Land Off Gilcroft Street/St Andrews Street and Vere Street, Sutton-In-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Mr Robert Fletcher Our Ref: APP/W3005/A/12/2179635 Partner, Ian Baseley Associates Your Ref: RF/MillwardSkegbyApp/10 The Studios Church Farm Mansfield Road, 7 March 2013 Edwinstowe, Nottinghamshire NG21 9NJ Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY MSSRS MILLWARD, SHAW AND WEBSTER LAND OFF GILCROFT STREET / ST ANDREWS STREET, SKEGBY, SUTTON-IN- ASHFIELD, NG17 3EJ, AND VERE STREET, SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD, NG17 4DS APPLICATION REF: V/2011/0503 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Julia Gregory BSc(Hons) BTP MRTPI MCMI, who held a public local inquiry on 4 days between 20 and 23 November 2012 into your clients’ appeal against the refusal of Ashfield District Council (“the Council”) to grant outline planning permission for residential development at land off Gilcroft Street/St Andrews Street, Skegby, Sutton in Ashfield NG17 3EJ and Vere Avenue, Sutton in Ashfield, NG17 4DS, in accordance with application ref: V/2011/0503. 2. On 18 October 2012, the 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, because it involves a proposal over 150 units on a site of more than 5 ha 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. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendations. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Tel 0303 444 1626 Planning Casework Division Email [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU Procedural matters 4. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion (IR15) that no part of the proposals could be disaggregated from the whole and that a split decision would not be appropriate. Policy considerations 5. In deciding this appeal, 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 this case, the development plan comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 (RS) and the Ashfield Local Plan (LP) adopted in 2002 for the period to 2011. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR36) that the emerging Ashfield Local Plan 2010-2023 preferred Approach September 2012 can be given little weight at this stage as there is no submission Local Plan and there are unresolved issues in representations. 6. The Localism Act 2011 provides for the abolition of Regional Strategies. However, until such time as the RSS is formally revoked by Order, the RSS remains part of the development plan and must be taken into account in determining this appeal. 7. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework); Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Circular 11/1995: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended; and the Council’s consultation draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Main issues 8. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in this case are those referred to at IR120. Housing land supply 9. For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR124-125, the Secretary of State agrees with her conclusion that the Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing land and that the undersupply is significant and of substantial weight in considering this appeal. He also agrees that little weight can be given to the emerging local plan (IR 126) and that the scale and location of the housing proposed in the appeal scheme would not be so substantial as to raise issues best addressed in a local plan (IR 127). Furthermore, for the reasons given at IR128-131, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appeal site could provide a substantial amount of housing that would be consistent with Government policy while providing a substantial area of parkland to maintain the separation between Skegby and Sutton-in-Ashfield. Character and appearance of the countryside 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR132-133) that the development would not have a significant impact on the character of the landscape generally and that neither the impact of lighting nor of vehicular and pedestrian movement would be so significant as to be harmful to the character of the area. He also agrees with the Inspector (IR134) that the land to be conveyed to the Council could be effectively managed and would provide better public access, including a formalised link to Skegby Hall Historic Park and Gardens. 11. For the reasons given at IR135-137, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, although the development could be accommodated into the area without undue effects on its character and appearance, it is unlikely that development in the way shown on any of the illustrative plans submitted to the inquiry could be achieved without significant and harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area. The Secretary of State therefore agrees with the Inspector that the number of dwellings should not be specified in the outline consent and that the illustrative plans should not be seen to prejudge any subsequent reserved matters. Quality of housing development 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR143 that, for the reasons given at IR138-142, there is no reason to suppose that details submitted pursuant to an outline permission could not represent a high quality housing development providing a good mix of housing including affordable housing that would be consistent with the Framework and provide good living conditions both for future residents and for the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Conditions and obligations 13. The Secretary of State has also considered the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the Planning Obligations as set out at IR144-155, and he is satisfied that the conditions as proposed by the Inspector and set out at Annex A to this letter are reasonable, necessary and comply with Circular 11/95. 14. With regard to the Planning Obligation (IR156-163), the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provisions set out in the signed and sealed Unilateral Undertaking dated 6 December 2012 and submitted following the close of the inquiry reflect the discussions at the inquiry and can be considered to be compliant with CIL Regulation 122. Overall Conclusions 15. As the relevant LP policies are out of date, the Secretary of State gives significant weight to the fact that the Framework indicates that, in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply in an up-to-date, adopted development plan, planning permission should be granted for the proposal. He is satisfied that the appeal site is in a sustainable location for housing development, and that, as the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, he does not consider that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to justify refusing planning permission. Formal Decision 16. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. He hereby allows your clients’ appeal and grants outline planning permission for residential development at land off Gilcroft Street/St Andrews Street, Skegby, Sutton in Ashfield NG17 3EJ and Vere Avenue, Sutton in Ashfield, NG17 4DS, in accordance with application ref: V/2011/0503. 17. An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of this permission for agreement of reserved matters has a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or granted conditionally or if the Local Planning Authority fail to give notice of their decision within the prescribed period. 18. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Right to challenge the decision 19. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter. 20. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Council. A notification e-mail / letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision. Yours faithfully JEAN NOWAK Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf ANNEX A CONDITIONS 1. For those matters not reserved for later approval, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Application site plan, 373:P:01 and NTT/1362/001/Rev P1. 2. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.