28 July 2011 Paul Brocklehurst Chief Executive Catesby Property Group

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).

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

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). However, given that the Proposed Changes document has now been abandoned in light of the intention to revoke regional strategies, the Secretary of State does not consider that it should be given weight as a material consideration in its own right. He has, however, had regard to the technical evidence that informed that document in so far as that evidence has not been overtaken by more up to date information. 18. The Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan due to conflict with SP Policies 2 and 3, and LP Policies ENV1, ENV2 and BUS6 (IR6.16). He also notes that there is no site-specific development plan support for the appeal proposals. He has therefore gone on to consider whether there are material considerations that outweigh the extent to which the proposal fails to accord with the development plan. The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular reference to PPS7 19. For the reasons set out at IR6.21-6.32, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appeal site is not highly visible in the landscape, the proposal would not lead to the coalescence of Bude and Stratton and it would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area (IR6.33). Need for land to be made available for housing and whether the site is suitable 20. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector's assessment of the supply of housing land at IR6.34-6.38. He has also given careful consideration to the representations on this matter in response to his letter of 22 March 2011, including tabulations of supply against different bases in a statement of common ground between the Appellant and Council. 21. The Secretary of State considers that the main difficulty in determining this appeal is that there is no up to date development plan housing target against

which to measure land supply. He has grappled with this issue very carefully. He notes from the statement of common ground tabulations that, for the area of the former North Cornwall District, there is now calculated to be 12.9 years supply in terms of the Structure Plan target for the former District. However he agrees with the appellant’s recent representations that the demographic base for that target is out of date and that the figure is distorted by the high rate of house building in the early part of the plan period. He considers that similar issues apply in regard to the 7.8 years supply for Cornwall as a whole measured against the housing target in RPG10. 22. As the Secretary of State attaches no weight to policies in the Proposed Changes version of the Draft RS, he places no weight on the Inspector’s conclusion that there is only 3.47 years housing supply measured against that document (IR6.37). Nevertheless, he notes from the statement of common ground that there is only 4.4 years supply for North Cornwall in terms of the Council’s response to the RS Proposed Changes (and only 4.0 years for Cornwall as a whole). 23. Turning to recent evidence of need, the Secretary of State notes that the Council’s Core Strategy options consultation put forward three possible levels of housing growth for Cornwall as a whole - high, medium and low. The low growth scenario assumes continued migration at the current low rates; the medium scenario assumes migration at the rate of long term trends whilst the high growth scenario assumes a return to the high rates of migration seen in the first half of the last decade. He notes that for Cornwall as a whole there is currently 5.5 years supply against the low growth option, a 4.3 years supply in the medium growth option, and only 3.7 years supply in the high growth option. He also notes that, for the area covered by the North Peninsula Housing Market Assessment (HMA), there is only 3.4 years supply in terms of the HMA build rate. Moreover, for the former North Cornwall District and for Cornwall as a whole there are only 3.4 or 3.5 years supply respectively in terms of the 2008-based household projections, albeit this is in terms of households rather than dwellings and the projections are not policy-based. Taking into account all the most up to date evidence, the Secretary of State considers that it would be appropriate to determine the appeal on the basis that currently there is not a 5 year housing land supply. 24. Accordingly, in the light of the latest evidence the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the process in paragraph 71 of PPS3 has been triggered so that planning applications such as this should be considered favourably, having regard to policies in PPS3 including the considerations in PPS3 paragraph 69 (IR6.38). He also agrees that the site is suitable for housing on the basis of the evidence cited at IR6.39 and he finds no other hurdles in regard to compliance with PPS3. Dormice and Habitat Regulations 25. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Environmental Statement which described the existence of Dormice nests on the site and, like the Inspector, he has proceeded on the assumption that a population of this endangered mammal was present throughout the farm's hedgerow network (IR6.41). He has had regard to the Inspector's reasoning on the 1994 Habitats Regulations 39(1)(d), 44(1)(e) and 44 (3) at IR6.44-6.53 (now replaced by the Conservation of Habitats

and Species Regulations 2010). Given his conclusion that housing land supply is inadequate, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the case has been made that there is an 'overriding public interest' for the appeal proposal as a whole (IR6.49). He therefore considers that he can safely make a decision to grant planning permission in accordance with the Regulations (IR6.53). Housing need 26. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is need not just for open market housing but for affordable housing and accommodation for the elderly. He agrees with the Inspector that the contribution towards affordable housing and accommodation for the elderly are compelling material considerations in support of the appeal proposal (IR6.54). 27. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector's comments at IR6.55- 6.57 about the LDF process, and to recent representations on this matter. He notes with concern that the Core Strategy programme has slipped and that this will not now be adopted until April 2013, which is a year later than was anticipated at the time of the Inquiry, and that no programme has yet been published for production of a Bude Town Framework Plan. In these circumstances, he agrees that the uncertainty over the Core Strategy and site identification process means that there is no guarantee of delivery from sites yet to be allocated before 2015 (IR6.57) and he considers that the current housing shortfall is likely to get worse. 28. For the reason given at IR6.58 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s view that the site would make a valuable contribution towards the housing needs of Bude. For the reasons given at IR6.59(iv) and (v) in regard to Bude’s role as a main town, he also agrees with the Inspector’s view that the site is not a ‘commitment too much for Bude’. He also agrees that the 30% offer of affordable housing is sufficient, given that this is agreed to be the appropriate quantum having regard to viability (IR6.60). He agrees with the Inspector’s comments at IR6.61. 29. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s assessment at IR6.62-6.64 of the retail and general employment elements of the proposal. Putting to one side the Inspector’s references to the RS Proposed Changes, for other reasons given at IR 6.62-6.64 the Secretary of State agrees that the appeal site would be an ideal site for employment and retail uses as well as for housing (IR6.64). Prematurity 30. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s views on prematurity at IR6.65 along with the Appellant and Council’s recent representations on this matter. As the Inspector notes, paragraph 72 of PPS3 states that applications should not be refused solely on the grounds of prematurity. Nevertheless the Secretary of State considers that there are circumstances where it may be justifiable to refuse permission on such grounds, notably where a development plan document such as a core strategy is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted, and where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the core strategy. This could take the form of predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in a core strategy policy.

31. In this case it is not yet known what scale of growth at Bude will be required by the emerging LDF. The Secretary of State is aware that this is amongst the matters on which the Council has recently consulted and he is sympathetic towards the Council’s representations on localism. However he has also considered the Appellant’s recent representations on prematurity issues. 32. In this case he is satisfied that the site is suitable for development and that there are no infrastructure or phasing issues that have a significant bearing on the issue of prematurity. The emerging LDF it is still at an early stage and he is satisfied that no material harm would be caused by release of the site for development in advance of adoption of development plan documents. Moreover, Bude is one of several main towns in Cornwall and he does not consider that the proposed development is so substantial or its effect so significant that granting planning permission at this time would be prejudicial to the proper long-term planning of Cornwall as a whole. March 2011 Statement on Planning for Growth 33. The March 2011 Statement Planning for Growth indicates that: “Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy”. For reasons already given the Secretary of State does not consider that the proposal would compromise any such principles. 34. The Statement goes on to say that, when deciding planning applications, account should be taken of “the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing” and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should “ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development”. As already noted the Cornwall Core Strategy has progressed slowly and will not be adopted before 2013, and the Bude Framework plan still later. In the circumstances of this appeal, the Secretary of State considers that waiting until land allocations at Bude have been finalised would be an unnecessary burden on development. 35. The Statement also advises that, wherever possible, planning applications should be approved “where plans are absent, out of date, silent or indeterminate”. The Secretary of State considers that this advice is relevant in this case as the adopted development plan is out of date. 36. For the above reasons the Secretary of State considers that the proposal would sit well with the Ministerial Statement. Other matters 37. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector's comments about the other matters raised by interested parties and persons referred to at IR6.66-6.67, and to the appellant's response which addresses these matters (IR6.67). Like the Inspector, he considers that the appellant's response properly addresses all of the matters raised (IR6.67). He has also given careful consideration to the various matters raised in representations in response to his letters of 22 March and 12 May 2011. Many of the concerns raised had already been considered at the Inquiry and in the Inspector’s report. However certain additional matters were raised, notably in regard to cemetery space and mention of Bude in the recent report on Smaller Seaside Towns. The Secretary of State has also had regard to

responses on the various issues in the Appellant’s letter of 26 May 2011. He is satisfied that none of the additional matters raise any new issues that would affect his decision. Conditions 38. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions for the appeal scheme and the Inspector’s comments on these at IR6.69-6.72. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended in the Inspector’s schedule are reasonable and necessary, and meet the tests of Circular 11/95. Obligation 39. The Secretary of State has considered the submitted S106 Agreement and the Inspector's comments at IR6.68. He agrees with the Inspector that the provisions in the Agreement meet the tests of Circular 05/2005. He also considers that the provisions accord with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. Overall Conclusions 40. The appeal proposal is not in accordance with saved policies in the development plan. However the development plan is significantly out of date and in some respects its policies have been overtaken by more up to date national policy. 41. The appeal site is not highly visible in the landscape, the proposal would not lead to the coalescence of Bude and Stratton and it would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The site is suitable for development and it is considered that planning permission should be granted notwithstanding the presence of dormice on the site. The proposal would make an important contribution towards affordable housing and accommodation for the elderly. Inclusion of the retail and employment elements in the scheme is appropriate having regard to Bude’s role as a main town in Cornwall. Currently there is not a 5 year housing land supply. Accordingly, the process in paragraph 71 of PPS3 has been triggered so that planning applications such as this should be considered favourably having regard to policies in PPS3, with which there is no conflict in this case. The proposal is not premature and it sits well with the recent Ministerial Statement on Planning for Growth. 42. Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that the material considerations in favour of the appeal outweigh the limited conflict with the outdated development plan.

Formal Decision 43. 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 for 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 as described by the Inspector at IR1.6 and in the documents listed at Appendix 1 pages 3-4 of Inquiry document APP8, at Land at Binhamy Farm, Stratton Road, Bude, EX23 9TG in accordance with application number 2008/02281 dated 21 August 2009, subject to the conditions at Annex B of this letter. 44. An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of this permission for agreement of reserved matters has a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or granted conditionally or if the Local Planning Authority fail to give notice of their decision within the prescribed period. 45. 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. 46. This letter serves as the Secretary of State's statement under regulation 21(2) of the Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

Right to challenge the decision 47. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter. 48. A copy of this letter has been sent to Cornwall Council and all parties who appeared at the Inquiry.

Yours sincerely

Julian Pitt Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

Annex A: Post inquiry correspondence

Correspondence received after the close of the Inquiry and before the Secretary of State’s letter of 3 August 2010

20.03.10 S Blake 22.03.10 R Shemilt 22.03.10 Mr Glaister 05.04.10 J Bennett 07.04.10 J Bennett 16.06.10 M Andrews for Cornwall Council 21.06.10 M Craggs of DPDS Regional Ltd for the applicant

Responses to Secretary of State’s letter of 22.03.11

01.04.11 J Bryson 04.04.11 M Martin 04.04.11 P Raison 05.04.11 R Lee 07.04.11 P & T Knight 07.04.11 J Nash 08.04.11 J Bennett 08.04.11 J Feasey 09.04.11 J Baille 10.04.11 H McConville 11.04.11 B Burley 11.04.11 D & J Balsdon 11.04.11 J & H Beswick 12.04.11 C Jewell 13.04.11 P La Broy for Bude Chamber of Commerce 13.04.11 D McDougall 13.04.11 J Walford 15.04.11 C Kett 16.04.11 A Longley 17.04.11 J Adams 17.04.11 J Hopgood 21.04.11 Eversheds, on behalf of the appellant, with enclosures including statement of common ground with Cornwall Council. 21.04.11 Cornwall Council, with enclosures.

Undated letter S Cellick Undated letter N Chopak Undated letter V Gittons

By email:

30.03.11 D Wickett 30.03.11 R More 04.04.11 L Philpott 05.04.11 C Hicks 05.04.11 Mr & Mrs Smith

08.04.11 J Bennett 08.04.11 K Compston 10.04.11 L Opie 10.04.11 P Harwood 11.04.11 K Berry 11.04.11 N Raper 11.04.11 P Martin 13.04.11 J Hill 14.04.11 David Corsellis for the Friends of Binhamy 14.04.11 K Hill 14.04.11 G Aherne 21.04.11 B Jones 21.04.11 Mr & Mrs Kennedy 21.04.11 TA Ball 30.04.11 W Cook 04.05.11 Cornwall County Council 12.05.11 Nicola Trzaska-Nartowski

Responses to Secretary of State’s letter of 12.05.11 and other subsequent correspondence

18.05.11 L Emo 18.05.11 J and H Beswick 20.05.11 P Parkinson 24.05.11 A Whitehurst 25 & 26/05.11 P Hillenbrand for North Cornwall Healthwatch 26.05.11 P Brocklehurst for the Catesby Property Group 14.06.11 John Acres, Catesby Property Group

Annex B: Conditions attached to planning application 2008/02281

Status of Master Plan and Reserved matters

1. All reserved matters and other schemes and details required to be submitted pursuant to the planning conditions attached to this planning permission shall accord with the Terence O’ Rourke Revised Master Plan Ref No. 198102/RIMP/Revision D except where specific planning conditions listed specify otherwise.

2. Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called ‘reserved matters’) in relation to each element of development namely retail, retirement village, housing (Phase I), housing (Phase II), housing and employment (Phase III) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before each element of the development is commenced and shall be carried out as approved.

Time Limits

3. Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Drainage

5. No element of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until connected to an adoptable main sewer; and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no cesspit(s) or septic tank(s) shall be installed or constructed on the site.

6. The surface water drainage shall be kept separate from the foul water drainage system.

Archaeology

7. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant has secured and implemented a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Travel Plan

8. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed Travel Plan which follows the principles set out in Travel Plan C9110-TPO1_B prepared by Jubb Engineering Consultants dated November 2008 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the submitted Travel Plan Framework. No part of the new development shall be occupied prior to the implementation of those parts identified in the approved Travel Plan as capable of being implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.

Highways, parking and cycle storage

9. Detailed plans which shall accord with the Cornwall Design Guide shall be submitted alongside each application for reserved matters approval by the Local Planning Authority, and the agreed works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any dwelling (except for the final wearing course) so as to allow the estate road carriageways, footways and cycleways to be laid out and constructed from the A3072 Stratton Road to any particular dwelling before it is occupied.

10. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

(i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials (iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development (iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate (v) wheel cleaning facilities (vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction (vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works (viii) details of the completion of highways, footways, cycleways and footpath links. (ix) measures to control noise and vibration during construction (x) signage strategy for construction traffic

11. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until access, parking, loading and turning facilities are provided for use in conjunction therewith in accordance with a scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and the said facilities retained thereafter.

12. Prior to the commencement of any phase of the development hereby approved a scheme for the location and design of cycle storage for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such cycle storage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first use of that phase of development and retained thereafter.

th 13. Prior to the completion of the 150 dwelling, the vehicular accesses onto Stratton Road and the A39 serving the site shall be laid out, constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans, including visibility splays, together with a road linking the two junctions suitable to accommodate buses in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and details. For the avoidance of doubt the developer will be required to enter into a S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of Conditions 13 and 15.

14. Approval of the means of access from the employment land hereby approved shall be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority before development of the employment area is commenced and shall be carried out as approved.

15. Prior to the occupation of the first residential dwelling, the Stratton Road/A39 roundabout junction and highway works to Stratton Road (traffic calming and pedestrian refuges) shall be provided in accordance with hereby approved drawing Nos: C9110/SK012/Revsion A, C9110/SK007/Revision E and C9110/SK011/Revision B.

Ecology

16. No development shall commence until an ecological report prepared by a qualified ecologist has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include details of the proposals for mitigation and compensation with reference to the lengths of hedgerows to be trans-located, lengths and composition of new hedgerows to be planted, areas of grassland to be retained, the number and location of trees to be planted and areas and type of new habitat to be created and shall also include comprehensive plans for mitigation for loss of habitat for dormice. The proposals shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Landscaping

details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

18. Following approval of reserved matters for each element referred to in Condition No.2 above, all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting season and seeding seasons following the occupation of any building or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written permission to any variation.

19. No development shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement prepared in accordance with British Standard BS5837 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with approved Statement.

Contamination

20. Prior to the commencement of development, the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. That scheme shall include all of the following elements unless specifically excluded, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

(i) A preliminary risk assessment/desk study identifying:

• All previous uses • Potential contaminants associated with those uses • A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors • Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site

(ii) An investigation and risk assessment scheme must be completed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

• a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination • an assessment of the potential risks to all receptors • an appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

(iii) A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

(iv) The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

(v) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition (i) and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition (ii), which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition (iii).

(vi) A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long- term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period of at least 5 years, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

Waste Management

21. No development shall commence until a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) which provides a structure for waste delivery and disposal at all stages during the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the SWMP.

Phasing

22. The development shall not commence until a phasing scheme for the development which sets out the sequence in which the various elements of the development will be constructed and brought into use and proposals for monitoring and review of the scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing scheme.

Retail

23. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended by the Town and Country (Use Class) (Amendment) Order 2005 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the discount food retail unit hereby permitted shall not be used for the retail sale of any of the following goods and services:

• Tobacco and smoking products • Lottery tickets • Fresh meat and fresh fish (excluding pre-packed meat and fish) • Delicatessen • Pharmacy (dispensary) • Dry cleaning • Photo-shop • Post office services • Cash machine • In store bakery (other than the use of a single oven for the reheating of part baked rolls and similar products) • In store café

24. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended by the Town and Country (Use Class) (Amendment) Order 2005 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the non-food retail development hereby permitted shall not be used for the retail sale of any of the following goods and services:

• Food except where part of an ancillary coffee shop within Class A3 of the Order

• Alcoholic drinks • Tobacco • Clothing and footwear (other than gardening, safety and protective clothing and footwear) • Travel goods and luggage • Toys • Beach goods • Sports and camping equipment • Fashion accessories including jewellery • Watches • Cosmetics • Toiletries and pharmaceutical products • Books, stationery, newspapers, magazines and pre-recorded audio and visual material (unless sold as ancillary to the sale of other types of goods permitted within the non-food retail development) • Mobile telecommunications equipment • Electrical goods other than from a maximum of 250m2 sales area (but which limitation excludes lighting fittings and accessories, power tools and other goods and items related to the carrying out of DIY, gardening and home improvements).

25. The retail development hereby permitted shall not be subdivided vertically into independent retail units.

26. The retail development hereby permitted shall not be subdivided horizontally to create additional retail floor space.

27. In respect of the deep discount food retail unit, the gross retail floor space and net retail floor space shall not exceed 1,626m2 and 1,219m2 respectively.

28. In respect of the hereby permitted non food retail units, the overall combined gross retail floor space and overall combined net retail floor space shall not exceed 2,323m2 and 1,927m2 accommodated in no more than five retail units.

29. In respect of the deep discount food retail unit 75% of the net retail floor space shall be limited to the sale of convenience goods.

30. The proposed deep discount food retail unit shall only be operated by a ‘deep or hard discounter’ as defined by Verdict in the Verdict Report on Grocery Retailers 2005, or subsequent updates.

Other Conditions

31. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for the disposal of surface water from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall not be limited to surface water produced when the development is complete, but will include consideration of any surface or ground water disposal necessary during construction activities. Such a scheme shall adopt sustainable drainage principles in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems set out in Appendix F of PPS25 and shall not result in an increase in the rate

and/or volume of surface water discharge to the local land drainage system. The submitted details of the sustainable drainage system to be implemented shall:

(i) Provide information about the design, storm, period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving ground water and/or surface waters;

(ii) Details of the methods employed to prevent the risk of pollutants discharging into the watercourses, land drains, or sewer during the period of construction;

(iii) Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the sustainable drainage scheme, together with a timetable for its implementation;

(iv) Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime

The scheme shall be implemented, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details.

32. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a scheme to provide access to the Environment Agency Trash Screen as indicated on Jubb Consulting Engineers Limited Drawing No. SK102 Revision A has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

33. No more than 400 residential units shall be permitted under this permission.

34. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the Public Square including levels, surfacing, street furniture, public art and lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme agreed shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the 100th dwelling.

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT

These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).

The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed.

SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).

Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act

Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision.

SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS

There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review.

SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.

The Planning Inspectorate Report to the Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Secretary of State Bristol BS1 6PN for Communities and GTN 1371 8000 Local Government

by Harold Stephens BA MPhil DipTP MRTPI FRSA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Date: 10 June 2010 for Communities and Local Government

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Appeal by Catesby Property Group

Local Planning Authority: Cornwall Council

Inquiry held on 16 -19 March 2010

Land at Binhamy Farm, Stratton Road, Bude EX23 9TG

File Ref: APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Inspector’s Report

CONTENTS

Section Subject Page

1 Background and Procedural matters 2 2 The Case for the Appellant 10 3 The Case for Cornwall Council 27 4 The Case for Interested Parties and Persons who 33 appeared at the Inquiry 5 Written Representations from Interested Persons 44 6 Inspector’s Conclusions 53 7 Recommendation 72

Appearances 73 Core Documents List 75 Council’s Document List 76 Appellant’s Document List 76 Other Documents 77

Annex Inspector’s recommended conditions 78

Page 1

Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

File Ref: APP/D0840/A/09/2115945 Land at Binhamy Farm, Stratton Road, Bude EX23 9TG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Catesby Property Group against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref 2008/02281, dated 4 December 2008, was refused by notice dated 21 August 2009. • The development proposed is 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. Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be allowed and planning permission granted subject to conditions.

1. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS

1.1 I held an Inquiry at the Falcon Hotel, Bude into an appeal by Catesby Property Group between 16 and 19 March 2010. I made accompanied site visits during the Inquiry on the 18 March 2010. The Inquiry was closed in writing on 6 April 2010.

1.2 The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State (SoS) by a direction, made under Section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 24 November 2009.

1.3 The reason for this direction is that 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.

1.4 At the Inquiry, a library of Core Documents was provided jointly by the Appellant and the Council. The SoS has been supplied with all of these documents. They include details of the application, regional, and local guidance, specific technical information, a statement of common ground and other documents. The Appellant, the Council and other parties have also provided a separate list of documents which each submitted to the Inquiry. These include the proofs of evidence, appendices and summaries. Copies of these documents have also been supplied to the SoS. The library of Core Documents and the other document lists are set out at the end of this report.

The Original Proposal

1.5 The original proposal seeks outline planning permission for a mixed use development comprising housing (including affordable housing) employment, retirement village, extra care facility, retail (food and non-food), land for a new community building, public open space and landscaping. The original proposal, as submitted in December 2008, was accompanied by various documents including a Design and Access Statement, an Environmental Statement, a Retail Impact Statement, a Transport Assessment and other documents. The full list of documents can be found at Section 6 of the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) (CD35). It was also accompanied by a Site Plan (Drg. No. C10058.08.01) and an indicative Master Plan (Drg. No.

Page 2 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

198101/U/15/Rev C)1, which showed that the appeal site has an estimated capacity of 431 dwellings together with a retirement village (Use Class C2) with an estimated 77 units. The total number of residential units proposed is 508. It is envisaged that developers would secure the provision of 35% of the dwellings as affordable housing (increased to 40%) which would include a 60 unit Extra Care Facility for the elderly. The retail element envisaged a discount food retail unit comprising 1,626m2 gross floor space and non food retail split over five units comprising 2,323m2 gross floor space. The scheme proposes an additional 2 ha of employment land. All matters of detail, with the exception of access, are reserved for subsequent approval.

The Revised Proposal

1.6 Following the issue of the planning refusal notice by the Council various changes were made to the Master Plan and associated submission documents. In particular, changes were made to reflect representations made by the Environment Agency, which necessitated additional surface water balancing areas. These changes were tested through a Supplementary Environmental Statement and a revised indicative Master Plan (Drg. No. 198102/RIMP Rev D)2 was submitted. This had the effect of reducing the capacity of the scheme from 431 to 351, a reduction of 80 dwellings. The revised scheme also included a change in the alignment of the main road through the scheme and repositioning of the access from the A39, removal of one of the cycleway links to Stratton Road, a change in the size and shape of residential development areas to the south of the `green lane’ and a redefinition of the open space area to the east of Binhamy Castle. It has subsequently been agreed that the developer would provide a minimum of 351 dwellings and a maximum of 400 dwellings of which 30% would be for affordable housing. The Appellant seeks determination on the basis of the revised proposal. A full list of the relevant documents and plans is to be found at Appendix 1 pages 3-4 of APP8.

The Site and Surroundings

1.7 The appeal site comprises 23.3 ha of farm land which is outside but abuts the eastern development boundary of Bude. The site is bounded to the east by Binhamy Road (A39), to the north by Stratton Road (A3072), part of which is bordered by semi-detached houses and also a Morrisons supermarket and petrol station on the northern side of the road. To the south the site is bounded by two fields which have outline consent for industrial development. These will form an extension to the Bude Business Park, which lies beyond and adjacent to King’s Hill Industrial Estate. To the west the site is bounded by the urban edge of Bude which includes the Binhamy Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument.

1.8 There is a roundabout serving the Morrisons supermarket and the Leisure Centre on Stratton Road. A leg of the roundabout extends to the edge of the appeal site on its northern boundary. There are no public footpaths through the site. The landowner has rights of way through access points onto Stratton Road and Agnes Close.

1 Copies of both plans are within the folder in the appeal file at Plan A 2 A copy of the revised indicative Master Plan is in the folder in the appeal file at Plan B

Page 3 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

1.9 There are services crossing the site including a rising main, water main, electricity supply lines and gas mains.

1.10 The site comprises agricultural land, farmed by the landowner who rears beef cattle. The land is crossed by hedgerows with some trees within the hedge lines. A ‘green lane’ bordered by trees crosses the site from east to west between Binhamy Farm and Binhamy Castle.

1.11 The land slopes gently from a plateau running along Stratton Road down to a shallow valley towards the south of the site. The southernmost part of the site rises upwards to the rear of the buildings on the King’s Hill Industrial Estate. There is a watercourse at the lowest point of the site (in the south west corner) emerging from a series of land drains. This forms the head-waters to the stream which disappears into the Berries Avenue culvert, just off site to the west.

1.12 Binhamy Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) lies immediately to the west of the site. It comprises the remains of an old moated manor house and is largely overgrown with trees. There is no physical access to the SAM from the appeal site and the vestiges of the moat still exist.

Planning History

1.13 The relevant planning history of the site is set out in section 5 of the SoCG (CD35).

Environmental Impact Assessment

1.14 The Binhamy Farm proposal falls within the description at paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 of the 1999 Regulations3, being an urban development project on a site exceeding 0.5ha. In addition, the Regulations suggest (paragraphs A18 and A19) that the need for EIA for such projects will be more likely on sites which have not previously been intensively developed, where the site area of the scheme is more than 5ha; or where the development would have significant urbanizing effects in a previously non-urbanized area. It follows that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be undertaken for a development of the scale and nature of that proposed at Binhamy Farm taking into account the existing site conditions and the fact that the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment. The Council confirmed that EIA would be required in a letter to the Appellant dated 24 January 2008.

1.15 The proposal comprises “EIA development” and there is an obligation under the Regulations to produce an Environmental Statement (ES). The objective of an ES is to provide the information reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development. The Appellant has undertaken an EIA for the Binhamy Farm proposal with the aims of minimising any adverse environmental effects and maximising environmental gain. The ES (CD31) was submitted in November 2008 which sets out the results of this process.

3 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Page 4 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

1.16 For each issue considered, the ES sets out the methodology used, including details of the baseline situation and impacts likely to result from the proposed development and their significance and any measures necessary to mitigate the impacts are identified. Key environmental issues such as landscape, cultural heritage, agricultural land quality, transportation and socio-economic effects have been considered. The findings of the EIA are summarised in a Non Technical Summary (NTS) November 2008. The overall conclusion of the ES is that the proposed development at Binhamy Farm will give rise to more significant benefits than disbenefits, to the environment, to the local community and to the regional and local economy. This will apply to both the construction period and more especially, to the subsequent period when the site will be fully built and operational. The long-term implications of developing the site in the manner proposed will be almost entirely beneficial.

1.17 A Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES) (CD32) was prepared in October 2009 in order to assess and document likely changes in environmental impact resulting from revisions made to the indicative Master Plan. The revised development proposals represent a reduction in the amount of development overall and do not propose the development of any areas previously indicated as underdeveloped. The assessments carried out in the SES found no significant increased adverse impacts in any of the subject areas previously assessed, while a number of significant positive changes in impact were identified within the subject areas of landscape, archaeology and ecology. Copies of the ES and the SES were sent to the statutory consultation bodies and advertised in accordance with the Regulations.

The Development Plan

1.18 Sections 2 and 3 of the SoCG set out the agreement of the parties on the policies and documents which are relevant to the determination of the appeal. The statutory development plan for the site comprises:

• Regional Planning Guidance (RPG10) (2001) • The ‘saved’ policies of the Cornwall Structure Plan (CSP) 2004) • The ‘saved’ policies of the North Cornwall District Local Plan (NCDLP) (1999)

Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG10) (2001)

1.19 RPG10 sets out a broad development strategy for the period to 2016 and beyond and provides the spatial framework for other strategies and programmes. Following the commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) became Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in each region and now forms part of the development plan.

1.20 Policy SS18 of RPG10 for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly indicates that local authorities and developers should work together for the regeneration of the main towns to act as employment and service centres for their population and rural hinterlands. A further principal aim is the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. The main aims of the housing strategy are to provide everyone with a decent home and to give priority to re-use of previously developed land in urban areas. Furthermore, the aim is to create

Page 5 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

more sustainable mixed communities with greater accessibility to public transport, jobs, education and other local services and facilities.

1.21 Policy HO4 “Housing in Rural Areas and the Isles of Scilly” indicates that local authorities should make provision for limited additional housing within or adjacent to settlements in rural areas, where it will support local services which could become unviable without modest growth or it is needed to support local economic development and which will help to diversify the local economy. Local authorities should also ensure that sufficient affordable housing is provided to meet community needs in rural areas.

The Cornwall Structure Plan (CSP) (2004)

1.22 The CSP sets out the long term strategy for development within the county of Cornwall. The housing provision figures set out in the CSP cover the 15 year period 2001 to 2016. It sets out the planning policy framework for the whole of the county in line with the principles set out in RPG10. Under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 a number of the policies of the CSP were “saved” until 27 September 2007. The SoS subsequently confirmed that these policies were to be retained as a basis for decision- making until the Local Development Framework (LDF) has been completed.

1.23 The Saved Policies which are relevant in this case are as follows: Saved Policy 2 indicates that the quality, character and local distinctiveness of the natural and built environment of Cornwall will be protected and enhanced. Development should respect important elements of the local landscape and should positively relate to townscape and landscape character. Saved Policy 3 indicates that development must be compatible with the prudent use of natural and built resources. Development should give priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings and protect the best and most versatile agricultural land. Saved Policy 8 sets out the broad county wide distribution and quantum of housing required for the period 2001 to 2016. It indicates that, in the period 2001-2016, the former North Cornwall District Council Area should accommodate 5,100 dwellings (annual average 340).

1.24 Saved Policy 10 refers to the location of housing and indicates that most housing development should be in or well integrated with the existing built up areas of towns, giving priority to previously developed sites and having regard to the character of settlements. Saved Policy 16 refers to the overall distribution of development and indicates that most development will be in, or well integrated with, the existing built-up areas of towns according to their role and function and should not harm their character. Development should be focused on the Strategic Urban Centres of Bodmin, Camborne-Pool-Redruth, Falmouth-Penryn, Newquay, Penzance, St Austell and Truro and on Saltash and Torpoint in South East Cornwall. The role and function of other main towns and local centres will be supported to meet the needs of their population and surrounding areas.

1.25 Saved Policy 25 refers to other main towns and local centres, of which Bude is one. Development should be in, or well integrated with, the built up areas and support the role and function of centres in meeting the needs of their own populations and surrounding areas to reduce the need to travel.

Page 6 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

The North Cornwall District Local Plan (NCDLP) (1999)

1.26 The NCDLP sets out the Council's proposals for development and the use of land in the former North Cornwall District Area. The NCDLP has a number of policies which have been “saved” under the authority of the SoS. These policies are intended to be used for decision-making until the LDF has been completed. A letter from the Government Office for the South West dated 19 September 2007 confirms the Saved Policies.

1.27 The strategy of the NCDLP is that most development should be located within the 6 main towns - Bodmin, Launceston, Wadebridge, Bude-Stratton Camelford and Padstow, with a particular focus on Bodmin and Launceston. Saved Policy HSG1 defines the development boundaries for the main towns, including Bude and Stratton. Within these boundaries development is generally acceptable. Outside these boundaries, development will only be acceptable for uses which are necessary in the interest of the rural economy. Inset Map 7 shows that the appeal site lies outside the development boundary.

1.28 Saved Policy HSG4 indicates that dwellings in the countryside will only be permitted where they are required for a person working in agriculture. Saved Policy HSG9 indicates that the Council will negotiate for an element of affordable housing on sites which are proposed for housing development at an appropriate scale in order to meet its affordable housing target. Saved Policy EN1 indicates that proposals for employment development on existing and allocated employment sites within development boundaries will generally be permitted.

1.29 Saved Policy ENV1 indicates that development proposals in the countryside will only be permitted where they are allowed under other policies in the NCDLP and they do not have an adverse effect on the amenity or landscape character of the area. Saved Policy ENV2 indicates that development proposals which would adversely affect the predominantly open or undeveloped character of an Open Area of Local Significance (OALS) will not be permitted. Paragraph 5.37 of the supporting text sets out the reasons why an open area of land may be locally significant. Saved Policy BUS3 allocates land to expand the King’s Hill Industrial Estate to the south of Binhamy Farm shown on Inset Map 7. Saved Policy BUS6 confirms the geographical extent of the OALS by reference to Inset Map 7 and confirms that the Saved Policy ENV2 will apply within that area. Inset Map 7 shows that the majority of the appeal site is designated as OALS.

1.30 Saved Policy ENV14 deals with development proposals affecting nationally important archaeological remains and their settings. Saved Policy SAF11 states that proposals for the development or extension of a community facility on the edge of a town or village will be permitted where the scale of the facility is related to the needs of the locality and where the facility is conveniently accessible to potential users. Various saved policies in the “Development Standards” chapter of the NCDLP specify the standards which new development is expected to achieve with regard to such matters as siting, scale, density, landscaping, neighbour amenities, access and foul drainage. Saved Policies DVS1, DVS2, DVS3, DVS5 and DVS8 are of relevance in this context.

Page 7 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (Draft RSS) (2006- 2026)

1.31 The Draft RSS was published for public consultation in June 2006. It was subjected to an Examination in Public (EiP) between April and July 2007 and the Panel Report was published on 10 January 2008. The SoS published Proposed Changes to the Draft RSS in July 2008 with a further consultation period until October 2008. The Draft RSS (including the SoS’s Proposed Changes) is at an advanced stage and is therefore a material consideration. However, publication of the final version of the RSS is delayed pending consideration by the SoS of the successful challenge to the East of England Plan draft RSS. In June 2009 the SoS advised that additional sustainability appraisal work needed to be carried out to ensure that reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Changes introduced following the EiP were properly tested and represent the most sustainable way forward for the Region.

1.32 Development Policy B envisages development taking place at `market towns’ and suggests that the scale and mix of development should increase self-containment of places identified, develop their function as service centres especially in terms of employment and service accessibility and secure targeted development which can address regeneration needs. Development Policy C deals with development and `Small Towns and Villages’ and states that development will be appropriate where various criteria are met. Policy HD1 requires that LDDs should deliver an average annual net increase in housing in accordance with a distribution set out in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of the Draft RSS. The former North Cornwall area (part of the Polycentric Devon and Cornwall Housing Market Area) is required to provide an annual average net dwelling requirement of 380 dwellings, giving a total requirement for the plan period of 7,600.

1.33 Policy H1 requires that provision be made for at least 30% of all housing development annually across each Local Authority area and Housing Market Area to be affordable, with Authorities specifying rates up to 60% or higher in areas of greatest need. Policy E1 requires Local Authorities to assess the supply of, and demand for, employment land in their area and through their LDDs to maintain a ready supply of sites and premises to meet local requirements for business expansion and inward investment. Policy E3 requires that the supply of employment sites should be critically reviewed in line with Policy E1 on a three-year rolling basis so as to ensure that those allocated continue to meet the requirements of business and current or longer term needs for economic development.

Draft RSS for the South West (2006-2026) – SoS Proposed Changes

1.34 In her Proposed Changes, the SoS suggested textual changes to Development Policy B and Development Policy C. Furthermore, a new Policy HD1 was added relating to the sub-regional distribution of housing in order to manage and step up supply. The policy indicates that provision should be made across the HMAs and LPA areas to deliver the total number of dwellings in the periods between 2006-2016 and 2016-2026 as set out in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Within Policy HMA 10: Polycentric Devon & Cornwall HMA, 13,400 new homes are proposed in North Cornwall in the period 2006-2026 (670 dwellings pa).

Page 8 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

1.35 With regard to Policy H1 on affordable housing, the target requirement was increased to 35% and the reference to a 60% requirement in some cases was deleted. Policy E1 was replaced by Policies ES1 and ES2 which specify that Local Authorities, working with SWRDA, other public sector organisations and the private sector, should include measures in their LDDs to promote a switch from employment-led to productivity-led growth and to ensure that LDDs provide a range and choice of available employment land and premises to meet the needs of businesses in terms of economic growth and inward investment. Policy E3 was replaced by Policy ES3 which relates to a review of employment sites. The full text of all relevant RSS policies and Proposed Changes is included in APP8 Appendix 26.

The Emerging Local Development Plan Framework (LDF)

1.36 As a result of Local Government reorganisation in Cornwall, the six former District Councils and the County Council were disbanded and a new unitary authority, Cornwall Council, covering the whole of the county was created on 1 April 2009. The appeal site is located within the former North Cornwall District Council area. The former North Cornwall District Council commenced work on a draft LDF in 2003 with the publication of an Issues and Options Report. By October 2007 a Core Strategy Preferred Options document had been drafted for public consultation and debate. In October 2007 a Site Specific Allocations and Policies Preferred Options document was published for public consultation and debate. This document proposed that the northern area of Binhamy Farm (SABU1) should be allocated for residential development. The associated Development Management Policies Preferred Options document published in October 2007 proposed the deletion of the OALS designation and its replacement with a criteria based approach. Work on the draft LDF for North Cornwall was abandoned with the advent of Local Government reorganisation in Cornwall. Section 4 of the SoCG provides details of other documents which contain information of relevance to the appeal.

National Guidance

1.37 The guidance contained within the following national policy documents is considered to be of particular relevance to the appeal proposals:

PPS1; PPS3; PPS4; PPS5; PPS7; PPS9; PPS25; PPG13; PPG17; PPG24 and Circulars 02/99, 05/05, 06/05 and 01/06.

Page 9 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

2. THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

Introduction

2.1 The case for the Appellant is structured around the issues identified by the Inspector at the outset of the Inquiry, namely

(i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular reference to PPS7;

(ii) whether there is a pressing need for land to be made available for residential development and whether the appeal site is suitable;

(iii) whether a S106 obligation is required, and if so, in what terms;

(iv) the conditions that would be necessary should planning permission be granted.

(i) Character and appearance of the area

2.2 A very considerable amount of the Council's case against the appeal is based upon the fact that the 1999 North Cornwall District Local Plan (NCDLP) designated part of the appeal site as an Open Area of Local Significance (OALS). One of the two objectives of Mr Swan's evidence is to

"… consider why the land should be retained as an OALS".4

2.3 The relevant Reason for Refusal relies upon Policies ENV1, ENV2 and BUS6 of the NCDLP, Policies 2 and 3 of the Cornwall Structure Plan (CSP) and "… guidance contained in PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas" (CD5). Reference to these policies is instructive.

2.4 The NCDLP had an evidence base of 19915, covered the period only until 20066 and was expected to be rolled forward "at least every five years"7. It is therefore four years past its "sell by" date albeit that certain policies (including those relied upon) have been "saved". There has been no 5 year review since 1999 when the plan was adopted. On any reckoning therefore it is out of date.

2.5 Had such a review as was promised taken place it would have had to acknowledge the existence of PPS7 (CD5) which was issued in 2004. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of PPS7 give the clearest guidance that local landscape designations such as this should not usually be necessary

"… rigid local designations that may unduly restrict acceptable, sustainable development and the economic activity that underpins the vitality of rural areas"8.

4 SS paragraph 2.0.1 (b) 5 CD20 paragraph 1.10 6 ibid, paragraph 1.11 7 ibid, paragraph 1.11 8 CD5 paragraph 24

Page 10 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

The guidance says that local designations should only be maintained

"… where it can be clearly shown that criteria based planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection".9

There has been no attempt by the former NCDC or Cornwall Council (CC) to demonstrate that criteria based policies cannot provide the necessary protection through the development plan process. Doubtless because they knew that any such attempt would be doomed to failure.

2.6 Even if CC had demonstrated that criteria based policies were not appropriate it would also need to show that the OALS designation was

"… based on a formal and robust assessment of the qualities of the landscape concerned."10

Again, CC has not attempted to do this either in the course of LDD preparation as PPS7 advises at paragraph 25 or at all.

2.7 It follows that the OALS designation is an outdated policy which has been overtaken by more up to date national guidance. These are the circumstances referred to in the "Saving Letter"11

"… Where policies were adopted some time ago, it is likely that material considerations, in particular the emergence of new national and regional policies and also new evidence, will be afforded considerable weight in decisions."

Accordingly, very little weight should be afforded to the OALS designation.

2.8 NCDLP Policy ENV1 is primarily directed at protection of AONB and Heritage Coast (ENV1 (1)) and AGLV (ENV1 (2)). There is also general reference in ENV1 (2) to "… proposals in the countryside elsewhere…" but this would cover all areas outside of the tightly drawn town and village development boundaries. This would undermine Bude's role as a main town in Cornwall in accommodating necessary development beyond the end of the NCDLP period of 2006. As will be seen below, the RSS Proposed Changes (CD18) (RSS PC) expects 13,400 new homes to be built in North Cornwall 2006-2026 which will necessarily see a great number of homes built in the "countryside" as defined in the NCDLP.

2.9 Rigid interpretation of Policy ENV1 (2) would also negate the clear obligation in PPS3 paragraph 71 to maintain a 5 year land supply in North Cornwall through release of appropriate land including greenfield land if necessary. Again, the "Saving Letter" is relevant

9 ibid paragraph 25 10 CD5 paragraph 25 11 APP8 Appendix 14

Page 11 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

"In particular, we would draw your attention to the importance of reflecting policy in Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments in relevant decisions."12

2.10 It follows that Policy ENV1 (2) should be afforded very little weight because it comes from an out of date plan and it is being relied upon in circumstances where a LPA cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply. There is no embargo on greenfield development in PPS3 and this development should be given favourable consideration.

