Richborough Estates
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mrs Elizabeth Marjoram Our Ref: APP/T3725/A/14/2221613 19 – 20 Church Gate Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 1UD 14 January 2016 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY BARWOOD STRATEGIC LAND II LLP LAND AT THE ASPS, BOUND BY EUROPA WAYEstates (A452) TO THE EAST AND BANBURY ROAD (A425) TO THE WEST APPLICATION REF: W/14/0300 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mrs J A Vyse DipTP DipPBM MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 14 April and 28 April 2015 into your client's appeal against a decision of Warwick District Council to refuse outline planning permission for: residential development (use class C3) for up to 900 dwellings, a primary school (use class D1), a local centre (use classes A1 to A5) and D1) and a Park and Ride facility for up to 500 spaces (sui generis) with access from Europa Way and Banbury Road, areas of public open space, landscaping enhancements and archaeological mitigation, on land at The Asps bound by Europa Way (A452)Richborough to the east and Banbury Road (A425) to the west, in accordance with application number W/14/0300 dated 27 February 2014. 2. On 25 July 2014, the appeal 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, because the scheme involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units, or is on a site of over 5 hectares, which would impact significantly on the objective of the Government to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. Planning Casework Division Tel: 0303 44 41630 Department of Communities and Local Government Email: [email protected] Third Floor, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, SW1P 4DF Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector has recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation, allows the appeal and grants planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural matters 4. 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) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement (ES) complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application (IR2.1 – 2.3). The Secretary of State’s consideration of environmental impacts has encompassed the assessment of cumulative effects in the ES. This includes evaluation of the potential combined effects of the proposed development at The Asps in conjunction with the effects of development of nearby areas which, at the time of the environmental appraisal, were proposed for development in the Council’s ‘Revised Development Strategy’ published in June 2013. These nearby areas included the whole of the separate appeal site on land south of Gallows Hill (planning application W/14/0681, appeal ref APP/T3725/A/14/2229398) which adjoins the northEstates part of The Asps appeal site. 5. The Secretary of State is in receipt of post inquiry representations that were received by the Planning Inspectorate too late to be considered by the Inspector. These are from Elizabeth Marjoram on behalf of the appellant dated 12 and 25 June 2015, both with enclosures, Ian Marriott of Warwick County Council dated 7 May 2015 and from Anthony King, Chairman of Save Warwick, dated 9 July 2015. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to these representations, but as they do not raise matters that would affect his decision he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. Copies of the representations will be provided on request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutoryRichborough considerations 6. In deciding the application, 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 development plan comprises the Warwick District Local Plan (LP) adopted in September 2007. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the application are those set out by the Inspector at IR4.3-4.11. 8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and the planning guidance (‘the Guidance’) published in March 2014; the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended; and the Historic England guidance entitled “The Setting of Heritage Assets” as updated in July 2015. 9. In accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving listed structures or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. The Secretary of State has also paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, as required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 10. The Secretary of State notes that the examination of the emerging Warwick Local Plan (ELP) has been suspended until May 2016. He has had regard to paragraph 216 of the Framework in relation to the weight to be given to emerging plans. In regard to the first and second considerations in paragraph 216, the ELP is at an early stage and still subject to significant unresolved objections to relevant policies. As regards the third consideration in paragraph 216, as the examining Inspector has indicated that the housing supply policies in the ELP (DS2, DS10, DS20 and H0) are currently unsound, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that, in their current form, those emerging policies would fully accord with the aim in the Framework to boost significantly the supply of housing. For all these reasons regarding the three considerations listed in Framework paragraph 216, the Secretary of State attributes limited weight to relevant policies in the ELP. 11. The Secretary of State is aware of the emerging Bishop’s Tachbrook Neighbourhood Plan (BTNP, see IR14.26 and Estatespreceding misnumbered paragraph). His consideration of the implications of the BTNP for this appeal decision is at paragraphs 28 -30 below. Main issues Conflict with adopted development plan 12. The appeal site lies outside the development boundary for Warwick, as defined by the LP, and in planning policy terms it lies in the open countryside. The site is not allocated for housing and general residential development in the open countryside is contrary to the policies of the LP, notably Policy RAP1 (IR.14.2). For this reason, and because of the conflict with LP Policies DP1, DP3 and DP6 for reasons given below, the Secretary of State considers that the proposal conflicts with theRichborough adopted development plan as a whole. Housing land supply 13. For the reasons given at IR14.5 –14.28, the Secretary of State concludes that the Council cannot demonstrate a robust five year supply of deliverable housing land. Consequently the Secretary of State shares the Inspector’s view that, pursuant to paragraph 49 of the Framework, Local Plan policy RAP1 which directs the location of new housing cannot be considered up to date (IR14.27). Heritage assets 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning set out at IR14.29 - 14.59 with regard to the effect of the development proposal on the special interest or significance of heritage assets. He agrees with the Inspector’s finding at IR14.61 that, in terms of listed buildings, there would be harm to significance only in relation to The Aspens and such harm that there would be is minimal, and definitely less than substantial. There would also be very limited less than substantial harm to the significance of the non-designated Asps Cottage. 15. For the reasons given, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s finding at IR14.63 that the development proposal would cause harm to the significance of the Grade I registered Castle Park and, by association, the Conservation Area, albeit that this harm would be less than substantial for the purpose of the Framework. Having paid special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, he has given considerable weight to the totality of harm to the settings and significance of the Castle Park Conservation Area and The Aspens. 16. In reaching conclusion on harm to heritage assets, the Secretary of State has carefully considered the cumulative impacts on those assets if he were to allow this appeal and also allow the separate appeal concerning land south of Gallows Hill. He has had particular regard to the assessment of this matter at paragraphs 17.30 - 34 of the ES and also the conclusions on heritage matters in the separate Inspector’s report on the Gallows Hill appeal. That Inspector concluded that development of that site would cause limited less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the registered Castle Park and Warwick Conservation Area.