Mr Michael Hepburn Our Ref: APP/E2001/A/13/2200981 Nathanial Lichfield & Partners and APP/E2001/A/14/2213944 Generator Studios Your Ref: LE50132/01 & LE50132 Trafalgar Street Newcastle upon Tyne 25 June 2015 NE1 2LA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY ST MODWEN DEVELOPMENTS LTD LAND TO THE EAST AND WEST OF BRICKYARD LANE, MELTON PARK, EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mrs K.A. Ellison BA, MPhil, MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry which sat for 15 days over a four week period from 29 April 2014, for a further two days on 6 and 7 August 2014 and closed in writing by letters dated 2 September 2014, into your client's appeal against the decisions of East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the Council) to refuse planning permission for Appeal A: residential development of up to 510 dwellings, 50 bed care home, 20 sheltered apartment units for elderly persons, 16 dormer bungalows for elderly persons, a local centre maximum 680sqm (total internal floor area) to include retail; community and leisure uses within use classes A1, A3, A5 and D1, informal and formal recreation open space including children’s play areas and sports pitches, sports changing block, landscaping, drainage works including ponds, cycle way and footway links, new highways access, internal roads and car parking area (access to be considered); in accordance with application DC/12/04849/STOUT/STRATRichborough dated 30 Estates November 2012. Appeal B: residential development of up to 390 dwellings, 50 bed care home, 20 sheltered apartment units for elderly persons, 16 dormer bungalows for elderly persons, a local centre maximum 680sqm (total internal floor area) to include retail; community and leisure uses within use classes A1, A3, A5 and D1, 7.7ha of employment land use class B1 and/or B2 and/or B8, informal and formal recreation open space including children’s play areas and sports pitches, sports changing block, landscaping, drainage works including ponds, cycle way and footway links, new highways access, internal roads and car parking area (access to be considered); in accordance with application reference DC/13/02860/STOUT/STRAT dated 23 August 2013. Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 2. The appeals were recovered on15 July 2013 and 17 February 2014 respectively, for determination by the Secretary of State, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the grounds that they involve proposals for residential development of over 150 units or 5ha which would significantly impact on the 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 appeals be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Events following the Close of the Inquiry 4. The Secretary of State is in receipt of representations submitted following the close of the inquiry as listed at Annex A. He has taken account of all this correspondence in reaching his decision on this appeal, and is satisfied that it does not raise any new issues which would either affect his decision or require him to refer back further to parties prior to determining the appeal. Copies may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. This correspondence includes the representations received in response to the Secretary of State’s letter of 10 April 2015 to the main parties inviting representations on any effects arising from the Council’s publication for consultationEstates of their modifications to the Local Plan on 30 March 2015 and which included an invitation to comment on the impacts on the area of the publication of the 2012-based household projections in England. Procedural matters 5. The Secretary of State is satisfied that, although the proposals fall within the description at paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, for the reasons given at IR1.8 and IR13.2 they are not EIA development . Policy considerations Richborough 6. 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. 7. In this case, the adopted development plan for the area comprises the Beverley Borough Local Plan (1996) and the saved policies of the Joint Structure Plan for Kingston upon Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire (2005); and the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most relevant policies are those detailed at IR4.2-4.3. Like the appeal Inspector, and given that the Examination is still on- going, the Secretary of State has given limited weight to the emerging Local Plan; and he agrees that the most relevant policies from the Proposed Submission Strategy Document and the Proposed Submission Allocations Document are those described at IR4.5-4.8. 8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the associated planning practice guidance; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. Main issues 9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in this case are those set out at IR13.5. The development plan and national planning policy 10. The Secretary of State notes (IR13.7-13.9) that there is no dispute that the proposals conflict with the adopted development plan and the emerging local plan and he agrees with the Inspector with regard to the weight that this conflict should be given. However, he also agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR13.10 that, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework, so long as the appeal proposals can be accepted as a sustainable form of development, the planning balance to be applied would be that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The provision for housing in the East Riding of Yorkshire 11. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’sEstates reasoning on housing provision at IR13.11-13.62 and, for the reasons given at IR13.63-13.65, he agrees with her conclusions that the Council’s figures of a requirement for just over 10,000 dwellings for the housing market and just under 14,000 for the Council’s administrative area are to be preferred over those put forward on behalf of your client, as is the Council’s assessment of overall supply, at almost 15,000. Overall, therefore, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, whether the analysis is based on the Housing Market Area or the Council’s area, it has not been shown that there is any pressing need for additional sites to come forward to sustain the local supply of housing. However, he also agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that substantial weight should attach to the proposals in proportion to the contribution they wouldRichborough make to the supply of affordable housing. The employment land supply and wider economic development objectives 12. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s discussion at IR 13.66-13.86, the Secretary of State agrees with her conclusion at IR13.87 that, as the appeal site comprises a substantial proportion of the highly accessible Melton site, it represents a logical choice in relation to the spatial strategy of the emerging local plan with regard to employment land which would be much diminished if the appeal site were to be developed for housing – thereby having a significant detrimental effect on the portfolio of employment land. The Secretary of State also therefore agrees with the Inspector that, although there is potential for other land to come forward, this would have to be on an ad hoc basis rather than as part of a plan-led approach, potentially causing harm to economic development objectives. Contamination 13. For the reasons given at IR13.88-13.95, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR13.95 that, although the concerns of local residents are understandable, there is nothing in the technical evidence to indicate that any contamination persists at such a level as to indicate that residential development should not be permitted on the appeal site. Effect on character 14. Having considered the Inspector’s reasoning at IR13.96-13.102, the Secretary of State agrees with her conclusion at IR13.103 that, when considered against the scope for employment development on the site, the appeal proposals are unlikely to give rise to any greater visual or landscape character impact. However, he also agrees with her that the appeal proposals would have an urbanising impact on the character of North Ferriby. Other matters 15. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the other matters raised by residents and other groups as described by the Inspector at IR13.104-13.108, and he agrees with her conclusions on all of them.