement. Overall, the Secretary of State considers that, aside from the land assembly position, a potential delay could occur to the Mereham development due to the detailed planning process and the need to upgrade utility provision (IR615). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the potential delay that could occur to the implementation of the appeal proposals adds further weight against a new settlement that does not comply with the policy provisions of the existing and emerging development plans (IR615).

Delivery of Mereham employment development

25. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning in IR607-IR614. She considers that it appears likely that a large proportion of Mereham’s residents would commute outside the settlement for their daily work, particularly

in the early years of the settlement but possibly for a longer period (IR609). She also considers that there is no convincing evidence that Mereham would be harmful to the economic, social, environmental or cultural wellbeing of Ely (IR610). She also agrees that no firm conclusions can be reached on the viability of the Mereham development (IR613).

Sustainable development issues

Locational factors

26. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR616-IR618, that, whilst Mereham is in geographical terms more distant from Cambridge than many other locations around Cambridge, its degree of ‘remoteness’ is not so pronounced as to be the decisive factor in an assessment of its sustainable development merits (IR619). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that consideration of other factors such as the balance of uses within the settlement, the effectiveness of its transport arrangements, the efficiency of its internal settlement structure and the design and construction properties of its buildings should also be taken into account in the assessment of sustainability (IR616). These are considered below.

Broad development mix – housing, employment, retail

27. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no convincing evidence that the potential mix of housing types, employment use categories, local shopping facilities and education, primary health care and other community facilities would in principle result in an imbalanced community if implemented (IR620). However, she shares the Inspector’s concern that there is a real risk that delays in the realisation of any substantial employment development in the early years of Mereham’s development would result in an unbalanced community displaying the characteristics of a dormitory town (IR621).

28. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that whilst there is some justification for the appellant’s claim that Mereham would be well-connected by the high quality public transport service (HQPTS), the effectiveness and attractiveness of the HQPTS would be materially reduced by traffic conditions on the A10 (see paragraphs 34-37 below) (IR622).

Flood risk

29. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR623, that there is no suggestion in PPS25 that, given the approach taken as to which part of the appeal site would be developed, the long term prospects of flood inundation would justify the refusal of planning permission for the Mereham development (IR623).

Design, construction and layout of new settlement

30. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR624-IR625, that there is no suggestion that, in the terms of paragraph 69 of PPS3, the housing development could not be of high quality (IR625).

Other land uses within the application site; agricultural land considerations

31. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that it is difficult to see how the proposed contribution to non-fossil fuel production could be regarded in anything but a positive light, although no evidence was heard about the scale or economics of the proposed operation (IR627). She agrees that this is not a matter on which the outcome of Appeal A should turn (IR627). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR628-IR629, that there is no compelling reason to reject the Mereham proposal because of the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land (IR629).

Proposed wetlands area

32. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no convincing evidence to throw doubt on the appellant’s submission that the proposed wetlands area at the southern end of the appeal site would have the potential to become a resource of increasingly value, given the right detailed preparation and ongoing management (IR630). However, for the reasons given in IR631, she also shares the Inspector’s view that however valuable a wildlife resource the proposed wetlands might become, that could not in itself justify granting planning permission for the Mereham development.

Lack of comparative assessment

33. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR633-IR634, that a truly fair, detailed comparative assessment cannot be made with other new settlement proposals in the CSR, and this could be regarded as a drawback in the process. However, she also considers that this does not mean that an assessment of the particular merits or demerits of Mereham should not be made, nor that the appellant can be criticised for the inability of the inquiry to make an equitable comparative assessment of each of a number of new settlement proposals (IR635).

Transport and highways issues affecting sustainability

34. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions in IR636-IR672. 35. The Secretary of State considers that the provision of a HQPTS and bus priorities accord fully with national and local transport policies, including PPG13, the CPSP and the Cambridge Local Transport Plan (IR639). She also agrees with the Inspector that the traffic model underestimates the impact of the development on the local road network in the morning and its accuracy would be suspect in the evening peak, particularly for northbound flows (IR651). She considers that the traffic flows used for modelling purposes would understate the resultant flow predictions and their impact on the network in 2021. The strain on the highway network would therefore be greater than presented by the appellant, with the exception of the impact on the A14 which would be regulated by the Denny End throttle (IR651).

36. The Secretary of State considers that, with respect to A10 capacity, as a result of the development the widened A10 north of Denny End would be grossly overloaded relative to its carrying capacity and that for the factors mentioned earlier which suggest an underestimation of traffic, future conditions of congestion on the A10 should the development proceed could be regarded as chronic (IR668). She also agrees that, with the tail back from Denny End reducing the effectiveness of the HQPTS, a change of mode for B1049 drivers would be of limited benefit (IR670). However, the Secretary of State also concludes that the Mereham development would have no significant effect on the A14 such as to justify the rejection of the Mereham proposal for that reason (IR672).

37. Overall, the Secretary of State considers that should Mereham proceed, the adverse effect of the traffic from the new settlement would be insignificant on the A14 trunk road, providing it is reconfigured in accordance with the amended proposals and the Milton interchange is improved as proposed by the appellant. She considers that the adverse effect in terms of delayed journeys and driver and passenger frustration and inconvenience would be appreciable on the B1049, discernable on the A1123 and, above all, so significant on the A10 as to seriously inconvenience a significant number of people and businesses in parts of South and East Cambridgeshire and thus adversely affect the regional economy (IR673). She therefore considers that both Appeal A and Appeal B conflict with East of England Plan policy T1.

Rail Accessibility

38. For the reasons given in IR674-IR675, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that although Mereham would not have its own railway station, it can be argued that a railway station may not be necessary provided the HQPTS could operate efficiently at its intended frequency. However, she shares the Inspector’s concerns that if bus service efficiency were compromised by long queues of vehicles on the A10, no broadly attractive non-car modal alternative would be available to Cambridge commuters to compensate for that difficulty (IR675).

Physical impact issues

39. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions in IR676-IR697. 40. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, despite the impact of the planting programme, views from the A10 and B1049 north of the River Great Ouse would be significantly changed, and the essential border fenland character of the local countryside reduced (IR680). She also considers that the visual impact of employment development adjoining the A10 would only serve to maximise the urbanising effect of the new settlement on the southern approaches to the Stretham roundabout, notwithstanding the fact that the existing frontage housing development on both sides of the County road has already set that trend (IR680). 41. For the reasons set out in IR682, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that both the character and appearance of the Wilburton Conservation

Area would be preserved. However, she also agrees with the Inspector that, whilst the proposed development would stop just short of physical coalescence with the built up area of Wilburton, visual coalescence would occur and the separate identity of Wilburton would be compromised (IR683). The Secretary of State considers that in practical terms, the Mereham development would achieve visual coalescence with Stretham, given the presence not far to the south of proposed employment development near the A10 frontage and the relatively narrow width of the space separating the existing and proposed development (IR684). She also agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR685, that the Stretham Conservation Area would be preserved if the Mereham new settlement proposal were implemented. 42. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, with the additional traffic that would be drawn to both the A1123 and B1049, two roads that run through village communities, there is bound to be some adverse environmental impact from the Mereham development in terms of noise, vibration, severance and pollution. She also agrees with the Inspector that, of themselves, those impacts however would not be particularly substantial, although they would count against the scheme in the final reckoning (IR688). 43. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, with respect to the impact of A10 traffic conditions on amenity of adjoining property, it is likely there would be some loss of visual amenity from verge narrowing, and it is inevitable that significant increases in traffic flows and queue lengths on the A10 would lead to increased carbon emissions (IR691). Like the Inspector, she considers that these would justify monitoring by the relevant Authorities, and are a material consideration in the overall assessment of the Mereham proposal (IR691). 44. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR692-IR696, that the A10 proposals as amended could result in a material loss of landscape character in parts of the A10 corridor (IR697). Road safety and related issues 45. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons set out in IR698-IR699, overall there was no evidence presented which would lead to the conclusion that, as far as safety on the A10 was concerned, Appeal A or B should be dismissed on safety grounds alone (IR699). She also agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR700-IR701, that additional traffic pressures are likely to increase the accident potential of the B1049. Like the Inspector, she considers that this is an undesirable consequence of the development but, of itself, it would not be sufficient a disadvantage on its own to recommend rejection of Appeal A, although it would weigh against the new settlement proposal (IR701). Proposed replacement of the Jane Coston Bridge 46. The Secretary of State has taken into account the representations received regarding the proposed replacement of the Jane Coston Bridge (IR702-IR704). She agrees with the Inspector that these representations are of general relevance to the appeal proposals because the replacement of the existing bridge is a part of the appellant’s overall transportation proposal connected with

Mereham (IR703). However, she does not consider that these representations affect her overall conclusion on the appeal proposals. Archaeological issues 47. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR707-IR708, that the failure of the appellant to have carried out a field evaluation on over 5% of the overall land is not justification for dismissing Appeal A (IR708). Other material considerations 48. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR710-IR711, that the relevance or otherwise of the Mereham proposal to the Ecotowns Programme is not a significant factor in the determination of Appeals A or B. 49. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR712-IR713, that the absence of any provision for gypsies and travellers at Mereham does not justify the rejection of the Mereham proposal. She also agrees with the Inspector that the absence of provision for travelling showpeople within the Mereham new settlement does not justify rejection of the proposal (IR714). 50. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the decisions about the management of the Mereham Community and the wetland lie outside the principles for determining whether or not outline planning permission should be granted for the new settlement in the first instance (IR716). Planning conditions 51. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR737-IR738, that if she were inclined to grant planning permission, it would be appropriate to include a proposed phasing condition. The Secretary of State considers that proposed condition 58, which replicates ESC56 with the exception of the amendments suggested in IR733, meets the policy requirements set out in DoE Circular 11/95. However, the Secretary of State shares the Inspector’s concerns on the precise compatibility of condition 58 with the appellant’s Section 106 Undertaking and agrees with his conclusions in IR738, that the condition should be imposed with the modifications referred to in IR733. 52. The Secretary of State has also considered the Inspector’s assessment of the conditions as set out in IR728-772 as well as national policy in Circular 11/95. She considers that the majority of conditions which the Inspector recommends at Appendix 3 to his report are reasonable and necessary and meet the tests of Circular 11/95. The Secretary of State is concerned that condition 27 and condition 48 appear to contain slightly different restrictions on what may be permitted by the proposed development. She is also concerned that parts of condition 32 overlap with conditions 25 and 26. However, even if amended, the Secretary of State does not consider that the use of conditions would overcome the reasons for dismissing the Appeal. 53. With regard to Appeal B, the Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions and national policy as set out in Circular 11/95 and the Inspector’s comments at IR773-IR774. She considers that the conditions which the Inspector recommends at Appendix 3 to his report are reasonable and

necessary and meet the tests of Circular 11/95. However, she does not consider that the use of conditions would overcome her reasons for dismissing the Appeal. Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking 54. The Secretary of State has considered the signed and dated Section 106 Undertaking against national policy as set out in Circular 05/2005. She considers that the Undertaking contains some obligations which meet the tests of Circular 05/2005. However, she is concerned that some of the planning obligations would not successfully deliver their intended aims and objectives.

55. The Secretary of State has a number of concerns regarding the Undertaking insofar as it relates to the provision of affordable housing. The Secretary of State considers that the definition of intermediate housing (contained in Clause 1, Part 4 of Schedule 3) is inconsistent with the definition in PPS3 as it includes the prospect of sale at a discounted market rate. The Secretary of State has further concerns in relation to the cascade mechanism referred to in Part 4 to Schedule 3 of the Undertaking, which she considers is not sufficiently robust to ensure that an adequate and appropriate level of affordable housing would be provided. She also notes that the provision of affordable housing is dependent on a grant being made available and is concerned that there is a significant risk that the grant may not be provided, which could jeopardise the delivery of 40% affordable housing. The Secretary of State further considers that the Undertaking may not secure an appropriate level or tenure mix of affordable housing and that there are viability issues relating to the affordable housing provision that may result in a further delay in the affordable housing being provided.

56. The Secretary of State further considers that Clause 10 (‘Deemed Approval’) of the proposed Undertaking is unreasonable as it currently stands and is too onerous on the local authorities. She considers that this adds further weight against the proposals.

57. Overall, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the planning obligations set out in the Section 106 Undertaking can be relied upon to achieve their intended aims and objectives. She has therefore afforded limited weight to the Undertaking in the determination of these appeals.

Appeal C – Proposed Jane Coston Bridge 58. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR720-IR727, that Appeal C should be dismissed. She considers that the replacement bridge project is in planning terms a single entity (IR725). Furthermore, the replacement bridge would not be works carried out by a local highway authority nor for the maintenance or improvement of the A14 trunk road (IR725). She therefore considers that express planning permission would be required and a Lawful Development Certificate should not be granted. Overall conclusion 59. The Secretary of State has carefully considered this proposal. She recognises that the housing numbers in the East of England Plan are minima and that there

is a shortfall of housing land in the CSR. She also considers that the proposed level of affordable housing would accord with the development plan, although she is not satisfied that the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking will necessarily ensure the delivery of the proposed level of affordable housing. The Secretary of State considers that the proposed development has the potential to deliver other benefits including a high quality public transport service, a significant amount of employment and a number of sustainable measures, including a commitment to build in line with the Sustainable Buildings Code and BREEAM Code for non- residential buildings. 60. However, the Secretary of State considers that, overall, the appeal proposals are not in accordance with the development plan and the proposal has substantial deficiencies in terms of its failure to meet the locational policy set out in CSR1 of the East of England Plan. She further considers that ECDC has a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land. Whilst she recognises that, on the basis of available evidence, there appears to be a minor housing shortfall in the CSR region, she does not consider this shortfall significant so as to justify permitting the appeal proposals. The Secretary of State also has concerns about the early deliverability of the site, owing to her reservations with the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking and concerns regarding the timing of delivery of the necessary supporting infrastructure. 61. Whilst the Secretary of State acknowledges that there would be some transport benefit, including the proposed high quality public transport service, she considers this to be heavily outweighed by the increased traffic congestion on the already partially congested A10, which she considers would not only be unsustainable in the life of existing communities and businesses in the area and the proposed community at Mereham, but also prejudicial to the effective operation of the public transport service that the new settlement is intended to support. Overall, she considers that the transport proposals for this scheme, forming both Appeal A and Appeal B, are inadequate.