2.11 NCDLP Policy ENV2 is the OALS policy and Policy BUS613 applies it to the areas identified in Inset Map 7.

2.12 The text at paragraph 8.29 of Part 2 of the NCDLP emphasizes that in terms of OALS

"… The following areas merit special protection:

• Land between Bude, Flexbury and Stratton forms a 'green gap' which maintains the separate identities of each settlement"14

This suggests that the NCDLP was especially concerned about an area of land to the north which separates Bude, Stratton and Flexbury and not the area to the south which includes the appeal site which can play no role in separating Bude/Stratton from Flexbury.

2.13 It is also worth noting that in the 20 year period from 1971 to 1991 Bude's population increased from 5,545 to 8,14015 which is an increase of 47% or 2,595 people. If an average household is 2.5 people that amounts to 1,000 homes. It is somewhat ironic that some objectors who have benefited from this housing growth now so vehemently object to others following them.

2.14 Paragraph 8.16 of CD21 suggests that

"Bude is the main town serving the north-west of the District and its rural hinterland also includes parts of the Torridge District. The general planning approach for the town is to allow for continuing growth of houses and jobs, support services and facilities, assist the development of Bude's role as a tourist resort, and preserve and enhance the built and natural environment. Development should be concentrated in Bude itself while in Stratton the emphasis should be on conservation and sensitive small scale development."

It is wrong therefore to say that expansion such as this appeal entails is outside the expectation of the NCDLP.

2.15 Reason for Refusal 1 (RR1) also relies upon CSP Policies 2 and 3. Analysis of Policy 2 reveals that it addresses AGLVs principally. There is a generalised

12 APP8 Appendix 14 13 CD21 page 24 14 CD21 page 24 15 CD21 page 21 paragraph 8.5

Page 12 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

requirement that "… development must respect local character" but this is subject to the caveats already entered above in relation to PPS3 and PPS7 and the requirement to maintain a 5 year land supply. The CSP "Saving Letter" has similar warnings in relation to outdated policies and the need for housing as set out in PPS3.16 Policy 2 also recommends Character Assessment work to inform the LDD process17 but this has not been done as explained above. Critically, CSP Policy 2 does not provide any justification for the OALS policy.

2.16 CSP Policy 3 relates to "Use of Resources". Its relevance is not explained in the CC Rule 6 statement. Mr Andrews' proof LPA1 at paragraph 10.12 refers to protection of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, there is no mention of that in the reason for refusal itself - which according to Article 22 of the GDPO should include the full reasons for the refusal. It would be quite wrong to suggest best and most versatile agricultural land is a reason for refusal when the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) of the site was known to CC and was not identified or relied upon as a reason for refusal.

2.17 The final reference in RR1 is to PPS7 which, as stated above, should have cautioned CC against inappropriate reliance upon OALS policy.

2.18 There is no justification for relying upon PPS7 as a justification for a bar on development such as this. PPS7 is committed to "… thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities"18 and development such as this which is "… next to existing towns and villages".19 The encouragement to development "… in or near to local service centres where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together"20 could have been written with this scheme in mind and is consistent with the role ascribed to Bude in the NCDLP, CSP and as a Policy B settlement in RSS PC.

2.19 PPS7 expressly espouses the commitment to provision of housing in PPS3 (PPG 3)

"In planning for housing in their rural areas, local planning authorities should apply the policies in PPG3."21

2.20 In overview it is clear that the policy justification for RR1 is entirely absent where, as in this case, the LPA cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply.

2.21 The LPA's cross examination of Mr Griffiths sought to shift the emphasis away from Mr Swan’s persistent historical reliance on OALS policy to a case based on coalescence.

2.22. Mr. Bale's quotation of Sir John Betjeman and Stratton being set on the "Roman Road to Cornwall"22 is interesting in the context of coalescence.

16 APP8 Appendix 24 17 APP8 Appendix 24 page 10 18 CD5 objective (i) 19 ibid objective (ii) 20 CD5 paragraph 3 21 ibid paragraph 9

Page 13 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Clearly parts of Stratton have trespassed beyond the Roman Road towards Bude. This is of some significance because the A39 is agreed to "…cut north south through this landscape".23 It is for this reason that Stratton Road west of the A39 "feels" as if it is in Bude, although Mr Griffiths accepted that Stratton Road residents may covet their "Stratton" address.

2.23 The proposed development would have the A39 as a strong defensible demarcation of development on its eastern boundary. The A39 at this location is acknowledged not to be pedestrian friendly and so any perception of coalescence would be fleeting and experienced in a car on a busy road with undeveloped fields to the east.

2.24 NCDC/CC's grant of permission for 6.4 ha of employment development (in the OALS) in 2006 must have meant that the LPA was satisfied that this would not lead to coalescence between Bude and Stratton, doubtless on the basis that the A39 would prevent that. The appeal proposal would abut the Stratton Road properties but these are on the western side of the A39 barrier.

2.25 If coalescence is so important to NCDC/CC it is strange to see a large scout hut and band buildings within what NCDLP regards as one of the most sensitive parts of the OALS.

2.26 Almost any direction for the expansion of Bude would lead to some form of coalescence unless it is towards the west in the narrow gap with the coastline or to the south on raised exposed land which is regarded as inappropriate for development by reason of poor linkage to the town centre and landscape effects by both the NCDC LDF team and Mr Griffiths.

2.27 CC has tried to rely upon what the Local Plan Inspector said over 12 years ago to bolster its case. However, since then PPS7 paragraphs 24 and 25 have reduced the importance of OALS and PPS3 now requires a 5 year land supply to be maintained. The Local Plan Inspector's suggestion that OALS would shape the future development of Bude was not a view shared by NCDC in granting permission for the 6.4 ha employment site or in declining/failing to put the BUS2 area into OALS.24 Neither has his approach been followed by the NCDC officers preparing the LDF which, out of a choice of 17 sites, chose the appeal site - within the OALS - as its preferred option.25

2.28 The Local Plan Inspector could not and obviously did not anticipate the housing requirements that the RSS and the RSS PC would impose on Bude which demonstrates the folly of regarding his report as if it were written on tablets of stone.

2.29 It is concluded on the first issue that the development is necessary and acceptable development in the countryside. The policies which are relied upon in RR1 are outdated and have been overtaken by up to date guidance and the requirement to maintain a 5 year land supply.

22 LPA4 paragraph 3.3 23 APP3 Appendix D page 3 /Transport pattern 24 LPA3 Appendix 10 + Inset Map 25 APP8 Appendix 22 Map 3

Page 14 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

(ii) Need for housing land and suitability of the site

2.30 A comparatively simple issue lies at the heart of this issue: whether the 5 year land supply calculation should be based on the CSP, the RSS or the RSS PC.

2.31 CC has a clear understanding of what was the correct basis of this calculation only last December. In the Quintrell Downs appeal it accepted that the RSS PC was the correct reference.26 The Inspector also regarded it as the correct measure and accepted the 5 year land calculation based upon it. This decision is itself obviously a material consideration on this issue.

2.32 However, at this Inquiry, without any policy justification for the change in approach, CC has insisted that it is wrong to use RSS PC. This is obviously completely cynical Inquiry opportunism.

2.33 The SoS accords weight to emerging RSS post Panel Report27 and "significant weight" to emerging RSS where Proposed Changes have been made.28 On any sensible basis the RSS PC should be afforded significant weight in this case.

2.34 The SOCG accepts that based on the RSS PC there is only 3.47 years housing supply.29

2.35 It follows that the process in paragraph 71 of PPS3 is triggered so that planning applications such as this should be considered favourably.

2.36 The only hurdle left is the criteria in paragraph 69 of PPS3 and it is agreed that all are met bar one which Mr Andrews contested. It is important to note that it is not contended that the site is inconsistent with the "spatial vision" for the area and the other factors in the final indent to paragraph 69. That concession in cross examination by Mr Andrews means it cannot be argued that the development constitutes too much for Bude such that it is inconsistent with its role in Cornwall as a main town/Policy B settlement.

2.37 The only dispute is whether the site is "suitable" for housing "including its environmental sustainability".

2.38 The site clearly is suitable for housing as the exhaustive 17 site selection process has demonstrated.30 The wisdom of that choice has been corroborated by the evidence of Mr Craggs and Mr Griffiths in particular. We refer to and rely on their evidence without repeating it.

2.39 In a further example of opportunism, CC has argued that the site is not sustainable because of the existence of dormice and their habitat on the appeal site. This concern was not raised throughout almost the whole process. Now that the issue is raised it is dealt with as follows.

26 APP8 Appendix 28 paragraph 28 27 APP8 Appendix 30 paragraph 7 of Decision Letter - Bovis Homes Ltd and Others, Cheltenham, 28 APP8 Appendix 30: South Derbyshire Inquiry 29 CD35 paragraph 8.2 30 APP8 Appendix 22

Page 15 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Dormice

2.40 In order to assist the decision maker in this case the following analysis of the legal position vis-à-vis dormice is included in these submissions.

2.41 The proposal was accompanied by an ES which included information about survey work undertaken on the site in 2008. A Bat and Dormice Survey Report accompanied the ES. The ES described the existence of Dormice nests on the site and proceeded on the assumption that "a population of this endangered mammal is present throughout the farm's hedgerow network" (ES paragraph 8.3.18)31. The extent of hedgerow to be removed was identified at paragraphs 8.5.3 and 8.5.432. The ES acknowledged the existence of and relevance of the 1994 Habitats Regulations at paragraph 8.5.733. The ecological impacts of the development were assessed and summarised in Table 8.3. The effect on Dormice was assessed as "Moderate Adverse" during the construction stage, "Minor Adverse" during the operational phase and "Minor Benefit" in terms of residual effects "dependent on success of mitigation planning".34

2.42 The ES also referred in Section 4 to the alternatives which had been considered both in strategic terms vis-à-vis the approach to identification of appropriate settlements to accommodate development by CC and its predecessor and in terms of the search for suitable sites for development in the Bude/Stratton area by NCDC. This process involved consideration of 155 sites in NCDC overall and 27 sites in Bude/Stratton. The two preferred options in this process were at Binhamy Farm and one option is included within the appeal site and included hedgerows and the Dormice nests found in 2008.

2.43 CC’s Committee Report35 acknowledged comments from Natural England and Cornwall Wildlife Trust which both noted the existence of Dormice on the site. Neither body objected to the grant of planning permission.

2.44. CC’s Committee Report36 recommended that planning permission be granted having concluded at page 41 that there were no biodiversity reasons to refuse a grant of planning permission.

2.45 The Committee of CC did not identify the effect of the development on Dormice or the hedgerows as justifying refusal of planning permission.

2.46 The fact that a planning authority does not object to a development on the basis of its ecological effect does not mean that the SoS on appeal is entitled to regard that as a matter no longer in dispute, see KRAAIJVELD v. ZUID- HOLLAND [1997] ENV LR Part 3 page 265 (ECJ).

2.47 It follows that, now that the issue of the Dormice Habitat has been raised, it will be necessary for the SoS, who is now the decision maker, to address it if it

31 CD31 page 49 32 CD31 page 51 33 CD31 page 52 34 CD31 page 56 35 LPA3 Appendix 1 36 LPA3 Appendix 1

Page 16 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

were to be thought that CC's handling of the matter was deficient. This in turn requires consideration of the Habitats Regulations and Government guidance in relation to them in PPS9, and Circular 6/05.

2.48 Regulation 3 (4) of the 1994 Regulations provides that

"Without prejudice to the preceding provisions, every competent authority in the exercise of any of their functions, shall have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions."

2.49 The Regulations protect certain wild animals (including Dormice) and their habitats. Regulation 39 (1) (d) provides that

"(1) A person commits an offence if he- … (d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal."

2.50 There is provision in the Regulations whereby certain acts which would otherwise be unlawful can be carried out under licence. Regulation 44 (1) (e) provides

"(1) Regulations 39, 41 and 43 do not apply to anything done for any of the following purposes under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority. … (e) preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of special or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment."

2.51 Any such licences are in the grant of Natural England. In deciding whether or not to grant a licence Natural England must satisfy the test in Regulation 44 (3) which provides

"(3) The appropriate authority shall not grant a licence under this regulation unless they are satisfied-

(a) that there is no satisfactory alternative, and

(b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range."

2.52 The effect of the Regulations and the regime they introduce is summarised in advice in Circular 06/05 at paragraph 116 which provides

"When dealing with cases where a European protected species may be affected, a planning authority … has a statutory duty under regulation 3 (4) to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of its functions. So the Directive's provisions are clearly relevant in reaching

Page 17 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

planning decisions, and these should be made in a manner which takes them fully into account. The Directive's requirements include a strict system of protection for European protected species prohibiting deliberate killing catching or disturbing of species and damage to or destruction of their breeding sites or resting places. Derogations from this strict protection are only allowed in certain limited circumstances and subject to certain tests being met. Planning authorities should give due weight to the presence of a European protected species on a development site to reflect these requirements, in reaching planning decisions and this may potentially justify a refusal of planning permission."

2.53 These duties have recently been examined by the Court in the case of R (WOOLLEY) v CHESHIRE EAST BC and MILLENIUM ESTATES LTD [2009] EWHC 1227 (Admin), a decision of Judge Waksman sitting as a judge of the High Court on 21 and 22 May 2009.

2.54 The Woolley case concerned the Habitats Regulations 1994 in the context of bats. In that case the judge found that the Council were in breach of Regulation 3 (4) because

"29. … The Planning Officer's report made no mention of the Directive or the Regulations. It referred to the need to have a condition for the mitigation of disturbance to the bats but that in effect assumes that the A 16 (1) requirements could otherwise be met. It is true that the bat assessment on Bryancliffe which was referred to in the Planning Officer's report itself makes reference to the Regulations and the need for a licence together with a limited reference to ODPM Circular 06/05. But that does not amount to consideration by the Council."

2.55 In Woolley the Council suggested that it met its legal requirements under the Regulations so long as it acknowledged the existence of the bats, the Directive and the Regulations and that the licensing process by Natural England would take place at a later stage. Paragraph 27 of the judgment sets out what the judge regarded to be the correct approach by reference to the Council's case as described above which he rejected:-

"27. I disagree. That approach disregards the very clear guidance set out in paragraph 116 of ODPM Circular 06/05 which (a) refers to the giving of weight 'to reflect these requirements' and (b) contemplates that as a result of taking account of the Directive the authority might refuse permission altogether. Indeed, Mr. Carter conceded, as he was bound to do in order to give any meaning to the last part of paragraph 116, that in a serious enough case, like an application to build a supermarket on a brownfield site which would involve considerable disruption to a local bat population, the authority might refuse permission where there was adequate space somewhere else on the brownfield site. But if that is right, it recognises that the local authority should engage with the provisions of the Directive. In my view that engagement involves a consideration by the authority of those provisions and considering whether the derogation requirements might be met. This exercise is in no way a substitute for the licence application which will follow if permission is given. But it means that if it is clear or perhaps very likely

Page 18 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

that the requirements of the Directive cannot be met because there is a satisfactory alternative or because there are no conceivable 'other imperative reasons of overriding public interest' then the authority should act upon that, and refuse permission. On the other hand if it seems that the requirements are likely to be met, then the authority will have discharged its duty to have regard to the requirements and there would be no impediment to planning permission on that ground. If it is unclear to the authority whether the requirements will be met it will just have to take a view whether in all the circumstances it should affect the grant or not. But the point is that it is only by engaging in this kind of way that the authority can be said to have any meaningful regard for the Directive. The very attenuated duty suggested by Mr. Carter for the Council is in truth, no duty at all."

2.56 CC's approach in this case would appear to fail the test in WOOLLEY.

2.57 However, the SoS is now decision maker by reason of the appeal and considers the matter as if the application had been submitted to him by reason of his appellate powers. It is therefore necessary to address the issues raised in the Regulations.

REGULATION 44 (1) (E)

2.58 The issue here is whether there is (a) reason(s) of "overriding public interest" in granting planning permission in this case. The Appellant believes that there are for the following reasons

(i) Although we have seen no direct authority on what constitutes an "overriding reason", the case of NEWSUM WELSH ASSEMBLY GNT [2004] EWCA Civ 1565 suggests (per Waller LJ at paragraph 28)

"'Imperative reason' of 'overriding public interest' seems to me to contemplate a project or plan, vital in the public interest, which will necessarily have an effect on protected wild animals or wild plants" (emphasis added)

(ii) The case of NEWSUM also established that the question as to whether or not an imperative reason of overriding public interest arises is a matter of judgment.

(iii) In this case there is a clear need for CC to identify sufficient housing land to satisfy the requirements of the RSS PC.

(iv) In addition to the general duty at (iii) above, PPS3 imposes a requirement to ensure that there is a 5-year housing land supply.

(v) Based on the RSS PC there is, presently, no 5-year land supply. This situation is different from that in NEWSUM (a minerals case) where there was "currently sufficient production capacity and permitted reserves to meet local and regional demand" (paragraph 4) and the applicants for a licence in that case expressly admitted that "this (i.e.

Page 19 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

the absence of need for the mineral) was insufficient to demonstrate an overriding public interest."

(vi) Release of the land in this case to provide housing is clearly a reason of a "social or economic nature".

(vii) The Council's case at Inquiry37 is that "overriding public interest test" is not met in relation to the retail and employment elements of the scheme. It accepts that "if the Appellant's case on housing need is accepted" then the "overriding interest" test is met in relation to housing provision.

(viii) The nice distinction made between the constituent parts of this mixed use scheme is unrealistic because

(a) the mixed use scheme in an appropriate form of development given the role of Bude as a "main town" in the CSP Policy 25 and its likely role as a “market town” in RSS Policy B. It would be in conflict with those policies to make substantial provision for housing but to make no provision for employment or services such as the retail element which is proposed (which offers the prospect of "clawback" of leaking trade).38

(b) The retail element is necessary to assist viability without which the AH offer would fall below 30%.

(c) The quantum of employment is appropriate. Some 6.4 ha was granted planning permission in 2006 (SABU 3) to cater for the 400 houses at SABU 139 plus 360 within Bude. The 760 total was 10% of the then RSS total of 7,600 which the LDF proposed at Bude. Based on the 13,400 now required under RSS PC a 10% figure would be 1,340. If 760 units merited some 6.4 ha then a further 580 units (1,340 - 760) would require 4.9 ha as Mr Craggs illustrated in his evidence. In fact the proposal is only for just over 2 ha of employment land.

(d) CC's complaint about the inclusion of the retail and employment elements is not a little disingenuous given that SABU 1 in the LDF40 required a development brief which would cater for the whole of the site albeit that only part was proposed for development.

(e) The complaint is also a bit ironic given that Catesby were encouraged to provide a master plan for the whole site "… it could be that members would wish to support our proposals but only as part of an integrated and fully understood scheme."41

37 LPA11 paragraph 9 38 APP14 Appendix 7 Letter from Lidl dated 9 March 2010 39 APP8 Appendix 17 and CD23 Map after page 78 40 APP8 Appendix 17 page 36 41 APP7 page 7 paragraph 2.6

Page 20 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

(ix) The scheme should be treated as a whole as befits Bude's role in the CSP and RSS PC. The proposal as a whole meets the "overriding public interest" test.

REGULATION 44 (3)

2.59 Again, the Appellant believes that this requirement can be satisfied.

(i) There is "no satisfactory alternative" because CC has no 5-year land supply, i.e. CC cannot identify (an) alternative location(s) which are realistic, deliverable and viable within the 5-year period.

(ii) CC and more particularly its predecessor NCDC has carried out a strategic assessment of where RSS PC development should take place and these locations include Bude.

(iii) On a local basis NCDC carried out a thorough assessment of suitable sites in the Bude area and one of 17 potential locations it decided that an area which approximates with the application site was the best.

(iv) The action will not be detrimental to the Dormice population for reasons set out in the ES and more particularly the revised ES which points out the benefit to Dormice of the amended scheme which completes landscaping works within phase 1 thereby maximising opportunities to establish new habitat quickly.

(v) The statutory consultee (and the Cornwall Wildlife Trust) does not object to the proposal on the basis of impact on the habitat or on the Dormice themselves.

(vi) The Council accepts that the "no satisfactory alternative" test is met.42

(vii) It follows that the SoS can be satisfied that this element of the test is met.

2.60 The Appellant has commissioned expert evidence to address the presence of Dormice on the site and its consequences in terms of the Habitats Directive and the 1994 Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations.

2.61 Mr. Baxter's evidence demonstrates that at this, the planning stage of the project, 3 tests must be examined by the decision maker

(i) there is no satisfactory alternative to the proposal;

(ii) the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range; and

42 LPA11 paragraph 9

Page 21 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

(iii) the derogation is (in this case) for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.43

2.62 Mr. Baxter's evidence relies upon planning issues to justify "overriding reasons" and these are set out above.

2.63 The Natural England guidelines44 on overriding public interest are instructive

"The word 'imperative' means that there must be a high degree of 'need' for the action concerned.

The reason must also be of some significant substance or weight because it has to be judged to be of such public interest that it should override nature conservation interests. An example might be that the development of new housing (including an element of affordable properties) for an area has been identified as a need by the Local Planning Authority, the specific site having been selected through a consultation exercise or inquiry and evidenced in a published report."

The example given is akin to the present case.

2.64 The situation is therefore far removed from the case of Woolley where the Court rejected the argument that mere acknowledgement of the existence of the 1994 Regulations and the duties therein was adequate. The Appellant has provided the necessary evidence upon which the SoS can safely make a decision at the planning stage to grant planning permission. Housing need will now be further examined in this case.

TYPE OF NEED

2.65 The need is not just for open market housing but also for Affordable Housing (AH) and accommodation for the elderly.

2.66 The SOCG45 paragraphs 9.3 to 9.5 establish a clear need to provide AH and to make provision for the elderly. The Retirement Village and Extra Care elements of the scheme help address this specific need.

2.67 These are strong material considerations in support of the appeal quite apart from the 5 year supply argument.

QUANTUM OF NEED

2.68 Need exists not only in terms of the 5 year supply deficit but also because of the uncertainty about the period beyond those 5 years. Mr Cookman explained that until the SHLAA work was completed it would not be possible to say how

43 APP9 page 20 paragraph 7.2 44 APP9 Appendix 6 45 CD35

Page 22 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

much development would be allocated to Bude in the emerging Core Strategy (CS). It became apparent that there was no certainty that the CS would be adopted as the LDS expects in March 2012 and Mr Acres considers that the timetable is unrealistic. What is of greater practical importance is that Mr Cookman was unable to say whether the CS would include site specific allocations/areas of search in Bude.

2.69 The practical consequences of this are that it is likely to be well beyond 2012 before the LDF process for CC will identify a site or sites in Bude and therefore the LDF led delivery on site is likely to be over 2 years past March 2012 - say 2015.

2.70 A brief review of the trajectory for North Cornwall in Mr Andrews’ Appendix 3746 page 4547 is instructive.

2009/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16

Deficit based on 703 789 863 930 1033 1576 1363 RSS PC Annual Requirement 707 714 723 732 742 756 813

These figures show the very considerable supply problems that North Cornwall has. The uncertainty over the CS/site identification process means that there is no guarantee of delivery before 2015.

2.71 Against that background the complaint that the proposal will only deliver 36 units over the last 3 years of the 5 year period is akin to a drowning man complaining that he doesn't like the size or colour of the rescue boat.

2.72 In any event 36 units per year is a valuable contribution towards the needs of Bude. The Cornwall Town Study 200548 (CD38) estimated Bude's annual capacity at 72 dpa. An annual supply of half of that is therefore valuable.

2.73 It has been said that the site is a commitment to too much development in Bude. This is nonsense because

(i) 400 units is the sum that was proposed in the LDF process.

(ii) The LDF process aimed to meet 10% of the 7,600 RSS figure, i.e. 760 in Bude, of which 360 in the town and 400 in the extension. The RSS PC figure is 13,400. If the same 10% proportion for Bude is used that would mean 1,340 to be found in the period 2006-2026.

46 LPA3 47 Enlarged to facilitate legibility at APP19 48 Extract at APP16

Page 23 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

(iii) The Cornwall Towns Study figure of 72 dpa represents 1,440 over a 20 year period which corroborates the sense of the RSS PC figure and justifies the scale of the proposed development.

(iv) The development is not out of kilter with the expansion in the population of Bude 1971 - 1991 referred to above.

(v) The increase in population (and the additional employment and retail) are consistent with the role of Bude as a main town in the CSP and as a market town in RSS PC Policy B.

2.74 There has been some complaint about the 30% offer of AH, despite the fact that this is agreed to be the appropriate quantum49 having regard to viability. This is entirely consistent with RSS PC which sets 35% as the AH target subject to "market realities".50

2.75 Again, the position CC takes is strange: the solution to the problem of only getting 30% AH out of 400 units is to get 100% of nothing by refusing to grant permission. The Housing Market Report of 200851 shows how dire the problem is and how valuable 120 AH dwellings should be regarded by CC.

2.76 In so far as the reduction in AH provision reflects a difficult economic climate that does not mean the appeal should be rejected until sunnier economic weather. This approach ignores that advice to Chief Planning Officers given by DCLG in May 200952 which states

"Now is the time to ensure that land supply is in place so that we can deliver more housing as industry returns to health."

2.77 The artificial constraint that CC seeks to impose on this development is in effect a prematurity argument which conflicts with paragraph 72 of PPS3. It is also in conflict with the advice given by DCLG on calculation of 5 year land supply which states

"… In areas with significant demand and need for housing LPAs should not necessarily treat the 5 year housing provision figures as a ceiling which cannot be exceeded."

As stated above, RSS PC is likely to require far more than 400 new homes in Bude in the period up to 2026.

2.78 It has been suggested that the Stratton Road frontage is especially sensitive but this is not reflected in NCDC's decision not to put the land in the OALS. It also fails to acknowledge the urban feel of the area generated by the large roundabout, the Morrisons store and car parking, the Splash leisure centre and the ten pin bowling alley. The land to the south has embankments and hedgerows which restrict visibility to the south. It is not surprising that

49 CD35 SOCG paragraph 6.9 50 APP4 paragraph 6.12 51 APP4 paragraph 6.34 52 APP8 Appendix 27

Page 24 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Counsel for the LPA in cross examination of Mr Craggs accepted that, if a case had been made out for retail development, this would be the correct location for it.

(iii) Is a S106 planning obligation required and, if so, in what terms.

2.79 The S106 is the subject of agreement (APP17). APP23 explains its constituent parts and what it will deliver.

(iv)The conditions that would be necessary should planning permission be granted.

2.80 Discussions have taken place on the suggested conditions. There is a broad measure of agreement and submissions have been made on any issues in dispute.

OTHER MATTERS

2.81 APP14 is a useful reference point to the Appellant's response to a variety of arguments and objections made against the scheme.

2.82 It is important to note that no statutory consultee has objected to this scheme in its amended form.

CONCLUSIONS

2.83 Although the proposal is in conflict with the development plan, the development plan is clearly out of date and the absence of a 5 year housing land supply means that this proposal should be considered favourably.

2.84 Inclusion of the retail and employment elements in the scheme are appropriate having regard to the role that Bude has played and will continue to play as a "main town" (CSP) or "market town" (RSS PC). It is necessary to balance the new housing with some employment land provision to maximise the opportunity of housing and working in Bude which is consistent with RSS PC Policy ES2. Equally the retail element is a necessary and appropriate element to fill a gap in the retail offer at Bude for a deep discounter/bulky goods offer.

2.85 It is inevitable that greenfield development adjacent to Bude will change its setting from some aspects but the site at appeal is the one that has emerged after an exhaustive site selection process carried out by NCDC as part of the LDF process. The landscape effects are limited and acceptable.

2.86 There is no Woolley type reason why planning permission should not be granted having regard to the presence of dormice on the site.

2.87 The S106 package is suitable and appropriate.

2.88 Even if at some future date the housing needs of Bude were to be expressed as less than its share of the 13,400 that the RSS PC requires, this development would still be necessary now to address a housing shortfall which

Page 25 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

is likely to get worse and to provide badly needed AH and provision for an ageing population.

2.89 In paragraph 8 of the closing submissions53 CC refers to the traffic and number of people who use Stratton Road. Therefore it is an ideal location for housing, employment and retail uses. In paragraph 10 of the closing submissions54 CC refers to the fact that the officers were wrong in the preliminary work and conclusions reached in their comparative sites analysis in the LDF process. Years of work have been dismissed in order to justify and defend the Members’ decision. In paragraph 11 of the closing submissions55 CC refers to the fact that it must be given the opportunity to address the proposed increase in the housing requirements for North Cornwall arising from the RSS PC. However, the RSS PC are two years old and other authorities including the former Restormel Borough Council did something about their shortfall and introduced a land release mechanism.56 CC is happy to let matters drift until the CS has been adopted. That approach is not in accordance with PPS3.

57 2 2.90 In paragraph 13 of the closing submissions CC refers to the fact that /3 of 1 the site would be residential with /3 comprising retail and general employment. However, paragraph 4.10.12 of the RSS EiP Panel Report refers to the particularly important role of Bude as a local employment and service centre. It is important to address both roles if providing 400 dwellings. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the closing submissions58 CC indicates that there is no need for employment and retail uses. However, in cross examination Mr Andrews clarified that RR1 was based on “built” development not the “type” of development. There is no reference to need for employment or retail uses in the Council’s Rule 6 Statement.

2.91 With regard to PPS4, it is Policy EC6 which is relevant and especially Policy EC6.1 and Policy EC6.2. Again this was not mentioned in the Council’s Rule 6 Statement. Policy EC6.2 (b) states that in rural areas, LPAs should “identify service centres (which might be a country town, a single large village or a group of villages) and locate most new development in all on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing, (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together.” The CSP identifies Bude as a “main” town. The Draft RSS identifies Bude as a “market” town. Therefore, Policy EC6.2 (b) is correct. The proposal is entirely consistent with it.

2.92 The Inspector is asked to recommend the grant of planning permission for the proposal and the SoS is asked to grant it.

53 LPA12 page 5 54 LPA12 page 6 55 LPA12 page 6 56 APP8 Appendix 28 page 3 57 LPA12 page 8 58 LPA12 pages 9 and 10

Page 26 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

3. THE CASE FOR CORNWALL COUNCIL

Introduction

3.1 The appeal site is a large 23 ha greenfield site of high agricultural land quality located beyond the defined settlement boundary of Bude-Stratton lying in the open countryside. The majority of the site is subject to a restrictive landscape/environmental designation [OALS] in the adopted NCDLP, the relevant policies being saved by the SoS; that they are policies which were specifically saved by the SoS gives them continuing weight. The Appellant accepts that the appeal proposal derives no support from the development plan. Indeed the scheme is clearly contrary to a raft of policies in the development plan, particularly CSP Policy 2, NCDLP Policies ENV1, ENV2, HSG4 and BUS6. It is therefore for the Appellant to prove that there is a need for the development which overrides the policies in the development plan.

3.2 The need relied upon is a housing need which is said to arise out of the Council not being able to demonstrate that they have a 5 year housing land supply. In fact the 5 year supply only falls below 5 years if the calculation is done on the basis of the requirements contained in the RSS PC of July 2008. On the basis of the 2004 CSP the Council have an 18.7 years supply; on the basis of the Draft RSS it has a 7 years supply. On the basis of the RSS PC of July 2008, the supply falls to 3.5 years because of the proposed large increase in the 5 year requirement from 1,755 to 3,750 dwellings59. Until, if ever, the RSS is approved this remains a draft figure, not part of the development plan, albeit in accordance with PPS3, a material consideration. There continues to be some uncertainty over the eventual outcome in the light of the on-going Sustainability Appraisal work in relation to the Areas of Search added or amended by the EiP Panel.60

3.3 On the basis that the Inspector were to conclude that there is less than 5 years housing land supply demonstrated then, in accordance with PPS3 paragraph 71, favourable consideration should be given to housing on the site subject to (in this case) it being a suitable site for housing including an assessment of its environmental sustainability as provided for in paragraph 69. It is at this stage of the Inspector’s consideration that the site characteristics and general suitability fall to be taken into account.

3.4 Upon proper analysis this is not a suitable site for housing as was expressly recognised by the Local Plan Inspector in 1997. In relation to the NW part of the site [the only part with which he was concerned] his conclusions were clear and unambiguous when dealing with the Council’s then proposal that the site should be allocated for housing.61 “The Council maintain that development linking the built up area of Bude with Coast View Stratton will not represent any meaningful loss of identity to either settlement. I totally disagree... The site is unsuitable for built development”. If that conclusion was right in 1997 it must also be right today. It is clear from a proper and fair reading of the Inspector’s conclusions that this conclusion as to the site’s inherent

59 LPA3 Appendix 37 60 LPA3 Appendices 34 and 35 61 LPA3 Appendix 11 paragraph 19.2.6

Page 27 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

unsuitability for development was not in any sense dependent upon his conclusion elsewhere in the report that the amount of land allocated for housing should be reduced; his analysis of the site was entirely site specific.

3.5 This area is made up of 3 inter-dependent but separate areas of settlement; Bude, Stratton and Flexbury.62 Bude and Stratton themselves are plainly viewed by the people who live there as separate settlements each having their own characteristics. They have a strongly held view that the 2 settlements should not be allowed to coalesce together in order that they can retain their own identities. Whether or not underpinned by local policy the objective of preserving a physical and visual gap between 2 settlements in such circumstances is a familiar and legitimate planning objective. It was one recognised by the Local Plan Inspector and one to which he rightly attached considerable weight. He dealt with this issue in the following terms: “To the South of Stratton Road the site of the proposed allocation BUS2 forms a significant gap between the two settlements and should be retained as such ... the site should be included in OALS BUS 6(d) given that it meets the criterion established earlier for designation, namely that it forms a green gap between settlements which are in danger of losing their separate identity.” There is no reason for this Inspector to take a different view to that there expressed.

3.6 In this case the views of the local people and supported by the Council, are based on sound planning principles as recognised by the Local Plan Inspector. The northern boundary of the appeal site has a 220m frontage to Stratton Road. It comprises the remaining area of wholly open land between Stratton and Bude comprising green fields which come up to the edge of the road bounded by a Cornish hedge. There is also an important view across the appeal site being a long distant view from Stratton Road (visible from a car) to Efford Down with a glimpse of the sea - hence Coast View.

3.7 Retail development on the south side of Stratton Road would be a significant and adverse change to the current outlook. It would create an entirely urban aspect with the current break in development, the sense of openness and of the countryside coming up to the road completely lost. The current separation between Bude and Stratton would no longer exist; the existing gap would be closed off.

3.8 Added importance is given to this gap along Stratton Road because of the number of people or “receptors” using this corridor. Traffic of all kinds uses the road; about 1,000 vehicles an hour outside the peak hours, in addition to being a well used bus route involving 9 different routes and up to 3 buses an hour in the peak hours (see Transport report submitted with the application). There is a good pedestrian flow along the footways with people accessing the leisure facilities, the secondary school as well as the Morrisons store.

3.9 If the block of land that fronts onto Stratton Road is unsuitable for development then it follows that the scheme as a whole must fail; of course the remainder of the appeal site is subject to the OALS notation under Policies ENV2 and BUS6 (d). It too serves the purpose of separating Bude from

62 APP3 Appendices Plan F

Page 28 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Stratton. To allow development up to the boundary of the A39 would give the impression to a driver on the A39 that Bude and Stratton Road had merged63. The 6.4 ha employment permission when built would be seen as part of the existing business park development and in any event leaves a significant gap between it and Hillhead. The development would have an effect on longer distance views.

3.10 The North Cornwall LDF work was abandoned when CC was created in April 2009. The various LDF documents published in October 2007 represented an early stage in the LDF process and following their abandonment can carry no weight. With respect to the officers involved in this preliminary work the conclusions that they reached in their comparative sites analysis was wrong just as it had been wrong when in the Local Plan context the NW part of the site was allocated for housing in that draft Plan. If sites BUD3 and BUD6 are unsuitable for development then other sites which were not the favoured candidates would need to be looked at again. A number of other sites would appear to be potential candidates.64 In any event this Inquiry is an appeal into a specific site; it is not and cannot be a comparative site exercise. If the appeal site is unsuitable for development then the appeal should be dismissed.

3.11 The housing need identified by the Appellant arises solely out of the SoS’s recent proposal to increase the housing requirements for North Cornwall from 7,600 to 13,400 dwellings. As a responsible planning authority the newly created CC must be given the opportunity to address the matter and a reasonable time within which to do it. It is actively engaged in the exercise of producing a county wide Core Strategy by 2012 which will set out how the additional housing is to be provided. The extent to which Bude should contribute is a matter for the Council to consider. If this appeal site is unsuitable for development then other options around Bude would need to be reassessed. Whether or not in the result Bude is identified for 7,600 dwellings or some lower or higher figure is not a matter for this Inquiry. Given its relative isolation there may be good reasons for adopting a lower rather than higher dwelling figure. Many of the issues raised by the local residents at this Inquiry may be relevant to such a decision. It cannot be assumed that Bude’s share of additional dwelling requirements would inevitably increase as the Appellant has contended.

3.12 This site is promoted as long term strategic housing opportunity that the Appellant expects to build out over a period of up to about 15 years. The contribution which the site would make towards the 5 year supply is relatively modest being around some 100 dwellings out of a total of over 400 units; this is based on first completions in about April 2012 and an annual rate of development of around 36 units. Any advantage in bringing the site forward now is offset by the fact that the housing market is close to the bottom of its economic cycle with the result that the site cannot afford to deliver more than 30% affordable housing. This is well below the expectation of the RSS Proposed Changes which require North Cornwall to deliver at least 35% affordable housing across its area. The expectation must be that large sites

63 LPA6 see for example Mr Swan’s viewpoint 8 looking southwards from Hillhead on the A39 64 APP8 Appendix 22

Page 29 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

such as Binhamy Farm achieve that level of affordable housing; the site has no abnormal infrastructure requirements.

3.13 What is being promoted at this Inquiry is a major mixed use development comprising housing, retail and employment development (B Use Classes). The individual development parcels on the illustrative Master Plan show 7.34 ha of residential development (6.245 ha of general residential including the affordable care home in parcel 7, plus 1.095 ha relating to the retirement village in parcel 6), 1.63 ha of retail and 2.01 ha of employment.65 Thus no 2 1 more than /3 of the site would be used for residential with /3 of the site comprising retail and general employment use within the B Use Classes Order.

3.14 The planning policy history of the site does not support the appeal proposal whether one looks to the draft NCDLP or the NCLDF documents. The site has never been identified as suitable for retail development, employment development nor for any development south of the `green lane’. It is only housing development that previous draft plans have identified as an appropriate use for the site. As to areas, the appeal site extends to 23.3 ha; in contrast the draft SABU1 housing allocation in the draft Site Allocation LDF document of October 2007 extends to 13 ha, just 55% of the appeal site area.66 That plan does show an area for employment as SABU3 as part of the overall draft proposals but not on the appeal site; it is on a separate parcel of land which already has an unimplemented planning permission granted in August 2006.

3.15 Both the proposed employment and retail uses are to be located on greenfield land in the open countryside beyond the defined settlement boundary. As with the housing uses the Appellant must demonstrate that there is a need for them which overrides what otherwise are clear policy objections to them. It is no answer to say that it is part of the overall mixed use development; each component of the development must be acceptable. The need for additional housing does not of itself demonstrate a need for further employment or retail development on other parts of the site.

3.16 As to the employment there is no need made out at all. Consent was granted in August 2006 for 6.4 ha of additional employment as an extension to the Bude Business Park; it remains unimplemented and available today. In addition, there is vacant space available both in the Business Park and on King’s Hill Industrial Estate. Moreover, the site is landlocked as there is no access currently available to it. Finally and significantly, the Appellant does not envisage bringing the land forward for development before about 2020 it forming part of the third phase of the development. The 6.4 ha site [SABU3] already consented was considered appropriate in relation to the SABU1 proposal for 400 houses on the land north of the `green lane’. That is more than sufficient for the appeal proposal which proposes just 291 dwellings which might be occupied by those in employment; 60 units being affordable extra care units and a further 77 in the retirement village.

65 See Revised Design and Access Statement page 45 66 LPA3 Appendix 32

Page 30 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

3.17 There is no genuine linkage between the retail proposals and the housing; the retail warehouses proposed are not a local facility related to the housing. There is already a large Morrisons food store on the north side of Stratton Road within easy walking distance of the housing. The case for retail development on the appeal site cannot rely upon the claimed need for additional housing; it must be justified in its own terms. Policy EC6, Policy EC6.1 and Policy EC6.2 (a) of PPS4 are relevant. Policy EC17 of PPS4 would appear to be the relevant development management policy against which the proposal should be tested. Policy EC17.2 provides that planning applications should be determined by taking account of “the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policy EC10.2 and Policy EC16.1 and any other material considerations”.67 Retail development has no special status if proposed on greenfield land. There are no positive impacts of the proposal which would outweigh the general policy objection to the use of greenfield land. If a strong retail case for the proposed uses were established that might justify the use of greenfield land. However, no such case is made out.68 There is no need identified for additional convenience goods other than on the basis that Bude lacks a deep discounter such as Lidl. No quantitative case is made, it being accepted that the need for and supply of convenience goods is broadly in balance. As to comparison goods the case is made on the basis of an increase in available expenditure over time based upon an assumed year on year growth of 3.2% or 3.8% per annum. This cannot sensibly be sufficient to justify greenfield development beyond the settlement boundary on the most sensitive part of the site contrary to the provisions of the development plan. Moreover, if there is a need for more housing at Bude given the housing requirements of the RSS Proposed Changes and the Binhamy Farm site is the only suitable housing location around Bude, then it would be wrong to squander a valuable part of the site by using it for retail development.

3.18 The hedgerows on the site are home to the dormouse, a mammal which enjoys a very high level of protection at both European and National level. The scheme results in the loss of almost 1,200m of hedgerow on the site.69 By Regulation 3(4) of the 1994 Habitat Regulations the decision maker, now the SoS, is required to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in considering this appeal. We understand it to be common ground that there was a similar duty cast on the Council at the time it considered the application which, in the light of the reasoning in the Cheshire case, was not discharged.70 The SoS must consider at this stage whether there is credible evidence that there is no satisfactory alternative to the proposal, whether there is credible evidence that the grant of planning permission will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the dormouse at a favourable conservation status in their natural range and whether there is credible evidence that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for granting planning permission. It is only if each of these criteria are met that the decision maker’s duty at this planning stage will have been discharged. It is the Council’s case that there is no evidence before the Inquiry which could justify the SoS concluding that either the employment or the retail elements of the scheme

67 See Agricultural Land Classification Map in the ES Figure 9.2 68 See the Retail Impact Assessment (November 2008) which accompanied the application at section 7. 69 Supplementary ES October 2009 paragraph 3.2.5 page 7 70 See paragraphs 19 – 35 of the judgement.

Page 31 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

are needed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. A conclusion that the housing element of the scheme is needed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest cannot be used as justification in relation to the retail or employment parts of the scheme; they must be justified as separate components of the overall mixed use scheme. The Council relies upon the submissions set out in paragraphs 3.16 and 3.17 above to make good the case. Accordingly planning permission should be refused on the grounds that the provisions of Article 16 of the Habitats Directive and Regulations 44(2)(e) of the 1994 Habitat Regulations are not met.

3.19 The Inspector is invited to report to the SoS that this appeal should be dismissed.

Page 32 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

4. THE CASE FOR INTERESTED PARTIES AND PERSONS WHO APPEARED AT THE INQUIRY

4.1 Mr C Montagu representing the Friends of Binhamy71. The Friends of Binhamy, who are against this development proposal, represent the views of many local people. Mr Montagu addressed 6 main issues:

(i) Previous housing allocation

4.2 Mr Montagu said there are problems with the planning system where many people do not engage with it until it is too late. Consultation drafts on Issues and Options pass people by. The Appellant’s reliance therefore on the fact that part of the site might have been allocated for housing, at whatever stage the plans of the former North Cornwall District Council might have reached, cannot be interpreted as previous local support. When locals really began to understand what was proposed they were, and are, against the scheme.

(ii) Changes to the Scheme

4.3 Mr Montagu said that despite some local people understanding the scheme, the Friends of Binhamy, and other local people, have been confused by the scheme’s evolution. The scheme has changed and significantly fewer houses are now proposed; but fewer houses mean more balancing ponds and this affects viability. Local people may have been in support of the scheme, or neutral, on the basis that the scheme would deliver a certain number of affordable dwellings. However, they might be against it if it would now only provide a different number. Further confusion is caused because it isn’t clear whether the S106 Planning Obligation has yet been completed.

(iii) Quintrell Downs

4.4 Mr Montagu pointed out that the Appellant seems to think this appeal is Quintrell Downs Mark II (Appeal Reference 2109211). He disagreed and said that Bude and Stratton are not Newquay. There are significant differences. The Quintrell Downs site did not contain any high grade farmland, Binhamy Farm does. Quintrell Downs lacks any particular ecological or nature conservation interest or value. Binhamy Farm has protected Bats and Dormice. The policy scenario at Quintrell Downs, under the previous jurisdiction of Restormel Borough Council, was essentially to depart from the Structure Plan whereas this scenario does not apply at Binhamy Farm.

4.5 Quintrell Downs, in 2008, was included within the Strategic Investment Framework by Restormel Borough Council with a view to obtaining grant aid. Again, Mr Montagu said that this scenario does not apply to Binhamy Farm. He said that the remoteness of Bude and Stratton is such that the area has not been designated as a place of strategic investment.

4.6 In addition, the site at Quintrell Downs was not subject to an Open Area of Local Significance (OALS) designation. Mr Montagu would accept that the

71 The full statement of Mr Montagu together with his supplementary statement are at document IP1

Page 33 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

weight to be attributed to the OALS policy is a matter for the SoS to determine however he emphasised that it is not just the people of Bude and Stratton who recognise the importance of the gap between these historic settlements. He referred to the Planning Inspector’s recommendations on the Deposit Draft North Cornwall District Local Plan where he was forceful in his rejection of the then Council’s argument that development linking the built-up area of Bude with Coast View Stratton would not represent any meaningful loss of identity to either settlement. Mr Montagu said that nothing had happened since 1997 to suggest that the Inspector’s conclusion then was in any way less valid now.

4.7 In the Quintrell Downs area the Appellant had calculated the current housing land supply as 2.7 years. In this part of Cornwall the shortfall, if one actually exists, is significantly less. Further, it is distinctly possible that the Appellant’s basis for arguing a 3.5 year supply, namely the Proposed Changes to the RSS, will never be adopted. Further still, the Friends of Binhamy have a real issue concerning deliverability and timing of the scheme’s housing. Certainly, and now with the public engaged, if there is to be any further significant housing in this area there is time to take proposals through the LDF process and to adopt a less parochial approach.

4.8 Again, in Quintrell Downs, the offer was 45% affordable housing. No such offer is made at Binhamy Farm. There was also a significant short and medium term shortage of employment land, along with a robust demand. By comparison this is not true in Bude and Stratton. This is not a balanced mixed use scheme. It would not be an attractive place or a sustainable place for young or middle aged adults because there are no significant job opportunities and no significant number of new jobs would be created. If the site is to function as a dormitory for the relatively old and the relatively not well off Mr Montagu questioned whether there was an adequate contribution towards the likely strains and costs that this would place on public services.

4.9 At Quintrell Downs there was no issue of flooding and no technical objection on archaeological grounds. At Binhamy Farm flooding may be an issue and the scheme would have an impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument and the surrounding archaeology. In short, Quintrell Downs met the requirements of paragraphs 69 and 71 of PPS3 whereas the appeal site does not.

(iv) Strategic Housing Allocation

4.10 Mr Montagu said that the former North Cornwall District Council needed to identify sites for housing. Someone came up with the idea of a strategic housing allocation for Bude and Stratton. The proposed allocation failed to address the specific issues with this site and the sense of putting 400 houses or more in a remote location with no meaningful public transport links and no meaningful job opportunities, or prospect for investment funding. Fortunately the site was never allocated and therefore very little weight can be attributed to the work undertaken by the former North Cornwall District Council.

(v) Sustainable Development

4.11 Mr Montagu argued that to be sustainable, housing should be in the first tier towns and cities where there were employment opportunities, services such as

Page 34 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

hospitals and good transport links. If there were no such services there must be good, comprehensive transport links. If there was to be further significant housing in the second or third tier towns then it must be limited to housing that would support those centres, not swamp them. It should be limited to development that would improve overall sustainability. He said that good transport links were essential. He maintained that the development would cater for people who would be very heavily dependent on the use of private cars and that cannot be sensible or sustainable. He said people should be located near to jobs, facilities and good public transport links.

(vi) Habitats

4.12 Finally, and underpinning Mr Montagu’s statement, he said that there was also the issue of loss of significant amounts of hedging and dormice. He said that the Appellant’s approach was to suggest that either the derogation could be justified because of the overriding public interest, or, because there was no satisfactory alternative. Mr Montagu said there was no need to develop the site for housing in Bude and Stratton - certainly no need to develop so many houses. Although the need for housing and affordable housing was recognised there was clearly a more satisfactory alternative to the scheme and one that would not have any adverse impact on protected species and would prevent coalescence of historic towns. He argued that Bude and Stratton were simply not the right places for housing development on this scale. They were not sustainable locations for 400 or more houses. The Friends of Binhamy respectfully request that the appeal be dismissed.

4.13 Councillor Julia Bryson72 objected to the proposed development for one main reason: the sewerage network was already not fit for purpose. She emphasised, using references to newspaper articles and correspondence with South West Water, the issues surrounding sewerage network capacity. Particular issues included leakage and the effects on bathing water quality; flow from combined sewerage overflows not being UV treated; and, pollution in the River Neet potentially affecting tourism.

4.14 Mr Peter La Broy representing the Bude Area Chamber of Commerce73. The Bude Area Chamber of Commerce discussed the proposed development on 15th December 2009 and after much discussion decided it was still opposed to the application. Mr La Broy addressed 4 main issues at the Inquiry:

(i) Possible damage to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre

4.15 The Chamber of Commerce believed that a retail development in this area would have a dramatic effect on the existing town centre. The current character of retailing in Bude is that of mainly independent family owned and run shops. This has a significant impact on the local economy as profits generated are held locally and then re-circulated into the town’s economy. To drive economic activity away from the town centre would change the current character and viability of the existing town centre. Reference was made to the North Cornwall Council Local Plan (April 1999) where paragraph 6.14 describes

72 The full statement of Councillor Mrs J Bryson of Bude Stratton Town Council is at document IP2 73 The full statement of Mr Peter La Broy, Chairman of Bude Area Chamber of Commerce, is at document IP3

Page 35 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

the town centre “as vital to the town’s population and surrounding hinterland...”.

4.16 Mr La Broy also made reference to Policy SAF3 and asserted that there was plenty of scope for further development within the town centre and observed there were many vacant retail premises. Another observation was made that no town centre would be likely to have any positive benefit from the proposed development and comparison was drawn with Launceston where its identity, vitality and viability had been affected by the development of the retail parks on its outskirts.

(ii) Increased Unemployment

4.17 Mr La Broy said that the proposed development would inevitably lead to an increase in the local population. There would be an increase in candidates for any jobs that became available and the local ‘indigenous’ population already struggled to find employment – particular attention was drawn to youths. The retail component of the scheme was going to provide just tens of jobs not hundreds of jobs. He also said that the addition to the housing stock would not help to build a sustainable future for Bude.

(iii) Danger of increased flood risk to businesses in the lower levels of the town

4.18 Mr La Broy said the Chamber of Commerce was unconvinced that the development would not add an increased level of flooding to the lower levels of the town. He said that there was a need to observe the risks of creating increased areas of developed land which would lead to more water draining into the lower levels of the town.

(iv) The increased level of untreated sewage being released off Bude and the danger of pollution to the already threatened beaches and seawater

4.19 Mr La Broy referred to the treatment works at Marhamchurch and said that it didn’t treat sewage by UV. His concern was that the sewage then passed to the sea outfall pipes which released the effluent off Summerleaze Beach. The addition to the system of more housing and retail premises would inevitably lead to an increase in sewage which might make its way back to the beaches. Mr La Broy and the Bude Chamber of Commerce are opposed to the proposal.

4.20 Dr P Hillenbrand for North Cornwall Healthwatch74. North Cornwall Healthwatch has concerns about the proposed Catesby development at Binhamy Farm. The 3 main concerns are:

(i) Local Health Service

4.21 Dr Hillenbrand was worried that the provision of 77 accommodation units for the elderly and the 351 houses proposed would place extra pressure and strain on the existing local health service. He said that Catesby’s impact assessment was seriously flawed and that the £40,000 one off payment to the Primary

74 Dr Peter Hillenbrand’s full statement on behalf of North Cornwall Healthwatch is at document IP4

Page 36 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Care Trust would have no significant effect on the extra care needs. It was Dr Hillenbrand’s view that an extra GP with supporting services would be required to cope with the extra demand as the existing provision was overstretched and the existing medical centre was insufficient for any potential expansion.

4.22 Dr Hillenbrand said that there was no provision for a Medical Centre in the proposal and as the existing GP lists were above the national average it would require the PCT to meet further costs, such as drugs and surgery for the extra population.

(ii) The District General Hospital

4.23 Bude District was further away from the nearest District General Hospital than almost anywhere else in England. Access to it was very difficult and some patients with severe mobility problems could not get to the hospital without someone else transporting them. Car parking outside the hospital (and outside the Medical Centre) was a nightmare, especially for the elderly and the infirm.

4.24 The long journey to the hospital could be a major ordeal because of pain and discomfort. This was exacerbated if travelling by public transport as the journey was prohibitively expensive and a taxi could cost up to £100 for a round trip to Derriford Hospital (Plymouth).

(iii) Elderly People

4.25 Dr Hillenbrand explained that there was only one nursing home in Bude and if there were to be an increase in the elderly population due to the proposal it would place greater strain on health care and social services, not just now, but in future years.

4.26 Mr J H Bennett75 has lived with his wife in the area of Bude Stratton for many years. Mr Bennett said that the 400 homes, retail centre and industrial buildings would only benefit those who move in to the development itself. There were no wider benefits to Bude especially as there were many other industrial units already available locally.

4.27 He said that the jobs to be provided by the proposal would be taken up by those living at the proposed site.

4.28 Mr Bennett explained how there had been flood damage at Agnes Close since the development of the business park and gave other examples. He said that they don’t want to experience another Boscastle event.

4.29 Mr Bennett questioned why the retail component was placed at the front of the site, along the Stratton Road (known locally as Coast View) when glimpses of the coast could be caught. The retail units would block those glimpses.

4.30 He also said that there was a likelihood that Bude and Stratton would converge and would no longer be separate. Mr Bennett was firmly against the proposal.

75 Mr Bennett did not provide a full statement however, the relevant Inquiry note can be found at document IP5

Page 37 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

4.31 Mr H McConville76 is a local resident in Bude. Mr McConville was against the appeal because he believed the appeal site was entirely unsuitable for such an enormous development. He addressed two main issues at the Inquiry:

(i) Local History

4.32 Mr McConville began chairing the Residents’ Association after the floods of 1993, when 23 family homes in his street were devastated. The Residents’ Association, with local MP support, lobbied the then National Rivers Authority to provide a new flood scheme for Bude. Eventually, in 1998, a new Flood Alleviation Scheme was opened. Mr McConville said that there was now a design standard of 1 in 83 years return flood event.

4.33 He also said that the road he lives on, The Crescent, and the Town Centre are constantly under threat of flooding. The Berries Avenue exit is only some 400 metres upstream of The Crescent and this entry point to the flood plain would exude 100% of the runoff from a new built environment at the Binhamy site if the proposals took place.

(ii) Hydrology and Proposed Flood Protection for Binhamy

4.34 Mr McConville said that the initial surface water drainage plans were inadequate and resulted in the resubmission of the indicative Master Plan to accommodate the Environment Agency’s concern over flood risk and surface water management. The plan now contained at least 10 attenuation ponds and 1 permanent pond, resulting in a reduction of the total number of houses available to be built.

4.35 The land at Binhamy is a single catchment channelling all runoff to a single stream. It is not a shared catchment where water can take alternative routes therefore dispersing flood discharge more evenly. This was an existing worst case scenario for drainage before any building even took place.

4.36 Mr McConville drew attention to PPS25 and the requirement to produce a design standard of protection of 1 in 100 year return flood event. The Crescent Residents’ Association would be happier if the Inspector should see fit to remove the flood threat from the community by recommending refusal.

4.37 Mrs J Feasey77 is a local resident to Bude and she addressed three main issues at the Inquiry:

(i) Greenfield Site

4.38 Mrs Feasey identified the site as a greenfield site with good agricultural land. She questioned its suitability as the Government were urging more production of food in the coming years and that Government guidelines said that development should be on brownfield sites before using greenfield sites. Mrs Feasey said that there were brownfield sites around the Bude area.

76 The full statement of Mr McConville is at document IP6 77 The full statement of Mrs Feasey is at document IP7

Page 38 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

(ii) Affordable Homes

4.39 Mrs Feasey acknowledged the need for affordable housing in Bude. She said there was no need for expensive executive homes.

4.40 Mrs Feasey also suggested that an affordable home in the South East of England was not affordable in Cornwall and made a further suggestion that affordable houses must cost under £100,000. She understood that the developer, Catesby, was not a house builder, so the land would be sold on and the affordable housing would be too expensive because of developer profits taken at each stage. She was also concerned that the affordable houses would go to people outside the area.

(iii) Wildlife

4.41 Mrs Feasey suggested that 70% of the UK population of dormice had been lost over the last 25 years. This meant that they were an endangered species and might well become extinct because of loss of habitat, fragmentation and disturbance. The offer to mitigate by replanting was not succeeding. She said that dormice were on the UK Biodiversity Priority List and were a European protected species.

4.42 She said that it was an offence to intentionally, deliberately or recklessly injure or kill a dormouse or damage or destroy any breeding and resting place. The whole hedgerow was considered to be the breeding site and resting place as this was essential for the survival of the species.

4.43 Mrs Feasey commented that bats were protected in the UK by law and that any roost sites were also protected. With the loss of hedgerows and woodland areas for feeding bats numbers have been decreasing dramatically. She said that 6 species of bats have been recorded on Binhamy, including Pipistrelles, Lesser Horseshoe and Greater Horseshoe species. Evidence of possible roosting and feeding remained in two of the farm buildings. Further surveys ought to be carried out before any development began. Mrs Feasey was against the proposed development.

4.44 Mrs P Knight78 was opposed to any development of this site. She raised 7 main issues regarding the proposed development at Binhamy Farm:

(i) Open Area of Local Significance

4.45 Mrs Knight said that the appeal site was located outside the settlement boundary for Bude and within open countryside, which was defined as an Open Area of Local Significance and was also a greenfield site.

(ii) Food Security

4.46 Mrs Knight drew attention to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affair’s comments regarding the Government’s food strategy (speaking

78 The full statement of Mrs Knight is at document IP8

Page 39 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

at the Oxford Farming Conference in 2009) and in particular the reference to the need to build up food security in Britain. Mrs Knight said that the land at Binhamy Farm was 80% grade 3A agricultural land and would be far better suited to the production of crops, or even allotments.

(iii) Retail

4.47 Mrs Knight also referred to the retail element of the proposal pointing out that it was not based on need. She said there was a sizeable site for sale in Bude Town Centre, appropriate for a larger retail unit, which had been available for some time.

(iv) King’s Hill Industrial Site

4.48 Also, the Kings Hill Industrial Site had empty units which have also been available for some time. There was a lack of need to further develop this site. In addition, there were no significant transport routes to it, which makes transport costs high.

(v) Affordable Housing

4.49 Mrs Knight was not against affordable housing for local families and agreed with more affordable housing being provided within the area. However, her belief was that the units would not go to local families unless this was explicit within the planning consent. Otherwise, they would be snapped up as second homes or become summer lets.

4.50 As for the provision of elderly housing, Mrs Knight said that there was already enough provision in the Bude area and listed a number of retirement homes and warden controlled units.

(vi) Infrastructure

4.51 Mrs Knight said that the size of the development was too large to sustain with the existing infrastructure. There were already issues in the area relating to excess traffic and pedestrian safety. The proposed access road from the busy A39 would cause problems because the Stratton Road was used to access Morrisons, the Schools and the Town. There were safety issues surrounding the use of a nearby bus stop and these would be exacerbated by such a large development and increase in traffic.

(vii) Landscape

4.52 Mrs Knight said that the landscape must be preserved because it was disappearing fast. The people of Bude wanted to preserve the landscape for their community and their children and future generations to enjoy. Mrs Knight was firmly opposed to the proposal.

Page 40 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

4.53 Mrs G Aherne79 lives in Bude and was against the proposal by Catesby at Binhamy Farm. She raised 6 main issues:

(i) Consultation

4.54 Mrs Aherne said the consultation process undertaken by the developer and the Local Authority had not been easy to follow. With all of the revisions of the plans and the lack of availability of documents from the Council (documents kept in Bodmin office, not in Bude Library) residents of Bude have found the approach confusing and difficult to get involved.

4.55 According to Mrs Aherne, the Government said that 2nd tier towns need a certain number of new homes. A Local Government planning officer therefore thought it was easiest to put all the housing together and pushed that idea with a property developer without consulting the local Council or the residents. Mrs Aherne questioned whether the site was appropriate given the availability of brownfield sites and infill sites.

(ii) Appearance of proposal

4.56 Mrs Aherne believed that if the development went ahead it would stick out like a sore thumb because the entrance to Bude would look like a building site for 15 years. The visual impact of the 3 developments at Camelford has destroyed the appearance of the town. There was no mention of the proposal being ecologically built and there was no mention of the use of timber frames, solar panels or individual soakaways and sewerage systems.

(iii) Retail

4.57 The statement by Mr Craggs that improving the town’s retail provision would reduce car journeys to other town centres and avoid leakage of trade elsewhere was contested by Mrs Aherne. She said that Bude doesn’t need another food outlet as there were already 3 supermarkets in the town. Mrs Aherne said that people also use the internet and the home delivery services of other leading supermarket chains for bulky and large electrical goods that cannot be found in Bude.

(iv) Jobs

4.58 With regard to bringing more jobs to the area, Mrs Aherne said that Catesby advertised that there would be ‘up to 500 new jobs’ in the expanded Bude Business Park but that could only be described as potential. She went on to challenge Mr Acres’ submission that Bude had a preponderance of independent retail outlets and, contrary to belief, a low vacancy rate which had changed very little over the past few years. She described this as misleading nonsense because there are numerous shops lying empty in the centre of Bude.

79 The full statement of Mrs Aherne is at document IP9

Page 41 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

(v) Traffic

4.59 Mrs Aherne thought that Bude would become less inviting to tourists and there would be a negative effect on the economy should the development go ahead as there would be an increase in traffic.

(vi) Local Resistance

4.60 According to Mrs Aherne there was much local resistance to this proposal. She said there were many complaints for a period of two years to date and many local residents have registered their disapproval using the letters pages of the local newspapers. She said that there were 12 letters supporting the scheme but only in relation to the improved doctor and dentist’s surgery. However, this element of the proposal had subsequently been dropped. Mrs Aherne is firmly opposed to the proposal.

4.61 Mrs J M Bennett80 has lived in the Bude area since 1967. She was opposed to the proposal at Binhamy Farm and raised three main issues:

(i) Agricultural Land

4.62 Mrs Bennett understood the land at Binhamy Farm to be Grade 3A farm land and she questioned why it was even being considered for building. She said that the Government wanted to build more houses but it also wanted to encourage farmers to grow more food. She said that Binhamy Farm should remain as a farm even if under a different owner as growing our own food should be paramount if we are aiming to be more self sufficient.

(ii) Houses, retail and employment

4.63 Mrs Bennett identified a recently completed large housing development behind ‘Splash’ and said that these homes should have been made more available for local people. She said that the retail element would not be for people who live in Bude as they won’t understand the area or the unique way that is Bude’s way of life - people take whole days out to go shopping. There were also a large number of empty shops in Bude. The employment component was not necessary as the Tripos building on the industrial estate has remained empty for several years. There were also many other empty units on the industrial estate.

(iii) Retirement Village

4.64 Mrs Bennett said there were many retirement homes in Bude already so she questioned the need for a retirement village on the site. She pointed out that many elderly people don’t stay in Bude for long as they don’t like the climate or loneliness.

4.65 Mrs Bennett suggested that the area surrounding Bude was unspoilt and should remain that way. She is opposed to the proposal.

