Land East of Weylands House and Molesey Road and South of Fieldcommon Lane, Walton-On-Thames, Surrey Application Ref: 2016/2217
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Caroline Stares Our ref: APP/K3605/W/17/3172429 Hogan Lovells International LLP Atlantic House Holborn Viaduct London EC1A 2FG 24 May 2018 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY BONNAR ALLAN LIMITED LAND EAST OF WEYLANDS HOUSE AND MOLESEY ROAD AND SOUTH OF FIELDCOMMON LANE, WALTON-ON-THAMES, SURREY APPLICATION REF: 2016/2217 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of David Prentis BA BPI MRTPI who held a public local inquiry from 31 October 2017 for 9 days into your client’s appeal against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for an outline application with all matters reserved except access for the development of a new garden village comprising up to 1,024 new residential units, community based hub and parkland, primary school, medical centre, dentists and pharmacy, local supermarket, pub/restaurant, offices, parking, nature conservation and water features, recreation, landscaping and associated facilities following demolition of existing structures, in accordance with application ref: 2016/2217, dated 4 July 2016. 2. On 19 June 2017, 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, 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. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 2853 Phil Barber, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 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 2011. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR14 and IR39-46, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement 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 at IR3 that shortly before the inquiry the appellant submitted a revised set of parameter plans. For the reasons given at IR3, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that no-one would be prejudiced by the appeal being determined on this basis. The Secretary of State has considered the appeal on the basis of the amended plans. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 7. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry closed is at Annex A. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Copies of these letters may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. 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 Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 (CS), the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan 2015 (DMP) and the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR23-25. 10. 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’). Emerging plan 11. The Council has commenced the preparation of a new local plan. A Strategic Options Consultation (Regulation 18) was published in December 2016 (IR26). Studies and reports that form the base for the emerging local plan include those set out at IR28. 12. Paragraph 216 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. 2 13. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR26-28 and IR339. The Secretary of State considers that the emerging plan is at an early stage and affords it very little weight. Main issues 14. The Secretary of State agrees that the main considerations are those set out by the Inspector at IR336. He has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR337-339. The need for housing and the supply of housing land 15. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR340-344. He has taken into account at IR341 that the Council and appellant agreed that the supply figure was 1,635 and it was agreed that a 5% buffer should be applied. The Secretary of State has further taken into account that using the SHMA16 figure for OAN, the Council’s position was that it could demonstrate a supply of 3.20 years. For the reasons given at IR341, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR341 that the available supply falls short of the 5 years required by the Framework. He further agrees that paragraph 49 of the Framework is engaged and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. 16. The Secretary of State has taken into account at IR342 that there were three main areas of disagreement between the Council and the appellant. For the reasons given at IR343, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR343 that he does not consider that the SHMA16 is rendered out of date merely because new projections have been issued since it was prepared. Whether market signals justify an uplift to the OAN 17. For the reasons given at IR345-349, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR350 that his overall assessment is that there is a worsening trend in a number of relevant indicators and that this suggests that there should be an uplift to the OAN to reflect market signals. He further agrees that the conclusion of the SHMA16, that no market signals uplift is required, is not supported by the evidence before the inquiry. 18. For the reasons given at IR345-355, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR356 that he attaches very little weight to the appellant’s evidence regarding what that uplift should be. He further agrees that in this case he considers that evidence of what has been done elsewhere is the best evidence before him. For the reasons given at IR345-355, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR357 that clearly affordability is a significant issue in Elmbridge and he agrees that it would be appropriate to increase the SHMA16 OAN by 20% to reflect market signals. It would increase the OAN to 569 dpa. Whether an uplift should be made for affordable housing 19. For the reasons given at IR358-360, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR360 that 35% of all housing delivered as affordable housing, which would amount to 199 affordable dwellings per annum which would be about 60% of the identified need. He further agrees that this would be an appropriate and realistic response to affordable housing needs. 3 Whether an uplift should be made for employment 20. For the reasons given at IR361-363, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR363 that the appellant’s employment led figure of 553 dpa is reasonable. He further agrees that as this would be contained within the market signals uplift referred to above no further adjustment is required. Five year housing land supply 21. For the reasons given at IR364, the Secretary of State agrees at IR364 that the agreed supply position is 1,635. He further agrees (IR365) that 2.65 years should be regarded as a broad indication of the likely level of supply relative to the OAN and it should not be interpreted as a precise figure. Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places 22. The Secretary of State agrees that as ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’ is a consultation document, little weight can be placed on its proposals (IR366). Progress on the local plan and the prospects for improving the supply position 23. For the reasons given at IR367-368, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR368 that on balance, the appellant’s suggested timescale of adoption of a new local plan seems more realistic. For the reasons given at IR367-369, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR370 that the backlog over the plan period cannot be quantified with any certainty because it depends on the outcome of the local plan process. For the reasons given at IR370-371, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR371 in attaching limited weight to the appellant’s specific calculations in relation to backlogs beyond the 5 year period.