APP/A1530/A/13/2195924 Collins & Coward Ltd Your Ref: Cc/1499 the Courtyard 9A East Street 16 April 2014 Coggeshall Essex CO6 1SH
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Mr Tony Collins Our Ref: APP/A1530/A/13/2195924 Collins & Coward Ltd Your Ref: cc/1499 The Courtyard 9A East Street 16 April 2014 Coggeshall Essex CO6 1SH Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY BUNTING AND SONS AT LAND NORTH OF LONDON ROAD AND WEST OF THE A314, LITTLE HORKESLEY, COLCHESTER CO6 4AJ 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (“The Secretary of State”) to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, C J Ball DArch DCons RIBA IHBC, who held an inquiry on 1-4 October 2013 into your clients’ appeal against the decision of Colchester Borough Council (“The Council”) to refuse planning permission for the change of use and development of land to form ‘The Stour Valley Visitor Centre at Horkesley Park’ comprising a country park, art and craft studios (The Chantry), public gardens, a central building complex to provide an indoor display ring, ‘Suffolk Punch Breeding Centre’, entrance building, shop, café, ‘Field to Fork’, ‘Farming through the ages’, Active Learning, ‘Nature Watch’, and retained greenhouse as a demonstration nursery and gardens, an ‘Energy Centre’, main and overflow car parks, service yard, highway improvements, ancillary works and infrastructure provision at land north of London Road and West of the A314, Little Horkesley, Colchester CO6 4AJ, in accordance with planning application reference 120965, dated 30 May 2012. 2. On 4 April 2013 the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination in pursuance of section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because the appeal involves proposals giving rise to substantial regional or national controversy. Inspector’s recommendation 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given in this letter the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. All references to paragraph numbers refer to the Inspector’s report (IR), a copy of which is enclosed. Department for Communities and Local Government Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Division Tel: 0303 444 1634 1/H1 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU 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. Having had regard to the Inspector’s remarks at IR17, the Secretary of State is content 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 appeal. 5. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s remarks at IR4 – 8. He has taken account of the fact that, at the inquiry, the Council’s witnesses, their evidence, and that of third party objectors was essentially unchallenged by the appellants and that the appellants’ evidence was not tested by cross examination (IR8). Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State has given the submitted evidence the weight due in these circumstances (IR8). 6. At the Inquiry three applications for costs were submitted (IR9). These applications are the subject of separate decision letters being issued today. Matters Arising Following the Close of the Inquiry 7. On 6 March 2014, Government published new Planning Practice Guidance and, on 14 March, the Secretary of State wrote to you inviting comments from you and other parties on that Guidance and on a recent Court of Appeal judgment. On 1 April, the Secretary of State circulated the representations he had received and invited any further comments from the parties on those representations. A list of the representations received is included at Annex A. In reaching his decision on this appeal, the Secretary of State has taken account of the material considerations raised in those letters. 8. The Secretary of State is also in receipt of other representations submitted following the close of the inquiry and too late to be submitted to the Inspector. These representations are also listed at Annex A. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these representations and he does not consider that they raise any new issues which would either affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties prior to determining the appeal. 9. Copies of the representations listed in Annex A are not enclosed with this letter but may be obtained on written request from either of the addresses at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy Considerations 10. In deciding the 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. 11. He has also had regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires that special regard be paid to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings and any features of special architectural or historic interest they possess. 12. In this case the development plan comprises the Colchester Local Plan, which consists of the Core Strategy 2008 (CS), the Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2010 and the Development Policies Development Plan Document 2010 (DP). Like the Inspector, he considers that the policies of particular relevance to this appeal are those listed at IR25. 13. The Secretary of State has taken account of the Inspector’s remarks at IR26 and IR 263 – 265 about the Council’s focussed review of CS and DP policies. He sees no reason to disagree with the Inspector’s analysis in those paragraphs and he too is satisfied that the weight to be accorded to the relevant policies is unaffected (IR264). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, following the revocation of the East of England Regional Strategy, the tourism aspects of the proposal can be properly assessed against current development plan and national policy objectives (IR266). 14. Other material considerations to which the Secretary of State has had regard include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) (which cancelled previous planning guidance documents set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 6 March 2014, including Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission) and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2012 as amended. He has also taken account of the documents to which the Inspector refers at IR28. Main issues 15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR262) that the main considerations in this appeal fall within three broad headings: i. whether the site can be considered to be in a sustainable location, with particular regard to accessibility; ii. the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of its rural surroundings, and in particular on the purpose, landscape character and scenic beauty of the Dedham Vale AONB; and iii. whether there are any other material planning considerations which might support or undermine the proposal when assessed against the adopted planning framework for the area. Whether the site can be considered to be in a sustainable location, with particular regard to accessibility 16. Having given careful consideration to the Inspector’s remarks at IR267 – 270, the Secretary of State agrees with him that the Council’s calculation of annual visitor numbers and modes of transport is a more realistic assessment than that of the appellants and that, even on this basis, the scheme would still generate significant traffic movement (IR270). For the reasons set out by the Inspector at IR271 – 277, the Secretary of State shares his view that the Visitor Centre would be car dependent and poorly served by the more sustainable modes of walking, cycling and public transport (IR277). He also concurs with the Inspector that, because of its remote location and poor level of access by sustainable transport, the proposal would lead to an unsustainable pattern of development and that this would be in direct conflict with national and local planning policies which seek to promote sustainable transport choice and reduce emissions from transport (IR277). The Secretary of State sees no reason to disagree with the Inspector that the scheme would conflict with CS policy SD1 and that it would not comply with CS policy CE1 and that it would not meet the policy objectives of CS policy TA1 or DP policy DP17 (IR274). In conclusion on this issue, like the Inspector, the Secretary of State concludes that the site cannot be considered to be in a sustainable location (IR277). The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of its rural surroundings, and in particular on the purpose, landscape character and scenic beauty of the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 17. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s comments at IR278 – 281. In common with the Inspector, he does not consider that the proposal amounts to major development in the AONB and he too takes the view that paragraph 116 of the Framework cannot be invoked (IR281). However, the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would be major development in the countryside with the site both in and near the AONB and that it thus falls within the scope of DP policy DP22 which sets out the criteria for development in such locations (IR282). 18. Having had regard to the Inspector’s remarks at IR283 – 289, the Secretary of State sees no reason to disagree with that analysis. Taken on balance, he too concludes that, while the replacement of the former tomato nursery buildings would substantially improve views into and from the AONB, the combined impact of the enclosure of the parking area, the change of use of the land, the addition of the Chinese garden and the loss of tranquillity, while not dramatic, would adversely affect the special landscape character and qualities of the AONB itself (IR290).