80 The full statement of Mrs Bennett is at document IP10

Page 42 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

4.66 Mrs T A Ball81 was due to speak at the Inquiry however she was unable to. Her full statement was received and she was opposed to the proposal. The 4 main issues raised are:

(i) Affordable housing

4.67 Mrs Ball was in full agreement with the need for affordable housing for local people. She disagreed that the proposal should include homes for the elderly within its affordable housing complement, which reduced the amount of housing to 60 units. She was concerned that the affordable housing would not be restricted to local people. She also questioned the need for housing for the elderly given the recent development at Headland, in Bude.

(ii) Infrastructure

4.68 Mrs Ball said that the scheme did not take into account the effect a development of this size would have on Bude. There would be issues with sewage and Bude has already lost its Blue Flag status. Transport posed a problem too as the bus service was currently inadequate and would worsen. Mrs Ball said that this development would only serve to add to the congestion. She also said the provision of medical care was inadequate and should be a cause for concern. The increase in population would not only affect that, it would affect the local schools which are already at capacity. The needs of children should also be considered.

(iii) Out of Town shopping

4.69 Mrs Ball noted that Lidl was being suggested as a great benefit to Bude. However, there was competition between the existing supermarkets and the proposal showed little consideration in relation to its impact upon the Bude Town centre. It could only have a detrimental effect.

(iv) Employment

4.70 Mrs Ball said that the proposals for employment were vague and that Bude/Stratton was very isolated. Also, there were already unoccupied premises in the Business Park and the distances from major centres by road added considerably to running costs.

4.71 Mrs Ball summarised Bude as an isolated seaside resort with its own character as a tourist town which could absorb a smaller development but this proposal was simply too large. She is opposed to the proposal.

81 The full statement of Mrs Ball is at document IP11

Page 43 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

5. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS FROM INTERESTED PERSONS

Introduction

5.1 Consultation on the planning application took place in 2009. A total of 53 letters of objection, 4 letters of support and 6 letters of comment were received by Cornwall Council (CC). A summary of these representations was submitted to the Planning Committee dated 23 July 2009 (LPA3 Appendix 1). An additional 28 letters of objection and one letter expressing comments were summarised in an appendix to the report to the Strategic Planning Committee dated 19 August 2009 (LPA 3 Appendix 2).

5.2 Written representations from interested persons and parties were also received at the appeal stage. A total of 43 representations was submitted following recovery of the appeal. Copies of these representations can be found at INQ/2.

5.3 The comments in the following paragraphs are intended to outline the material issues of concern raised in relation to the proposals rather than to describe in detail all aspects of the written representations or responses to consultation. Anyone wishing to follow up specific written representations in more detail should refer to the documents mentioned in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2. All of the written representations and responses have been fully taken into account in my conclusions and recommendations.

Representations Following Recovery of Appeal (INQ/2)

5.4 The vast majority of the objections received from local residents and interested parties were concerned with the loss of grade 3A agricultural land and the impact the development would have on the existing over capacity infrastructure. Many objections related to over capacity schools, public transport issues and the matter of convergence of Bude and Stratton.

5.5 Almost half of the objections included concerns that there could be a negative impact on health care provision, flooding and the management of sewage. Alongside this there are objections which related to the need for this type of development within the locality.

5.6 John and Helen Beswick object to the planning application because they say the area subject to the proposal is important for food production when energy conservation and food miles become higher priorities. They say the area is an ancient settlement area close to Binhamy Castle and as such requires excavation assessments before development. The development represents a third town grafted between Bude and Stratton, both of which lack necessary infrastructure. Health provision in the area is already poor and more people would place further strain on the services. They also say there is a very real danger from increased water run-off into flood-prone Bude. Sewage at present is macerated and emptied into the sea by two short sewage pipes which already pollute the beaches.

5.7 Mr Antek Lejk on behalf of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Primary Care Trust. The PCT cautiously believes that local services, with some enhancements, would be able to meet the needs of the enlarged population that would result

Page 44 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

from the development, although those needs would only become clear if the development goes ahead. The area has a larger proportion of independent, older people living in social housing with high care needs than Cornwall (11.3% to 6.9%); and proportionally more older people who live in small market towns (11.6% to 10.2%). As with younger people this is matched in the overall demographic data which shows the proportion of people living in the community between the ages of 55 and 84 is slightly higher than the Cornish average. Like much of Cornwall, the area is significantly deprived in terms of access to housing and services and indoor living environments. This is not unexpected in an area that includes such a high proportion of rural dwellings and is some distance from a major town. When people were asked, the local priorities were affordable and decent housing. The PCT supports developments that reinforce its own aim that local people should live long, happy and fulfilling lives; the quality of housing, the availability of a diverse range of food outlets, the ability of people to take exercise and eat well. The PCT hopes that developments in Cornwall would take account of these factors and include amenities that enable them.

5.8 Mr and Mrs Balsdon are opposed to the development and say that Bude and Stratton must be kept separate and the site at Binhamy Farm is the dividing line between the two towns. The two towns have separate identities and histories with many separate amenities. The land at Binhamy Farm is grade 3A which is high quality agricultural land. Binhamy Castle is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and the development would have a direct impact upon it. The need for further elderly care units is questioned given the permission for 30 retirement homes at Headland. Traffic is already horrendous in Bude and schools are over subscribed.

5.9 M Walsy82 is opposed to the development at Binhamy Farm as it is prime agricultural land.

5.10 Ms L Opie is opposed to the development and includes two newspaper cuttings of letters by Bude residents opposing the development. The first identifies the issues which new retail units might bring with them; and, the second cutting identifies the convergence of Stratton and Bude through development at Binhamy Farm.

5.11 Mrs B Wood is opposed to the Binhamy Farm development because the existing schools, medical facilities, car-parking and drainage systems are already at capacity. Any commercial activity out of town would deplete the viability of Bude. Long term employment in the area is already a problem with high seasonal dependence. Increased traffic would cause more congestion and the increase in housing would increase flooding in the area. Sewage has already led to the loss of Blue Flag status of local beaches.

5.12 Mr and Mrs Smith are opposed to the proposal as they say the site is an important green space and a dividing line between Bude and Stratton. Each settlement has a very different history and identity. The land is quality agricultural land which should be protected. The development would be

82 Signature was indecipherable so best estimate of name used

Page 45 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

detrimental to the setting of Binhamy Castle, the Scheduled Ancient Monument. The site is also home to dormice, which are protected species. Headland already has permission for 30 new retirement homes therefore the need to include this in the proposal must be questioned. The impact of extra population would put undue pressure on the existing traffic and road system.

5.13 Mr W D Cook is opposed to the development because he questions the ability of the sewage system to cope with the proposed development. The impact would extend to the increase in effluent which would surely be detrimental to the quality of the sea water. The centre of Bude is prone to flooding and before the flood alleviation barriers were developed it would flood regularly. With the extra development it would increase the flood risk. Affordable housing is used without any price definition and would be difficult to be made affordable for local young people. There is also very little information about the infrastructure and whether it would be improved. There are plenty of available retail/employment units in the town centre and the industrial estate.

5.14 Mrs “Candy” Baker is seriously concerned about the appeal at Binhamy Farm. She understands the agricultural land to be premium farming land with the ancient Castle and Moat of Sir Ralph Blanchminster standing on it. The site, if developed, would lead to the convergence of Bude and Stratton. Stratton is an ancient town with a valuable history. To develop even more green fields when basic infrastructures are not in place can only add to the hardship that is already experienced by the people in this area. Education facilities in this area are already stretched, as are the medical services and transport problems only add to this. Job provision at this development would have very little impact on the job market in Bude.

5.15 Mrs L Opie expresses her concerns that the site is an open area of landscape between two towns which must remain open to separate Bude and Stratton. The land is dominated by an ancient church and is the old market mother town that has charm, antiquity and a great history. This land is good agricultural green land on which there is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. A development so large would impact on the landscape and the land is good quality farm land. Any further development would increase traffic and cause hold-ups and innumerable problems. Mrs Opie is opposed to the proposal.

5.16 Mr P C Mawer submitted a copy of a letter to South West Water requesting information on the original design capacity of the Bude Treatment Works.

5.17 Mr C Burke is a regular visitor to Cornwall and is shocked at the size of the development that a property developer wants to build between Bude and Stratton. His main point is that any development at this site is likely to join Bude with Stratton and both places will lose their individual identities.

5.18 Mrs J Feasey is opposed to the proposal. She feels very strongly about this application and notes it is on a greenfield site.

5.19 Mr D Hunt is appalled at the prospect of this development and protests against it.

Page 46 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

5.20 Peacock and Smith for WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC refer to PPS4 in particular the emphasis on the vitality and viability of designated centres. With reference to Policy EC16 they state that proposals must be assessed against the impacts on centres. They concur with the Council that the provision of a large scale retail development would harm the vitality and viability of Bude Town Centre as it would be a more attractive shopping destination, which is contrary to Policy EC17.2b of PPS4. With the above in mind Peacock and Smith’s clients are opposed to the development.

5.21 Mrs J Blake has lived in Bude since 1961 and she believes the proposal would ruin Bude for future generations causing havoc on the roads, at the doctors, dentists, schools and with sewerage. The influx of people with two to three cars per family will cause traffic issues. Mrs Blake is opposed to the development.

5.22 Ms R Lee is incensed by the application at Binhamy Farm as it is too large a development for the small community to support. The secondary school is already full and cannot support growth. Medical services are also full and the sewage works already leaks onto the beaches. The arrival of out of town shopping would cause the demise of many town centre shops. There are already three supermarkets and she questions the need for more. Local employment is extremely scarce and seasonal but she assumes there would be jobs created for local builders.

5.23 Dr and Mrs Hillenbrand strongly object to this development. They express their concern about the proposed development on prime agricultural land. The site is unsuitable and would join two distinctly different and separate towns of Bude and Stratton. It would also harm local retailers and reduce Bude’s tourist appeal. The existing infrastructure of services, health, education and transport is already struggling to meet the needs of the current population and the lack of employment in this area is a serious problem and is unlikely to be significantly improved by this development. The main concern is that local health services could become overwhelmed by this development. The number of patients per GP is well above the national average although an additional surgery in Bude has been opened. Public transport to the District General Hospitals is already inadequate and any further large increase in the population would exacerbate this problem.

5.24 Mr P C Mawer objects to the proposed development because the Bude sewage works and the ‘long’ sea outfall are inadequate. The development proposed would seriously damage Bude’s all important tourist industry. Enclosed in the objection are reports from South West Water; reports about losing the Blue Flag status; and a letter confirming the ‘as built’ length of the sewage outfall.

5.25 Mr and Mrs Knight object to the appeal as the land is prime agricultural land at grade 3A and should be retained for food production. The land could be better used as allotments.

5.26 Mrs Pauline Goodson is opposed to the proposal. She says tourism is the main industry in Bude and further development would mean even more traffic and subsequent stress. The town centre shops do a good job providing

Page 47 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

customer service and offer competitive prices. There is no need for out of town shopping. The proposal would harm the viability and vitality of Bude town centre. There are already unoccupied units at the industrial estate and business park, so there is no need for any more units. This scheme would not provide meaningful employment.

5.27 Mrs A Longley supports all of the reasons for the refusal by the Planning Committee of this proposal. Looking at the characteristics of Bude and Stratton it is clear they are totally different. The development would cause these two towns to join up and would lose the local distinctiveness and historic charm. Housing need should be addressed by incremental organic growth that is community-friendly and under local control. The last remaining green belt between the two towns of Stratton and Bude is Binhamy Farm.

5.28 J Hapgood is opposed the development because it would be a great loss of agricultural land.

5.29 Mrs L Opie objects to the proposed development because Bude is a holiday town whose main trade is tourism. If the retail development is implemented the local shops would be lost. Bude has definitely not got the required infrastructure to cope with such an unprecedented rise in population: the schools are full, the cottage hospital is one of the smallest in the country and the present medical centre is oversubscribed.

5.30 Mr and Mrs Adams are opposed to the proposed development as the magnitude of the development would undoubtedly place the sewerage system under considerable strain to maintain really good sea water quality. This is exacerbated in the summer with visitor influx and improves towards the end of the season. If the development goes ahead the occupation would be permanent and a drain on the system.

5.31 Mr H McConville is against the development proposals for reasons related to flooding. The mitigation proposals are of great concern as the single catchment channels all runoff to a single stream. The substrate is impermeable shale/sandstone topped by non-absorbent clay, a worst case scenario. The array of attenuation ponds above a residential area would cause great unease amongst residents. Severe collateral flooding occurred in areas near to Bude during the Boscastle deluge. In the event of an extreme weather situation flood water from Binhamy now enters a river system at full capacity. In June 1993 this system failed and caused catastrophic flooding to Bude. The Strand and Community Centres and public buildings in the Shalder Hill area have a long history of flooding. Despite reassurances from the developers there is no confidence that their planning design incorporates the demands set out by the Environment Agency.

5.32 Chris Jewell is concerned about the proposed development. There are no objections to the provision of housing in the Bude area in general but this proposal has many aspects which makes it wrong for the Bude area. The size of the site and the number of dwellings is too large. Almost all of the houses are outside of the financial capability of the majority of residents in this area. This includes the affordable provision. The area depends on tourism as employment is seasonal. The use of 23 hectares of top class agricultural land

Page 48 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

is scandalous. The infrastructure in this area is under stress at the best of times. The settlements of Bude and Stratton have always been separate and have developed/declined in a natural way. This development threatens this separation and should not be permitted.

5.33 Mr R Hockin is opposed to the development at Binhamy Farm. He cannot understand why such a large development is being planned on prime agricultural land. The scale of development is too large as health services are already at full capacity with inadequate parking facilities. The need for affordable housing is not in question but the type of housing would not be affordable to local people. If the development occurs then Stratton and Bude would be merged.

5.34 Mr P Jackson objects to the proposed development. He says that 400 to 500 houses are excessive and would change the community completely. There is currently insufficient infrastructure and facilities in the area to sustain such a development. There is potential for flooding and concern has been expressed by the Environment Agency. The scheme would impact on the historic Binhamy Castle and cause further traffic congestion which is already a major concern.

5.35 J M Walford objects to the proposal. He says 400 to 500 houses are excessive and would change the community completely. There is currently insufficient infrastructure and facilities in the area to sustain such a development. There is potential for flooding and concern has been expressed by the Environment Agency. The development would also impact on the historic Binhamy Castle and cause further traffic congestion, which is already a major concern.

5.36 Mr T Hambly for the Environment Agency has acknowledged there is an appeal and relies on the previous consultation letters.

5.37 Mr W Hatcher registers that he is opposed to the development.

5.38 Mrs C Muccio is concerned about the scheme. Whilst living away from Bude she visits it regularly and is concerned that more shops or supermarkets would be detrimental to the enjoyment of the character of Bude. This development would harm the character and appearance of the rural location.

5.39 Mr M Beard for Natural England refers to the recent decision of the Administrative Court in R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council and Millenium Estates Limited (2009), EWHC 1227 Admin, in relation to European Protected Species.

5.40 Mrs L M Harwood is appalled that the proposal might be on prime agricultural land, which is a precious commodity and for this reason is opposed to the development.

5.41 Brenda Cloke objects to the proposed development at Binhamy Farm and agrees with many other objections in relation to such matters as schools; health; cottage hospital; doctor’s surgery; social care; flooding and parking facilities. There is a lack of job opportunity but this development would not fill the gap.

Page 49 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

5.42 Mr P Harwood is in opposition to the proposed development as the site is on prime agricultural land. The land is grade 3A farmland and has been farmed for 1,000 years or more. The employment offer is of three types but as there is a proposal for a retail unit this would most likely destroy competition within Bude. Whilst there is a housing need only 30% would be affordable and the remaining 70% would be unaffordable to the people of the surrounding area. Medical services are overloaded at present and there is an ever increasing number of patients without the development. The local schools are at capacity and are overflowing.

5.43 Mrs G Aherne is against the proposal as she believes Bude does not need 400 plus homes in one place. The bus service is inadequate, there is no train station and the nearest hospital is 50 miles away. Locally, jobs are poorly paid and are either part time or seasonal. The scheme would bring around 1,000 people to an area which can barely sustain itself now, let alone with the influx of residents. There are too many empty retail units in Bude already, so there is really no need for more retail. At present Bude and Stratton are two separate localities, but with this development they would become one.

5.44 Mrs L Denby-Smith has lived in Bude for many decades. She is opposed to the proposed development as it is wholly inconsiderate of the town’s needs, its community spirit and reputation as a wonderful tourist destination. The town cannot sustain such a development as the schools are currently unable to support the present numbers of pupils. Bude is barely served by public transport and the addition of 1,000 people would place greater stress on the system. Also, the medical and health services are stretched beyond their limits. The sewerage system within Bude is hardly able to cope and effluent can be found at the beaches. Much of the site is prime agricultural land important for food security. If development goes ahead it would increase flood risk tremendously. There is a danger of ruining a truly charismatic town if this development goes ahead.

5.45 Mr J Glimson believes that some development is important, but must be comprehensive. If houses are to be built they must be affordable and jobs must be available locally. Services and infrastructure must be in place or be developed alongside the houses. Economic and social growth is needed without damaging the best parts of the town and area.

5.46 Dr and Mrs Hillenbrand stongly object to the development and are concerned that the development of 350 houses and retail facilities on prime agricultural land at Binhamy Farm comes at a time when agricultural land is regarded as precious and shrinking national asset. The main concern is that although an additional surgery has been opened in Bude there are serious difficulties in accessing health care locally because of the limited car parking space. A further large rise in population would increase these difficulties.

Representations following submission of the Application

5.47 Following the first stage of publicity some 53 letters of objection were received.

5.48 Among various issues raised by objectors, the main ones were:

Page 50 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

• Loss of greenfield land; • Inadequate local infrastructure; • Need for the development; • A likely adverse retail impact on the town centre; • Bude and Stratton must remain separate.

5.49 The responses received are further summarised below:

Loss of Greenfield Land

5.50 Most objections included the loss of greenfield land, loss of rural views and that brownfield sites ought to be considered before greenfield sites. The representations also questioned the following matters:

• Binhamy Castle should remain in its surroundings; • Farm land should be retained for crops; • There would be a loss of habitat and prime agricultural land; • There has been no provision for the Environment Agency to access Berries Stream and Culvert.

Infrastructure

5.51 Some objectors highlight the inadequacy local infrastructure (doctors, dentists, social services, schools, power supplies, sewerage, and drainage) and public transport issues such as the links to and from other towns and cities where facilities outside of Bude are located. There is concern that the proposals for improved road safety have not been thoroughly thought through as Cleavelands is not suitable as a means of access to the site. It is argued that the development should include park and ride and improvements are required at the Neetside Surgery and Stratton Medical Centre as they are not suitable to take more patients.

Retail

5.52 Many objectors say the development could cause a loss of trade in the town centre and this would be exacerbated by the insufficient number of jobs created by the proposed development. An adverse impact on trade in the town centre is not wanted and there is no need for additional retail floor space. It is widely felt the proposal would draw people away from the town centre and new jobs created would be offset by those lost in the town centre. There are existing empty industrial units and vacant retail units in the town centre which have been empty for a significant time and the Retail Impact Assessment acknowledges there is no quantitative need for additional convenience goods floor space because of this. Existing local stores meet the need for convenience goods floor space. However, whilst it is acknowledged the retail element should enhance the shopping experience in the town, this proposal would result in unfair competition and would harm the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Page 51 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Pollution

5.53 Objectors are concerned with coastal pollution, surface water drainage problems/flood risk, particularly within areas of Agnes Close and Berries Avenue and this may be due to the loss of hedgerows, which would also result in the loss of wildlife habitat.

Convergence

5.54 Many objectors are concerned about the potential convergence of Bude, Stratton and Marhamchurch and consider they should retain their separate identities. There is a lack of buffer zones and existing screening is inadequate. There is a widespread feeling that even if the development is phased, it would swamp Bude with unwanted houses. Bude is a small, rural, seaside town. The development would destroy its character. Open spaces around Bude should be protected from development and the proposed dwellings ought to be spread across North Cornwall, not concentrated in one area. Growth levels should be sensible for the benefit of future generations. The houses are likely to be too expensive for local people. It is also apparent that the objectors think that the community benefits being offered by the developer should not tip the balance in favour of approval as it would have a harmful impact on residential amenity.

Elderly

5.55 Objectors have questioned the need for another elderly persons’ village in the Bude area.

Other Comments

5.56 The other comments made by objectors relate to the belief this would be speculative development that would only benefit the developer; conflicts with development plan policy and the fact that the proposal is premature in advance of the Cornwall LDF.

5.57 Following additional publicity a further 28 letters of objection were received and the points raised are summarised in the Council’s Committee Report to the Strategic Planning Committee (LPA3) with the following additional comments:

• Justification for the additional housing should not rely on the Regional Spatial Strategy because this has not yet been ratified by Central Government; • Landfill sites and recycling plants are already unable to cope with demand and would not be able to accommodate waste from new additional development proposed; • Water supply problems.

5.58 One further letter expressing comments is concerned with regard to the impact of the proposed development on Binhamy Castle as they say there has been inadequate investigation of other archaeological remains around the development site and urges that a proper archaeological survey and dig is undertaken before the development of the site. This should be carried out at the developer’s expense.

Page 52 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6. INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS

[In this section the numbers in superscript refer to the preceding paragraphs.]

Introduction

6.1 The main considerations in this case upon which the decision should be based are as follows:

(i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular reference to PPS7;

(ii) whether there is a pressing need for land to be made available for residential development and whether the appeal site is suitable;

(iii) whether a S106 obligation is required, and if so, in what terms;

(iv) the conditions that would be necessary should planning permission be granted.

The conclusions that follow are structured to address each of these considerations. However, before addressing these considerations there are some preliminary matters that I shall deal with.

