28 July 2011 Paul Brocklehurst Chief Executive Catesby Property Group
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
28 July 2011 Paul Brocklehurst Our Ref: APP/D0840/A/09/2115945 Chief Executive Catesby Property Group Catesby House 5b Tournament Court Edgehill Drive WARWICK CV34 6LG Dear Mr Brocklehurst TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY CATESBY PROPERTY GROUP: LAND AT BINHAMY FARM, STRATTON ROAD, BUDE, EX23 9TG APPLICATION: 2008/02281 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Harold Stephens BA MPhil DipTP, who held a public local inquiry between 16 and 19 March 2010 (and closed in writing on 6 April 2010) into your client's appeal against a decision of Cornwall Council (the Council) to refuse planning permission for a mixed use development comprising housing (including affordable housing), employment, retirement village, extra care facility, retail (discount food and non-food), land for a new community building, public open space and landscaping, in accordance with application reference 2008/02281 dated 4 December 2008. 2. On 24 November 2009 the 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, because the appeal involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units or on sites of over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government's objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. 3. The Secretary of State issued his decision in respect of the above appeal in his letter dated 3 August 2010. That decision letter was the subject of an application to the High Court and was subsequently quashed by order of the Court dated 25 January 2011. The appeal has therefore been re-determined by the Secretary of State. In re-determining it, the Secretary of State has taken into account all of the evidence submitted prior to his earlier determination of the appeal, including the Julian Pitt, Decision Officer Tel: 0303 444 1630 Department for Communities and Local Government Email: [email protected] Planning Central Casework Division, 1/J1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Inspector’s report, the documents before the Court and all other representations received following the close of the Inquiry (listed at start of Annex A to this letter). Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 4. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with his 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. Matters arising since the letter of 3 August 2010 5. Following the quashing of his decision, the Secretary of State issued a letter dated 22 March 2011 under Rule 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 to all interested parties, setting out a written statement of the matters with respect to which further representations were invited for the purposes of his re-determination of the appeal. These matters were: a) The relationship of the proposal to those policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RPG10, 2001) which the parties consider relevant to the Secretary of State's re-determination of the application, having regard to ‘Cala’ related issues; b) Any material changes in circumstances, fact or policy, which may have arisen since his decision of 3 August 2010 was issued, whether or not they pertained to the matters set out above. 6. Representations received by the Secretary of State in response to his letter of 22 March 2011 are listed in Annex A and were circulated to parties under cover of his letter dated 12 May 2011. Responses to that letter are also listed in Annex A. The Secretary of State concluded in his letter of 2 June 2011 that there were no substantive issues that required the Inquiry to be re-opened. 7. Copies of the representations received are not attached to this letter, but can be made available upon written request. Further procedural matters 8. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement and Supplementary Environmental Statement which were submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and the Inspector's comments at IR1.14-1.17 and IR6.5-6.7. The Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement, together with the Supplementary Environmental Statement, complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application. 9. Since the original application for planning permission was submitted, the scope of the scheme has been amended, as set out by the Inspector at IR1.6. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the revised proposals are ones that meet the Wheatcroft Principles, and that the public consultation on the revised scheme has been sufficient to allow those interested in the proposal to have a fair opportunity to comment on any amendments (IR6.4). 2 Policy considerations 10. 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. In this case, the development plan comprises the 2001 Regional Strategy for the South West (RPG10), the 2004 Cornwall Structure Plan (SP) and the 1999 North Cornwall District Local Plan (LP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those set out by the Inspector at IR1.19-1.30. 11. Work on Cornwall Council’s local development framework (LDF) is still at an early stage, the Core Strategy having recently progressed through an ‘Options’ consultation period. Consequently the Secretary of State attaches little weight to the emerging LDF. 12. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development and its Supplement: Planning and Climate Change; PPS3: Housing; PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPS12: Local Spatial Planning; Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 13: Transport; PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation; PPG24: Planning and Noise; PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk; Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations; the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations which came into force on 6 April 2010; the Ministerial statement entitled Planning for Growth issued on 23 March 2011; and the Smaller Seaside Towns Report commissioned by DCLG from Sheffield Hallam University and published in March 2011. 13. In regard to nature conservation issues, particularly dormice, the Secretary of State has also taken into account Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geographical Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System, which provides administrative guidance on the application of the law relating to planning and nature conservation in England. This complements the expression of national planning policy in Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) and the accompanying Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice. Together, these provide guidance on the application of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994, now replaced by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (“the Habitats Regulations”) which, in turn, transpose EU Directive 92/43/EEC (21 May 1992) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (“the Habitats Directive”). Main issues 14. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are those set out by the Inspector at IR6.1, along with the relationship of the proposal to the development plan. The relationship of the proposal to the development plan 15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, although RPG10 and saved SP and LP policies are formally part of the development plan and therefore 3 material considerations, they are all significantly out of date (IR6.9). The Secretary of State also agrees that saved policies have been overtaken by more up to date national policy in some respects, notably PPS3 (IR6.19) and PPS7 (IR6.21). 16. The Secretary of State has made it clear, following the judgment of the Court on 10 November 2010 in Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Winchester City Council [2010] EWHC 2886 (Admin), that it is the Government’s intention to revoke RSSs, and the provisions of the Localism Bill which is now before Parliament reflect this intention. This gave rise to a subsequent decision of the Court on 7 February 2011 in Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin) which held that the Government’s intention to legislate to revoke regional spatial strategies was capable of being a material consideration. However, while the Secretary of State has taken this matter into account in determining this case, he gives it limited weight at this stage of the parliamentary process. 17. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s comments on the ‘Proposed Changes’ version of the Regional Strategy (RS) for the South West 2006 – 2026 at IR 6.10-18. He notes that the Inspector concluded that the Proposed Changes were at an advanced stage and therefore a material consideration which should be afforded significant weight (IR6.18).