62. In addition, the Secretary of State considers that the proposed settlement would clearly result in a physical change to the local landscape and, even with the proposed mitigation measures, the visual impact of the proposed development would be significant. She also considers that, with the additional traffic, there is bound to be some adverse environmental impact from the proposed development on other villages in terms of noise, vibration, severance and pollution. Furthermore, with respect to Appeal B, the Secretary of State considers that the proposals would, on the evidence provided, harmfully impact on the landscape character of the A10 between Milton and the proposed new settlement (IR777). 63. The Secretary of State concludes that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that the appeals should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan and that planning permission for the proposed new settlement and improvements to the A10 should therefore be refused. Furthermore, she considers that Appeal C should be refused and that a lawful development certificate should not be issued.

Formal decision

64. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. She hereby dismisses your client’s appeals:

a. for a new settlement comprising up to around 5,000 homes; up to around 8,000m² retail and related uses (including a foodstore of around 2,500m², comparison retail of around 4,000m² and A2/A3/A4/A5 of around 1,500m²); up to around 45,000m² employment uses (B1, B2 and B8); supporting leisure, community and education uses; and infrastructure including highway works to the A10 – Application Ref 05/01116/OUM (Appeal A);

b. for highway improvements to the A10 between the A14 Milton Junction and River Great Ouse in the parishes of Milton, Landbeach and Waterbeach – Application Ref: S/1926/05/F (Appeal B); and

c. for a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC) for the replacement of the existing Jane Coston Cycle/Footbridge over the A14, south of its junction with the A10 at Milton, with a new bridge for buses, pedestrians and cyclists – Application ref: 06/1291/Cl2PD (Appeal C).

Right to challenge the decision

65. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State's decisions may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.

66. Copies of this letter and the Inspector's conclusions and recommendations are being sent to East Cambridgeshire District Council, South Cambridgeshire Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, and those other Parties who appeared at the Inquiry and whose representations are referred to in the Inspector's report.

Yours faithfully

Mark Plummer Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

Annex A

Schedule of correspondence received since the close of Inquiry

From Date

Miss M E Garner 26 March 2008 Ms H van de Watering 3 April 2008 Mr M Hall 2 April 2008 Councillor Ron Bradney 14 May 2008 Dr J Aniskowicz 15 May 2008 Mrs A Stuttle 16 May 2008 Revd Dr B L Hebblethwaite 26 May 2008 Ms L Harker 26 May 2008 Mr M Hensby 4 June 2008 Jim Daniels – Milton Parish Council 12 June 2008 Jeanette Thompson 13 June 2008 East Cambridgeshire District Council Mr D Gould 17 June 2008 Mr and Mrs Hallsworth 18 June 2008 Mr and Mrs Ashman 18 June 2008 Councillor Bill Hunt 19 June 2008 Mr D Fairchild and J.A. Marsh 22 June 2008 Ms A Biggs 22 June 2008 Mr and Mrs Baldwin 23 June 2008 Mr and Mrs Chrisham 24 June 2008 Mr D Calvert 25 June 2008 Mr A Zajac and Ms M Macbeth 25 June 2008 Mr S R Griffiths 25 June 2008 Ms K Rosewarne and Mr I Barton 29 June 2008 Mr D Booy 1 July 2008 Ms A Booy 1 July 2008 Mr G Barnes 2 July 2008 Mr D Welsh 2 July 2008 Ms J Murray 3 July 2008 Mr I J Hodgson 7 July 2008 Ms L Houghton 7 July 2008 Daniel Farrand 17 July 2008 SJ BERWIN LLP Jeanette Thompson 7 August 2008 East Cambridgeshire District Council H Granger-Brown 14 July 2008 Mrs L J Richards 15 July 2008 Messrs Williamson and Spencer 15 July 2008 Mr B Allen 16 July 2008 Anon 18 July 2008 Ms J Crighton 21 July 2008

D and K Ingless 21 July 2008 Mr L Phelps 21 July 2008 Mrs M Brinton 22 July 2008 Dr A James and Councillor W Hunt enclosing petition 28 July 2008 on behalf of the ‘Say No to Mereham’ campaign Mr G Bailey 1 August 2008 Mr A Hull 2 August 2008 Mr and Mrs Miners 2 August 2008 Ms B Grafton 5 August 2008 Mrs J Coker 12 August 2008 Mrs Becch 13 August 2008 Daniel Farrand 14 August 2008 SJ BERWIN LLP Councillor William Hunt 20 August 2008 Mrs N Taylor Undated Mr P Dellar Undated Mr and Mrs Bowles Undated