6.2 The proposal seeks outline planning permission for a mixed use development comprising housing (including affordable housing) employment, retirement village, extra care facility, retail (food and non-food), land for a new community building, public open space and landscaping on some 23.3 ha of land located on the eastern fringe of Bude. Full details of the original proposal are set out at paragraph 1.5. All matters of detail, with the exception of access, were reserved for subsequent approval. The proposal was refused planning permission in August 2009. Following the issue of the planning refusal notice by the Council a revised proposal was submitted. Various changes were made to the Master Plan and associated submission documents. In particular, changes were made to reflect representations made by the Environment Agency, which necessitated additional surface water balancing areas.1.5, 1.6, 1.7

6.3 These changes were tested through a Supplementary Environmental Statement and a revised indicative Master Plan (Drg. No. 198102/RIMP Rev D) was submitted. This had the effect of reducing the capacity of the scheme from 431 to 351, a reduction of 80 dwellings. The revised scheme also included a change in the alignment of the main road through the scheme and repositioning of the access from the A39, removal of one of the cycleway links to Stratton Road, a change in the size and shape of residential development areas to the south of the `green lane’ and a redefinition of the open space area to the east of Binhamy Castle. It has subsequently been agreed that the developer would provide a minimum of 351 dwellings and a maximum of 400 dwellings of which 30% would be for affordable housing. The Appellant seeks determination on the basis of the revised proposal.1.6

Page 53 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.4 At the outset of the Inquiry I received submissions from the Council that the revised scheme was materially different to the original scheme. Having heard these representations I have also considered the advice in Procedural Guidance PINS 01/2009 paragraphs 1.9.1 to 1.9.3 and the PINS Good Practice Advice Note 09/2009. Whilst ultimately the matter is for the SoS to decide, I took the view that the revised proposals are ones that meet the Wheatcroft Principles. It follows therefore the appeal can be determined on the basis of the revised proposals. The revised proposals do not appear to materially alter the nature of the scheme. This is an outline application where the variation is to reduce the number of dwellings. The Environmental Statement (ES) and the Supplementary Environmental Supplementary (SES) are both detailed and have been advertised in accordance with the Regulations. In my view, 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. It was agreed that the Inquiry should proceed on the basis of the revised scheme.1.14-1.17

6.5 The proposal comprises “EIA development” and there is an obligation under the Regulations to produce an ES. The objective of the ES is to provide the information reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development. The Appellant has undertaken an Environmental Impact Assessment for the Binhamy Farm proposal with the aims of minimising any adverse environmental effects and maximising environmental gain. The ES was submitted in November 2008 and sets out the results of this process. For each issue considered, the ES sets out the methodology used, including details of the baseline situation and impacts likely to result from the proposed development and their significance and any measures necessary to mitigate the impacts are identified. Key environmental issues such as landscape, cultural heritage, agricultural land quality, transportation and socio-economic effects have been considered.1.14-1.17

6.6 I am aware that the overall conclusion of the ES is that the proposed development at Binhamy Farm would give rise to more significant benefits than disbenefits, to the environment, to the local community and to the regional and local economy. This would apply to both the construction period and more especially, to the subsequent period when the site would be fully built and operational. The long-term implications of developing and the site in the manner proposed would be almost entirely beneficial. 1.14-1.17

6.7 A SES was prepared in October 2009 in order to assess and document likely changes in environmental impact resulting from revisions made to the indicative Master Plan. I note that the revised proposals represent a reduction in the amount of development overall and do not propose the development of any areas previously indicated as underdeveloped. The assessments carried out in the SES found no significant increased adverse impacts in any of the subject areas previously assessed, while a number of significant positive changes in impact were identified within the subject areas of landscape, archaeology and ecology. Overall, it seems to me that the ES, the SES and the further environmental information provided, are adequate in terms of coverage and that the necessary steps have been taken in respect of consultation and publicity. I have taken all of the Environmental Information into account in my conclusions and recommendations. 1.14-1.17

Page 54 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.8 The Statutory Development Plan for the site comprises:

• Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) (2001) • The ‘saved’ policies of the Cornwall Structure Plan (CSP) 2004) • The ‘saved’ policies of the North Cornwall District Local Plan (NCDLP) (1999).1.16

6.9 RPG10 was issued in October 2001 and under the changes to the development plan system introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 it has become the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South West. RPG10/RSS sets out a broad development strategy for the period to 2016 and beyond and provides the spatial framework for other strategies and programmes. RPG10/RSS is aimed at promoting sustainable development. In view of more recent national policies, particularly PPS3, and the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy I consider that RPG10/RSS (2001) is out of date. The Cornwall Structure Plan (CSP) was adopted in 2004 and covers the period 2001-2016. The adopted North Cornwall District Local Plan (NCDLP) (1999) covers the period 1991-2006. Although both of these documents are still formally part of the development plan and a material consideration they are also becoming increasingly out-of-date. Despite the saving of policies in the CSP and the NCDLP all of these plans are significantly out-of-date.1.19,1.22,1.26

6.10 In terms of the Emerging Development Plan, the Draft SW RSS was published for public consultation in June 2006. It was subjected to an Examination in Public (EiP) between April and July 2007 and the Panel Report was published on 10 January 2008. The SoS published Proposed Changes to the Draft RSS in July 2008 with a further consultation period until October 2008. The Draft RSS (including the SoS’s Proposed Changes) is at an advanced stage and is therefore a material consideration which should be afforded significant weight. Publication of the final version of the RSS is delayed pending consideration by the SoS of the successful challenge to the East of England Plan draft RSS. In June 2009 the SoS advised that additional sustainability appraisal work needed to be carried out to ensure that reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Changes introduced following the EiP were properly tested and represent the most sustainable way forward for the Region. I have taken this matter into account in my assessment.1.31

6.11 As a result of Local Government reorganisation in Cornwall, the six former District Councils and the County Council were disbanded and a new unitary authority `Cornwall Council’ (CC), covering the whole of the county was created on 1 April 2009. The appeal site is located within the former North Cornwall District Council Area. The former North Cornwall District Council did start work on the Local Development Framework (LDF) in 2003 with the publication of an `Issues and Options Report’. By October 2007 a `Core Strategy Preferred Options’ document had been drafted for public consultation. Also in October 2007 a `Site Specific Allocations and Policies Preferred Options’ document was published for public consultation with an associated `Development Management Policies Preferred Options’ document also published in 2007. Work on the draft LDF was abandoned with the advent of Local Government Reorganisation in Cornwall. In view of the work on the draft LDF by the former North Cornwall District Council being at an early stage little

Page 55 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

weight can be accorded to it. Sections 3 and 4 of the SoCG provide details of other documents which contain information of relevance to the appeal.1.36

6.12 Since April 2009 CC has commenced preparation of an LDF. The Local Development Scheme (LDS) has been submitted to the SoS and this sets out a timetable for the LDF and provides brief details of the documents that will be provided. A Core Strategy has not yet been drafted. It is anticipated that the Core Strategy would not be submitted to the SoS before 2011 at the earliest. As the draft LDF process is still at a very early stage of preparation, I consider that the emerging LDF can be afforded very little weight.

6.13 It is common ground between the main parties that RPG10/RSS sets out a broad development strategy for the period to 2016 and beyond and provides the regional spatial framework for other strategies and programmes within the South West. Policies SS18 and HO4 are relevant in this case. Policy SS18 indicates that local authorities and developers should work together for the regeneration of the main towns to act as employment and service centres for their population and rural hinterlands. Policy HO4 indicates that local authorities should make provision for limited additional housing within or adjacent to settlements in rural areas, where it will support local services which could become unviable without modest growth or it is needed to support local economic development and which will help to diversify the local economy. The proposal would accord with the broad strategic policies in RPG10/RSS.1.19- 1.21 6.14 The saved policies of the CSP which are particularly relevant to this proposal are set out in paragraphs 1.22-1.25 above. CC argues that the saved policies indicate the importance of protecting the character and local distinctiveness of the countryside and the built environment. It is claimed that the proposed development would be harmful to the character of the settlements of Bude and Stratton and the adjacent countryside and should not proceed when assessed against the aims of these policies, notably Policy 2 and Policy 3.1.22-1.25

6.15 The saved policies of the NCDLP which are relevant to this proposal are set out in paragraphs 1.26-1.30 above. Policy HSG1 defines the development boundaries for the main towns, including Bude and Stratton. Within these boundaries development is generally acceptable. Outside these boundaries, development will only be acceptable for uses which are necessary in the interest of the rural economy. Inset Map 7 shows that the appeal site lies outside the development boundary. Policy ENV1 indicates that proposals in the countryside will only be permitted where they do not have an adverse effect on the amenity or landscape character of the area. Under Policy ENV2 development proposals which would adversely affect the predominantly open or undeveloped character of an Open Area of Local Significance (OALS) will not be permitted. Policy BUS3 allocates land to expand the King’s Hill Industrial Estate on land to the south of Binhamy Farm. Policy BUS6 confirms the geographical extent of the OALS by reference to Inset Map 7 and confirms that Policy ENV2 will apply within that area. It is clear to me that the major part of the appeal site lies within an area designated as OALS in the NCDLP.1.26-1.30

6.16 On the face of it I consider that the proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan due to conflict with Policies 2 and 3 of the CSP and Policies ENV1, ENV2 and BUS6 of the NCDLP. However, Section 38 (6) of the

Page 56 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the determination of planning applications to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is necessary for me to consider the material considerations in this case in the context of the matters identified in paragraph 6.1 before returning to the necessary balancing exercise in my overall conclusions.

6.17 The Draft RSS policies which are particularly relevant to this proposal are set out at paragraphs 1.31- 1.33. Development Policy B envisages development taking place at `market towns’ and suggests that the scale and mix of development should increase self-containment of places identified, develop their function as service centres especially in terms of employment and service accessibility and secure targeted development which can address regeneration needs. Development Policy C deals with development and `Small Towns and Villages’ and states that development will be appropriate where various criteria are met. Policy HD1 requires that LDDs should deliver an average annual net increase in housing in accordance with a distribution set out in a Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of the Draft RSS. The former North Cornwall area (part of the Polycentric Devon and Cornwall Housing Market Area) is required to provide an annual average net dwelling requirement of 380 dwellings, giving a total requirement for the plan period of 7,600. Policy H1 requires provision to be made for at least 30% of all housing to be affordable and Policies E1 and E3 make requirements in relation to employment land.1.31-1.33

6.18 In her Proposed Changes, the SoS suggested textual changes to Development Policy B and Development Policy C. Furthermore, a new Policy HD1 was added relating to the sub-regional distribution of housing in order to manage and step up supply. The policy indicates that provision should be made across the HMAs and LPA areas to deliver the total number of dwellings in the periods between 2006-2016 and 2016-2026 as set out in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Within Policy HMA 10: Polycentric Devon & Cornwall HMA, 13,400 new homes are proposed in North Cornwall between 2006-2026 (670 dwellings pa). I have already indicated at paragraph 6.10 that the Draft RSS (including the SoS’s Proposed Changes) is at an advanced stage and is therefore a material consideration which should be afforded significant weight.1.34-1.35

6.19 PPS3 is particularly relevant in this case. It contains national policies on planning for housing and was published in November 2006. It requires a continuous five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (paragraph 57). In circumstances where RSSs are in development, or subject to review, Local Planning Authorities should also have regard to the level of housing provision as proposed in the relevant emerging RSS (paragraph 53). To be deliverable, sites must be available, suitable and achievable (paragraph 54). Where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, (paragraph 71) subject to (paragraph 69) the suitability and environmental sustainability of the site, the effective and efficient use of land, the need for a good mix and high quality of housing, and other planning-for-housing objectives.1.37

6.20 I shall now deal with the main considerations identified at paragraph 6.1

Page 57 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

(i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular reference to PPS7

6.21 I note that the appeal site comprises 23.3 ha of farm land which is outside but abuts the eastern development boundary of Bude. The major part of the site is subject to the OALS designation. I also note that a very considerable part of the Council's case against the proposal is based upon the fact that the 1999 NCDLP designated part of the appeal site as OALS. RR1 relies upon Policies ENV1, ENV2 and BUS6 of the NCDLP, Policies 2 and 3 of the CSP and guidance in PPS7. However, the NCDLP had an evidence base of 1991, covered the period only until 2006 and was expected to be rolled forward at least every 5 years. There has been no 5 year review since 1999 when the plan was first adopted. The NCDLP is significantly out-of-date albeit that certain policies, including those relied upon, have been “saved”. Had such a review taken place it would have had to acknowledge the existence of PPS7 issued in 2004. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of PPS7 give the clearest guidance that local landscape designations such as this should usually not be necessary. No attempt has been made by NCDC/CC to demonstrate that criteria based policies cannot provide the necessary protection through the development plan. I consider the OALS designation is an outdated policy which it would be inappropriate to rely on as it has been overtaken by more up to date national guidance.2.2-2.7, 3.1,4.45

6.22 In addition, I note that NCDLP Policy ENV1 is primarily directed at protection of AONB and Heritage Coast (ENV1 (1)) and AGLV (ENV1 (2)). There is also general reference in ENV1 (2) to "… proposals in the countryside elsewhere…" but this would cover all areas outside of the tightly drawn town and village development boundaries. In my view this would undermine Bude's role as a main town in Cornwall in accommodating necessary development beyond the end of the NCDLP period of 2006. I am aware that the RSS PC expects 13,400 new homes to be built in North Cornwall in the period 2006-2026 which would necessarily see a great number of homes built in the "countryside" as defined in the NCDLP. A rigid interpretation of Policy ENV1 (2) would also negate the clear obligation in PPS3 paragraph 71 to maintain a 5 year land supply in North Cornwall through release of appropriate land including greenfield land if necessary. It follows therefore that Policy ENV1 cannot be relied upon as it comes from an outdated plan.2.08-2.10, 3.1

6.23 NCDLP Policy ENV2 is the OALS policy and BUS6 applies it to areas identified on Inset Map 7. I note that the text at paragraph 8.29 of Part 2 of the NCDLP emphasizes that in terms of OALS it is the land between Bude, Flexbury and Stratton which forms a 'green gap' which maintains the separate identities of each settlement and merits special protection. This suggests that the NCDLP was especially concerned about an area of land to the north which separates Bude, Stratton and Flexbury and not the area to the south which includes the appeal site which can play no role in separating Bude/Stratton from Flexbury. 2.11-2.12, 3.1 6.24 RR1 also relies upon CSP Policies 2 and 3. I note that Policy 2 deals principally with AGLVs. There is a generalised requirement that "… development must respect local character" but this is subject to the caveats already referred to above in relation to PPS3 and PPS7 and the requirement to maintain a 5 year land supply. The CSP "Saving Letter" provides warnings in relation to outdated policies and the need for housing as set out in PPS3. Policy 2 also recommends

Page 58 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

Character Assessment work to inform the LDD process but this has not been done. CSP Policy 2 does not provide any justification for the OALS policy.2.15, 3.1

6.25 I am aware that CSP Policy 3 relates to "Use of Resources". In evidence CC refers to protection of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, there was no mention of that in RR1. In my view, it would be quite wrong to introduce an argument about protection of best and most versatile agricultural land when it was not included in RR1. The final reference in RR1 is to PPS7 which I have dealt with in paragraph 6.21 above and concluded that it was inappropriate to rely upon the OALS policy.2.16, 2.17, 3.1, 4.45

6.26 In my view there is no justification for relying upon PPS7 as a justification for a bar on development such as this. The Appellant referred to Government objectives (i)-(ii) of PPS7 but these were cancelled by PPS4. In my view, PPS4 Policy EC6 is relevant here. Policy EC6.2 (b) states that in rural areas, LPAs should identify service centres (which might be a country town, a single large village or a group of villages) and locate most new development in or on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing, (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together. The CSP identifies Bude as a “main” town. The Draft RSS identifies Bude as a “market” town. I consider that the description in Policy EC6.2 (b) is consistent with the role ascribed to Bude in the NCDLP, the CSP and as a Policy B settlement in the RSS PC. Paragraph 9 of PPS7 also expressly espouses the commitment to provision of housing in PPS3 (PPG3).2.18, 2.19, 2.91

6.27 In addition to reliance on the OALS policy, CC and others advanced a case based on coalescence. It was argued that the wider area is made up of 3 inter- dependent but separate areas of settlement; Bude, Stratton and Flexbury. CC was particularly concerned about the potential convergence of Bude and Stratton and the need for these 2 settlements to keep their separate identities. On this point CC was supported by local groups such as the Friends of Binhamy and local residents. CC and local residents also referred to the visual impact, the loss of greenfield land, the loss of the existing gap, the loss of agricultural land and the fact that brownfield sites ought to be considered first. CC highlights an important view across the appeal site being a long distance view from Stratton Road to Efford Down with a glimpse of the sea. Reference was also made to the Local Plan Inspector’s view in 1997.2.21-2.28, 3.4-3.9, 4.6, 4.30, 5.8, 5.12, 5.15, 5.22,5.27, 5.32,5.33 6.28 However, since then I am aware that PPS7 paragraphs 24 and 25 have reduced the importance of OALS and PPS3 now requires a 5 year land supply to be maintained. The Local Plan Inspector's suggestion that OALS would shape the future development of Bude was not a view shared by NCDC in granting permission for the 6.4 ha employment site or in declining/failing to put the BUS2 area into OALS. Neither has his approach been followed by the NCDC officers preparing the LDF which, out of a choice of 17 sites, chose the appeal site - within the OALS - as its preferred option. In my view, the Local Plan Inspector could not and obviously did not anticipate the housing requirements that the RSS and the RSS PC would impose on Bude.2.27, 2.28, 2.78

6.29 As I perceive it, the site’s existing character is much affected by surrounding urban influences particularly the prominent developments situated on locally high ground to the north and south. It is separated from the wider landscape

Page 59 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

to the east by the busy A39 and with development of the substantial, consented business park extension, would be contained by development on, or adjacent to much of its periphery. Opportunities to view the site from the more tranquil countryside east of the A39 are highly restricted. There are occasional views from high ground to the west and south west but general visibility is often restricted by hedge banks and the sunken form of lanes and tracks.2.22

6.30 The site is principally seen from its limited open boundary along Stratton Road and by motorists along a short section of the A39. The proposed development would have the A39 as a strong defensible demarcation of development on its eastern boundary. The A39 at this location is acknowledged not to be pedestrian friendly and so any perception of coalescence would be fleeting and experienced in a car on a busy road with undeveloped fields to the east. Stratton Road in the area of the appeal site has a strongly urbanised character and includes a roundabout with its southern arm leading directly to the site boundary. To the north of the Stratton Road are a wide range of facilities including supermarket, petrol filling station, sport and leisure provision (together with recent consents), serving both the communities of Bude and Stratton.1.7, 1.8, 2.23, 2.78, 3.6-3.9,4.29, 5.8-5.33

6.31 I do not consider that the two settlements at present retain any clear separation along Stratton Road. The appeal site’s open frontage affords only limited views to the south and its existing undeveloped character does not, in my opinion, make any significant contribution to an appreciation of the setting of, or separation between the two. The existing development along Stratton Road is remote from the distinctive areas of the two settlements and in my view does not contribute to their separate identities. Development of the appeal site affords the opportunity to address this boundary in a positive way to enable further provision of community related facilities.2.78, 3.7, 4.29,5.8-5.33

6.32 CC has over many years recognised the site’s potential to accommodate future growth of Bude, with open land to the north of Stratton Road regarded as more sensitive in relation to coalescence of Bude and Stratton. Land to the north is more readily visible and unlike the appeal site is accessible via rights of way which accentuate this value. In my opinion this does result in a significant contribution to the local landscape setting of the two settlements.2.24, 2.25

6.33 I conclude that the policies which CC rely on in RR1 have been overtaken by up-to-date guidance and the requirement to maintain a 5 year housing land supply. The appeal site is not highly visible in the landscape due to its topography, existing landscaping and because it would be seen in the context of existing (and approved) built development on three sides. The proposal would not lead to the coalescence of Bude and Stratton. The proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.2.29,3.9

(ii) whether there is a pressing need for land to be made available for residential development and whether the appeal site is suitable

6.34 At the heart of this issue is whether the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year land supply and whether the 5 year land supply calculation should be based on the CSP, the RSS or the RSS PC.2.30, 3.2

Page 60 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.35 On the basis of the CSP, CC states that there is an 18.7 years supply; on the basis of the RSS it is claimed there is a 7 years supply and on the basis of the RSS PC it states that the supply falls to 3.5 years. It is further argued that until the RSS is approved this remains a draft figure, not part of the development plan, albeit in accordance with PPS3, a material consideration. CC also make reference to the continuing uncertainty over the eventual outcome of the RSS figure in the light of the on-going Sustainability Appraisal work in relation to Areas of Search added or amended by the EIP Panel. Local groups such as the Friends of Binhamy and local residents support CC’s view that there is no need for the development.3.2, 4.1-4.12, 4.55, 5.55,5.32-5.35,5.43, 5.48,5.57

6.36 However, the Appellant reminded the Inquiry that CC had a clear understanding of what was the correct basis of the calculation in December 2009. In the Quintrell Downs appeal I note that CC accepted that the RSS PC was the correct reference. In the Quintrell Downs case, the Inspector also regarded it as the correct measure and he accepted the 5 year land calculation based upon it. I agree with the Appellant that this decision is itself a material consideration on the housing need issue.2.31, 4.4-4.9

6.37 At this Inquiry, without any policy justification for the change in approach, it is clear to me that CC has changed its view and now claims that it is wrong to use RSS PC. I am aware that the SoS does accord weight to emerging RSS post Panel Reports, for example at Cheltenham and "significant weight" to emerging RSS where Proposed Changes have been made for example at South Derbyshire. In my opinion the RSS PC should be afforded significant weight in this case and this view is supported by advice in paragraph 53 of PPS3. Therefore, based on the RSS PC, there is only 3.47 years housing supply and this is accepted in the SOCG.2.32-2.34

