Land at Valley Park School, Off New Cut Road, Maidstone Application Ref: 17/501471
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Our ref: APP/U2235/W/17/3185916 Halah Al-Zamel Trowers & Hamlins LLP 3 Burnhill Row London EC1Y 8YZ 24 September 2018 [email protected] Dear Madam, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY BAM CONSTRUCTION LTD LAND AT VALLEY PARK SCHOOL, OFF NEW CUT ROAD, MAIDSTONE APPLICATION REF: 17/501471 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of John Felgate BA(Hons) MA MRTPI who held a public local inquiry on 22 May 2018 into your client’s appeal against the failure of Maidstone Borough Council to determine your application for planning permission for a 3 storey secondary school, with associated access, car parking and landscaping in accordance with application ref: 17/501471 dated 13 March 2017. 2. On 14 November 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 planning permission be granted, subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to grant planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 4. On 27 July 2018 the Secretary of State wrote to the main parties to afford them an opportunity to comment on the publication of the new National Planning Policy Framework along with associated guidance on 24 July 2018. Responses were received from your Company on 2 August 2018 and from Maidstone Borough Council on 3 August 2018. These responses were circulated to the main parties on 6 August 2018. Copies of all correspondence referred to above may be obtained on written request to the address below. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Policy and statutory considerations 5. 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. 6. In this case the development plan consists of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) (MBLP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR20-21. 7. 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’), as well as the Planning For Schools Development Written Ministerial Statement of August 2011. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018, and unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the revised Framework. Main issues Traffic, parking and highway safety 8. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s consideration of the effects on traffic, parking and highways safety in IR84-90, and agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions in IR89-90 that although the development would give rise to some minor local impacts, this would not amount to significant harm. Effects on the former Vinters parkland 9. The Secretary of State notes that a small part of the application site together with the neighbouring Vinters Valley Nature Reserve were both included in the landscaped grounds of the former ‘Vinters’ manor house. This parkland was redesigned in the 18th Century by the renowned landscape architect Humphry Repton. For the reasons given in IR91-93, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion in IR93 that the development would not adversely affect any historic parkland or other historic asset. Landscape 10. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis in IR94–99 on the value of, and potential impact of the proposal on, trees. He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion in IR98-99 that the proposal does not conflict with MBLP Policies DM1 or DM3, and that the loss of trees would cause some harm which carries moderate weight against the development. Ecology 11. For the reasons given in IR100–105, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion in IR105 that overall, no significant harm to ecology or biodiversity would result from the proposed development. Planning conditions 12. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis in IR109-135, the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them, and 2 to national policy in paragraph 55 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test set out at paragraph 55 of the Framework and that the conditions set out at Annex A should form part of his decision. Planning balance and overall conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the appeal scheme is in accordance with policies SP1 and DM20 and with the development plan overall. He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. 14. The Secretary of State considers that the loss of trees would cause harm to the area’s character and appearance, and that this harm attracts moderate weight against the proposal. He nevertheless considers that the need for the new school attracts significant weight in favour of the proposals, and that the proposed development’s accordance with the development plan is not outweighed by other material considerations. Formal decision 15. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby allows your client’s appeal and grants planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Annex A of this decision letter for a 3 storey secondary school, with associated access, car parking and landscaping in accordance with application ref: 17/501471 dated 13 March 2017. 16. 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 17. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 18. A copy of this letter has been sent to Maidstone Borough Council, and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the decision. Yours faithfully Jean Nowak Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf 3 Annex A Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. Except where these conditions require otherwise, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans hereby approved, as listed in the attached Schedule. 3. The premises shall be used for a school and for no other purpose, including any other purposes in Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. 4. (i) No existing tree or hedge on the site shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor topped or lopped, other than in accordance with the details shown on the approved Tree Protection Plan, No TPP001 (sheets 3a and 3b) and listed in Appendix 3 of the ‘Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement’, by Thomson Ecology, dated March 2017. All other existing trees and hedges within the site shall be retained. (ii) No development shall take place, and no equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought on to the site, until protective fencing has been installed around the trees and hedges to be retained, in accordance with Section 4.7 and Appendices 4 and 5 of the above-mentioned Arboricultural report. During the course of development, nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavations be made, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The protective fencing thus erected shall be kept in place until all equipment, machinery and materials have been removed from the site. (iii) If, during the course of development or within 5 years from its first occupation, any retained tree or section of hedge is removed, destroyed or dies, it shall be replaced with a new tree or hedge, of a size and type to be approved in writing by the local planning authority. 5. No excavation or construction works shall take place within 5 metres from the Root Protection Area (RPA) of any retained tree, as defined on the approved Tree Protection Plan, No TPP001 (sheets 3a and 3b), until a Construction Method Statement for those works has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing.