Roy Pinnock Our Ref: APP/G2815/V/12/2190175 SNR Dentons UK LLP Your Ref: MFXB/95642.00002 One Fleet Place LONDON EC4M 7WS 11 June 2014 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION BY LXB RP (RUSHDEN) LIMITED LAND ADJACENT SKEW BRIDGE SKI SLOPE, NORTHAMPTON ROAD, RUSHDEN APPLICATION REF: EN/12/00010/FUL 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Harold Stephens BA MPhil Dip TP MRTPI FRSA, who held a public local inquiry on 25-28 June, 2-5 July and 9-12 July 2013 into your client’s hybrid planning application comprising: a full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants, boathouse, together with proposals for access and an outline application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved (appearance); plus removal of ski slope and associated levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop (application Ref. EN/12/00010/FUL dated 20 December 2011). 2. On 7 January 2013, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority, East Northamptonshire District Council (“the Council”). Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to the IR. Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Tel: 0303 444 1626 Planning Casework Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J1, Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU Procedural matters 4. For the reasons set out in IR1.5, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that no procedural unfairness arose as a consequence of the submission on the last day of the inquiry of a Unilateral Planning Obligation concerning the provision of an improved bus service (IR1.4-1.5). 5. The Secretary of State has had regard to correspondence submitted too late to be considered by the Inspector, as set out in Annex B to this letter. He has carefully considered these representations but, as they do not raise new matters that would affect his decision, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. Furthermore, the Secretary of State wrote to the main inquiry parties on 10 March 2014, inviting comment on the Planning Guidance which was published on 6 March and on any material change in circumstances, fact or policy, which may have arisen since the close of the inquiry which the parties considered relevant. The responses received were circulated for further comment on 7 April. A list of the representations received is set out in Annex C to this letter. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these but is satisfied that they do no raise any new material considerations sufficient to affect the decision in this case. Copies of the representations listed in Annexes B and C can be made available on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. 6. The Secretary of State notes (IR1.12 and 8.2) that planning permission for a business park was granted in 2002 on the whole of the previously developed land, and that this permission, along with succeeding permissions which remain extant, include a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the A45 and a condition requiring an Access and Management Plan for the ski lake and its immediate environs. 7. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Environmental Statement, in conjunction with the supplementary environmental information (as set out in IR1.22), meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and provides the data and information required to adequately assess the impacts on the environment of the proposed development (IR1.23). Policy considerations 8. In determining 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 this case the development plan consists of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 (NNJCS) and the saved policies of the East Northampton Local Plan (1996) (LP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to this case are those set out at IR1.26-1.31. He notes that the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD identifies the application site as a “Sand and gravel safeguarding area” (Policy CS10); but agrees with the Inspector that, given that the principle of development on the site is already established through earlier consents, the site’s current designation as a Minerals Safeguarding Area under Policy CS10 is less relevant in this case (IR1.33). 9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); the associated Planning Guidance; and the Nene Valley Strategic Plan. 10. In determining this application, the Secretary of State has also had regard to the Emerging Draft North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031, which he notes envisages an enhanced role for Rushden (IR1.34), and the emerging Four Towns Plan (IR1.35). However, for the reasons given in IR8.6, he agrees with the Inspector that little weight can be afforded to these plans. Main issues Development plan and sustainable development 11. For the reasons in IR8.8-8.9, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application is not in accordance with the NNJCS spatial strategy, particularly Policies 1 and 12 (IR8.9 and 8.13-8.14). However, he also agrees with the Inspector that there are other parts of the NNJCS with which the application is wholly in accordance, including The Vision for North Northamptonshire (IR8.10). He agrees with the Inspector that the development would assist in meeting the vision by delivering jobs for which there is a step- change requirement; delivering investment in services and facilities which would assist in making North Northamptonshire a “more self-sufficient area” and better able to meet the needs of the growing population in the south of that area; regenerating Rushden; and enhancing the environment of Rushden Lakes and the Nene Valley (IR8.10). He also agrees that the proposals accord with most of the objectives for realising the vision in the NNJCS, notably 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; and that the proposals are also in broad compliance with Policies 5, 8 and 13 (IR8.12). 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that a founding principle of the NNJCS is to increase the self sufficiency of North Northamptonshire (IR8.11); and he notes that paragraph 3.11 of the NNJCS and Policy 12 expressly provide for applications to be considered on their merits against tests which recognise the importance of retaining expenditure there (IR8.11). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR8.15) that, for the reasons in IR8.16-8.29, Policies 1 and 2 of the NNJCS are out of date; and, for the reasons in IR8.22-8.28, that Policy 12 of the NNJCS is also out of date (IR8.22). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the NNJCS has failed to deliver the growth necessary to enhance the self sufficiency of the area (IR8.30); and that, in so far as the adopted LP contains/relies on the allocation of the application site as an employment commitment, it is also not up-to-date. The Secretary of State also notes that the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (NNJPU) has not been able to agree a retail strategy for the emerging NNJCS (IR8.32-8.33). Conclusion on development plan 13. For the reasons set out above and in IR8.34, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, while the proposal would accord with a number of development plan policies and objectives, it would not wholly accord with the NNJCS spatial strategy and therefore would not be in accordance with the development plan as a whole. However, he also agrees with the Inspector that the key policies and provisions in the adopted development plan are out-of- date; and that, applying paragraphs 18 to 219 of the Framework as a whole, the proposal amounts to sustainable development which, as local people have themselves indicated, would achieve positive improvements in the quality of the built and natural environment and in their quality of life. Vitality of town centres 14. For the reasons given in IR8.37-8.42, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on the need and scale tests. Sequential test 15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application site is out of centre and that the sequential test would be satisfied if “suitable [in or edge of centre] sites are not available”, albeit that that involves consideration of the question of “flexibility” (IR8.43). Furthermore, having regard to the arguments put forward by the Inspector at IR8.44-8.48, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR8.48 that the sequential test relates entirely to the application proposal and whether it can be accommodated on an actual alternative site (eg a town centre site).The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on the sequential test in IR8.48.