6.38 It follows that the process in paragraph 71 of PPS3 is triggered so that planning applications such as this should be considered favourably. The only hurdle left is the criteria in paragraph 69 of PPS3 and it is agreed that all are met bar one which CC contested. It is important to note that it is not contended that the site is inconsistent with the "spatial vision" for the area and the other factors in the final indent to paragraph 69. That concession in cross examination by Mr Andrews means it cannot be argued that the development constitutes too much for Bude such that it is inconsistent with its role in Cornwall as a main town/Policy B settlement. The only dispute is whether the site is "suitable" for housing "including its environmental sustainability".2.35-2.37, 3.3-3.9 6.39 In my view the site clearly is suitable for housing as the exhaustive 17 site selection process has demonstrated. The wisdom of that choice has been corroborated by the evidence of Mr Craggs and Mr Griffiths in particular. I note the points made by CC that NCDC LDF work was wrong and that sites BUD 3 and BUD 6 are unsuitable for development. However, I disagree with this conclusion and prefer the evidence of the Appellant. CC argued that the site is not sustainable because of the existence of dormice and their habitat on the appeal site. I shall deal with this concern directly.2.38-2.39, 3.10, 4.10-4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.50

6.40 It is noteworthy that the Appellant has analysed the legal position in relation to Dormice and this is included in their closing submissions. I have taken the legal submissions into account in my assessment.2.40-2.64

Page 61 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.41 I note that the proposal was accompanied by an ES which included information about survey work undertaken on the site in 2008. A Bat and Dormice Survey Report accompanied the ES. The ES described the existence of Dormice nests on the site and proceeded on the assumption that a population of this endangered mammal was present throughout the farm's hedgerow network. The extent of hedgerow to be removed was identified and the ES acknowledged the existence of and relevance of the 1994 Habitats Regulations. The ecological impacts of development were assessed and summarised. The effect on Dormice was assessed as "Moderate Adverse" during the construction stage, "Minor Adverse" during the operational phase and "Minor Benefit" in terms of residual effects "dependent on success of mitigation planning".1.14-1.17, 2.41

6.42 The ES also referred to the alternatives which had been considered both in strategic terms vis-à-vis the approach to identification of appropriate settlements to accommodate development by CC and its predecessor and in terms of the search for suitable sites for development in the Bude/Stratton area by NCDC. This process involved consideration of 155 sites in NCDC overall and 27 sites in Bude/Stratton. The two preferred options in this process were at Binhamy Farm and one option is included within the appeal site and included hedgerows and the Dormice nests found in 2008. 1.14-1.17, 2.42

6.43 I note that CC’s Committee Report acknowledged comments from Natural England and Cornwall Wildlife Trust which both noted the existence of Dormice on the site. Neither body objected to the grant of planning permission. CC’s Committee Report recommended that planning permission be granted having concluded at page 41 that there were no biodiversity reasons to refuse planning permission. The Committee of CC did not identify the effect of the development on Dormice or the hedgerows as justifying refusal of planning permission. However, the fact that a planning authority does not object to a development on the basis of its ecological effect does not mean that the SoS on appeal is entitled to regard that as a matter no longer in dispute, see KRAAIJVELD v. ZUID-HOLLAND [1997] ENV LR Part 3 page 265 (ECJ). 2.43-2.46

6.44 It follows that, now that the issue of the Dormice habitat has been raised, it is necessary for the SoS, who is now the decision maker, to address it if it were to be thought that CC's handling of the matter was deficient. By Regulation 3(4) of the 1994 Habitats Regulations the decision maker is required to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in considering this appeal. This in turn requires consideration of the Habitats Regulations and Government guidance in relation to them in PPS9, and Circular 6/05 at paragraph 116. The Regulations protect certain wild animals (including Dormice) and their habitats under Regulation 39 (1) (d).2.48, 3.18, 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39

6.45 However, there is provision in the Regulations whereby certain acts which would otherwise be unlawful can be carried out under licence under Regulation 44 (1) (e). Derogation from the strict system of protection of protected species can be granted under licence granted by the appropriate authority if it is in the interests of public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of special or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.2.50, 3.18 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39

Page 62 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.46 Any such licences are in the grant of Natural England. In deciding whether or not to grant a licence Natural England must satisfy the test in Regulation 44 (3). This provides that the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence under this regulation unless they are satisfied: (a) that there is no satisfactory alternative, and (b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.2.48-2.52, 3.18, 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39

6.47 Both main parties highlighted that these duties have recently been examined by the Court in the case of R (WOOLLEY) v CHESHIRE EAST BC and MILLENIUM ESTATES LTD [2009] EWHC 1227 (Admin), a decision of Judge Waksman sitting as a judge of the High Court on 21 and 22 May 2009. The Woolley case concerned the Habitats Regulations 1994 in the context of bats. In that case the judge found that the Council were in breach of Regulation 3 (4) because the Planning Officer's report made no mention of the Directive or the Regulations. In Woolley the Council suggested that it met its legal requirements under the Regulations so long as it acknowledged the existence of the bats, the Directive and the Regulations and that the licensing process by Natural England would take place at a later stage. The judge rejected the Council's case.2.53-2.55, 3.18, 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39

6.48 It seems to me from the evidence that is before me that CC's approach in this case would appear to fail the test in WOOLLEY. However, the SoS is now decision maker by reason of the appeal and considers the matter as if the application had been submitted to him by reason of his appellate powers. It is therefore necessary to address the issues raised in the Regulations.2.57

6.49 I deal first with Regulation 44 (1) (e). The issue here is whether there is (a) reason(s) of "overriding public interest" in granting planning permission in this case. I agree with the Appellant that there are for the following reasons:

(i) Although I have seen no direct authority on what constitutes an "overriding reason", the case of NEWSUM WELSH ASSEMBLY GNT [2004] EWCA Civ 1565 suggests (per Waller LJ at paragraph 28)

(ii) The case of NEWSUM also established that the question as to whether or not an imperative reason of overriding public interest arises is a matter of judgment.

(iii) In this case there is a clear need for CC to identify sufficient housing land to satisfy the requirements of the RSS PC.

(iv) In addition to the general duty at (iii) above, PPS3 imposes a requirement to ensure that there is a 5-year housing land supply.

(v) Based on the RSS PC there is, presently, no 5-year land supply. This situation is different from that in NEWSUM (a minerals case) where

Page 63 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

there was "currently sufficient production capacity and permitted reserves to meet local and regional demand" (paragraph 4) and the applicants for a licence in that case expressly admitted that "this (i.e. the absence of need for the mineral) was insufficient to demonstrate an overriding public interest."

(vi) Release of the land in this case to provide housing is clearly a reason of a "social or economic nature".

(vii) The Council's case at Inquiry is that the "overriding public interest” test is not met in relation to the retail and employment elements of the scheme. It accepts that "if the Appellant's case on housing need is accepted" then the "overriding public interest" test is met in relation to housing provision.

(viii) The distinction made by CC between the constituent parts of this mixed use scheme is unrealistic because

(a) the mixed use scheme is an appropriate form of development given the role of Bude as a "main town" in the CSP Policy 25 and its likely role as a “market town” in RSS Policy B. It would be in conflict with those policies to make substantial provision for housing but to make no provision for employment or services such as the retail element which is proposed, which offers the prospect of "clawback" of leaking trade.

(b) The retail element is necessary to assist viability without which the AH offer would fall below 30%.

(c) The quantum of employment is appropriate. Some 6.4 ha was granted planning permission in 2006 (SABU 3) to cater for the 400 houses at SABU 1 plus 360 within Bude. The 760 total was 10% of the then RSS total of 7,600 which the LDF proposed at Bude. Based on the 13,400 now required under RSS PC a 10% figure would be 1,340. If 760 units merited some 6.4 ha then a further 580 units (1,340 - 760) would require 4.9 ha as Mr Craggs illustrated in his evidence. In fact the proposal is only for just over 2 ha of employment land.

(d) CC's complaint about the inclusion of the retail and employment elements is difficult to understand given that SABU 1 in the North Cornwall LDF required a development brief which would cater for the whole of the site albeit that only part was proposed for development.

(e) The complaint is also a bit strange given that Catesby was encouraged to provide a master plan for the whole site.

(ix) The scheme should be treated as a whole as befits Bude's role in the CSP and RSS PC. In my view the proposal as a whole meets the "overriding public interest" test.2.58, 3.18, 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39

Page 64 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.50 I deal secondly with Regulation 44 (3). From the evidence that is before me I consider that this requirement can be satisfied for the following reasons:

(ii) CC and more particularly its predecessor NCDC has carried out a strategic assessment of where RSS PC development should take place and these locations include Bude.

(iv) The action will not be detrimental to the Dormice population for reasons set out in the ES and more particularly the SES which points out the benefit to Dormice of the amended scheme which completes landscaping works within phase 1 thereby maximising opportunities to establish new habitat quickly.

(v) The statutory consultee (and the Cornwall Wildlife Trust) does not object to the proposal on the basis of impact on the habitat or on the Dormice themselves.

(vi) The Council accepts that the "no satisfactory alternative" test is met.

(vii) It follows that the SoS can be satisfied that this element of the test is met.2.59, 3.18, 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39

6.51 In addition, it is noteworthy that the Appellant commissioned expert evidence to address the presence of Dormice on the site and its consequences in terms of the Habitats Directive and the 1994 Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations. Mr Baxter’s evidence (APP9) demonstrates that at this, the planning stage of the project, 3 tests must be examined by the decision maker

(i) there is no satisfactory alternative to the proposal;

(ii) the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range; and (iii) the derogation is (in this case) for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.2.60, 2.61, 3.18, 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39

6.52 I am aware that Mr. Baxter's evidence relies upon planning issues to justify "overriding reasons" and these are set out above. The Natural England guidelines on overriding public interest are instructive.

Page 65 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

"The word 'imperative' means that there must be a high degree of 'need' for the action concerned.

I consider that the example given is akin to the present case.2.62, 2.63, 3.18, 4.12, 4.41-4.43, 5.39 6.53 The situation is therefore far removed from the case of Woolley where the Court rejected the argument that mere acknowledgement of the existence of the 1994 Regulations and the duties therein was adequate. I consider that the Appellant has provided the necessary evidence upon which the SoS can safely make a decision at the planning stage to grant planning permission.2.64, 3.18,4.12,4.41-4.43, 5.39

6.54 I now turn to Housing Need in this case. It is noteworthy that the need is not just for open market housing but also for Affordable Housing (AH) and accommodation for the elderly. The SOCG paragraphs 9.3 to 9.5 establish a clear need to provide AH and to make provision for the elderly. The Retirement Village and Extra Care elements of the scheme would help to address this specific need. In my view these are compelling material considerations in support of the appeal quite apart from the 5 year supply argument.2.66, 2.67, 3.11, 3.12, 4.39, 4.49, 4,50, 4.63-4.64, 4.67, 5.32, 5.33, 5.42, 5.45 6.55 In my view, need exists not only in terms of the 5 year supply deficit but also because of the uncertainty about the period beyond those 5 years. Mr Cookman explained that until the SHLAA work was completed it would not be possible to say how much development would be allocated to Bude in the emerging Core Strategy (CS). It became apparent that there was no certainty that the CS would be adopted as the LDS expects in March 2012. I agree with the Appellant that the timetable is unrealistic. What is of greater practical importance is that Mr. Cookman was unable to say whether the CS would include site specific allocations/areas of search in Bude.2.68

6.56 The practical consequences of this are that it is likely to be well beyond 2012 before the LDF process for CC would identify a site or sites in Bude and therefore the LDF led delivery on site is likely to be over 2 years past March 2012 perhaps even 2015.2.69, 3.12

6.57 It is noteworthy that the housing trajectory for North Cornwall shows the very considerable supply problems that CC has. The deficit based on the RSS PC is projected to rise to 1,363 dwellings in 2015/2016. Moreover, the uncertainty over the CS/site identification process means that there is no guarantee of delivery before 2015.2.70

6.58 CC argues that the contribution which the site would make towards the 5 year supply is relatively modest. I disagree. Against the supply problems shown in the trajectory the complaint that the proposal would only deliver 36 units over the last 3 years of the 5 year period is somewhat hollow. In all circumstances

Page 66 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

36 units per year is a valuable contribution towards the needs of Bude. The Cornwall Town Study 2005 estimated Bude's annual capacity at 72 dpa. In my opinion an annual supply of half of that is therefore valuable.2.71, 3.12

6.59 The Friends of Binhamy and interested persons argue that the site is a commitment to too much development in Bude. I disagree for the following reasons:

(i) 400 units is the sum that was proposed in the LDF process.

(ii) The LDF process aimed to meet 10% of the 7,600 RSS figure, i.e. 760 in Bude, of which 360 are in the town and 400 in the extension. The RSS PC figure is 13,400. If the same 10% proportion for Bude is used that would mean 1,340 to be found in the period 2006-2026.

(iii) The Cornwall Towns Study figure of 72 dpa represents 1,440 over a 20 year period which corroborates the sense of the RSS PC figure and justifies the scale of the proposed development.

(iv) The development is not out of kilter with the expansion in the population of Bude 1971 - 1991 referred to above.

(v) The increase in population (and the additional employment and retail) are consistent with the role of Bude as a main town in the CSP and as a market town in RSS PC Policy B.2.73, 3.12, 4.8, 4.39-4.40, 4.49-4,50, 4.63-4.64, 4.67, 5.32, 5.33, 5.42, 5.45 6.60 CC, the Friends of Binhamy and interested persons argue that the 30% offer of AH is insufficient, despite the fact that this is agreed to be the appropriate quantum having regard to viability. I consider this proportion to be entirely consistent with RSS PC which sets 35% as the AH target subject to "market realities". The position CC takes is strange: the solution to the problem of only getting 30% AH out of 400 units is to get 100% of nothing by refusing to grant permission. It is noteworthy that the Housing Market Report of 2008 shows how serious the problem is and how valuable 120 AH dwellings would be.2.74, 3.12, 4.8, 4.39-4.40, 4.49-4.50, 4.63-4.64, 4.67, 5.32-5.33, 5.42, 5.45 6.61 In so far as the reduction in AH provision reflects a difficult economic climate that does not mean the appeal should be rejected until sunnier economic weather. I am aware that this approach ignores the advice to Chief Planning Officers given by DCLG in May 2009 which states that “now is the time to ensure that land supply is in place so that we can deliver more housing as industry returns to health”.2.76

2 6.62 CC refers to the fact that no more than /3 of the site would be residential with 1 /3 comprising retail and general employment. However, I note that paragraph 4.10.12 of the RSS EiP Panel Report refers to the particularly important role of Bude as a local employment and service centre. In my view, it is important to address both roles if providing 400 dwellings. CC also indicates that there is no need for employment and retail uses. However, in cross examination Mr Andrews clarified that RR1 was based on “built” development not the “type” of development. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to need for employment or retail uses in the Council’s Rule 6 Statement.2.90, 3.13, 3.15-3.17

Page 67 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.63 CC is concerned with the proposed employment and retail elements of the proposal. Bude Area Chamber of Commerce and some local residents argue that the proposal would adversely affect the town centre and would not improve the town’s retail offer. I have already dealt with the justification for including the employment and retail elements of the scheme at paragraph 6.49 above. With regard to PPS4, it is Policy EC6 which is relevant and especially Policy EC6.1 and Policy EC6.2. Policy EC6.2 (b) states that in rural areas, LPAs should “identify service centres (which might be a country town, a single large village or a group of villages) and locate most new development in all on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing, (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together.” The CSP identifies Bude as a “main” town. The Draft RSS identifies Bude as a “market” town. Therefore, Policy EC6.2 (b) is correct and the proposal is entirely consistent with it.2.91, 3.13-3.17, 4.14-4.17, 4.27, 4.29, 4.47, 4.57, 4.63, 4.69,- 4.70, 5.20, 5.26, 5.43, 5.48, 5.52 6.64 CC argues that Policy EC17 of PPS4 is the relevant development management policy against which the proposal should be tested. I note that Policy EC17.2 provides that planning applications should be determined by taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of Policy EC10.2 and Policy EC16.1 and any other material considerations. In my view the retail proposals can be supported based on (i) the retail analyses undertaken (ii) having regard to the advice in PPS4 in terms of the impact on the town centre which would be limited; (iii) accessibility – there is an existing bus route on Stratton Road and linked trips to the Morrisons store and leisure facilities would be possible; wider consumer choice because there are currently no deep discounters or bulky goods national retailers operating in Bude; the environmental benefits arising from a reduced need to travel to other centres in order to access a wider range of goods and job creation. Overall I consider that the proposed retail development would a have a positive impact on the town centre. The appeal site would be an ideal location for housing, employment and retail uses.3.17

6.65 I agree with the Appellant that the artificial constraint that CC seeks to impose on this development is in effect a prematurity argument which conflicts with paragraph 72 of PPS3. It is also in conflict with the advice given by DCLG on calculation of 5 year land supply which states that in areas with significant demand and need for housing LPAs should not necessarily treat the 5 year housing provision figures as a ceiling which cannot be exceeded. As stated in paragraph 6.59 above, RSS PC is likely to require far more than 400 new homes in Bude in the period up to 2026.

6.66 A number of other matters were raised by interested parties and persons who appeared at the Inquiry or in written representations at the application or appeal stages. Many of these matters were raised by the Friends of Binhamy in their statement (IP1). The additional issues which have been raised include the following:

• Overall suitability/viability linked to infrastructure provision and the sustainability of the location • Foul water drainage • Surface water drainage • The ability to deliver the affordable housing

Page 68 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

• The need for the Affordable Extra Care units and the Care Home • The viability or non viability of the employment land • The impact on tourism • The impact on the town centre • The loss of agricultural land • Historical and archaeological heritage • Residential amenity • Service provision in terms of schools, health care and transport4.1-4.12, 4.13, 4.20-4.25, 4.32-4.36, 4.51, 4.68, 5.4-5.58 6.67 The Appellant has submitted a comprehensive response which addresses all of these matters at APP 14. Many of these issues are dealt with by means of planning conditions or the S106 Agreement, where appropriate. Some of the criticisms made within the Friends of Binhamy statement are wide-ranging and unsupported by any evidence. The Appellant's response, including the attached appendices, properly addresses all of the matters raised. I agree with the Appellant’s responses and there is no need for me to duplicate them. None of the matters raised are sufficient to outweigh the factors that have led me to my conclusions. I conclude that there is a pressing need for land to be made available for residential development and that the appeal site is suitable.

(iii) Whether a S106 obligation is required, and if so, in what terms

6.68 The terms of the S106 Agreement are agreed between the Appellant and the Council (INQ3). A short summary of the S106 Agreement is included at APP22. In that the provisions of the S106 Agreement are necessary, relevant to planning, directly relate to the development and would fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the development, I consider that they meet the tests of Circular 05/05. It should be accorded significant weight. I have had regard to the S106 Agreement as a material consideration in my conclusions and recommendations.

(iv) The conditions that would be necessary should planning permission be granted.

6.69 An initial schedule of suggested conditions was submitted by the Council and discussed at the Inquiry at a round table session. These conditions were subsequently revised and document LPA10 represents a high level of agreement between the Appellant and the Council as to the conditions which should be imposed in this case.

6.70 With regard to suggested Condition 17, the Appellant accepts the need for buffer planting along the A39 frontage to the north of Binhamy Farm house in accordance with the Master Plan drawing but does not accept the need for buffer planting along the entire A39 frontage. The Local Planning Authority considers it essential for the buffer planting to extend along the whole length of the A39. My view is that there is no need for buffer planting along the entire A39 frontage as views into and out of the site would “advertise” the presence of the new community. In my view, there is no need for the wording of Condition 17 to be changed. With regard to Condition 24 the Appellant requests the deletion of ‘Clothes and Footwear’ and the reference to ‘Electrical Goods’ from the list. The Local Planning Authority objects to their deletion. My view is that the wording of Condition 24 should remain as drawn in order to protect the vitality and viability of Bude Town Centre.

Page 69 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

6.71 With regard to Conditions 25 and 26 the Appellant requests the deletion of these conditions. The Local Planning Authority objects to the suggested deletions. My view is that both Conditions 25 and 26 should be imposed as drawn in order to protect the vitality and viability of Bude Town Centre. With regard to Condition 27, the Appellant requests removal of any reference to net retail floor area figures in relation to the deep discount food retail unit. The Local Planning Authority objects. My view is that the wording of Condition 27 should remain as drawn in order to protect the vitality and viability of Bude Town Centre. With regard to Condition 28, the Appellant requests removal of any reference to net retail floor area figures in relation to the non food units. The Local Planning Authority objects to the content of the request and to reference to more than two non food retail units. My view is that the reference to net retail floor area figures should remain but the wording should state not more than five retail units.

6.72 With regard to Condition 29, the Appellant requests that 70% of the net retail floor space of the deep discount food retail unit should be limited to the sale of convenience goods whereas the Local Planning Authority requests 80%. My view is that the proportion of net convenience floor space should be limited to 75% to allow some flexibility for the business to flourish. I have reordered the suggested conditions and grouped them into topics. I have also made minor changes to the wording of several conditions in the interests of clarity. Overall I conclude that the recommended conditions meet the tests of Circular 11/95. A set of the recommended conditions for the site is provided in the Annex to this report.

Overall Conclusions

6.73 Although the proposal is in conflict with the development plan, there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should not be dealt with in accordance with the development plan. The development plan is clearly out of date and the absence of a 5 year housing land supply means that this proposal should be considered favourably in view of national guidance in PPS3. Inclusion of the retail and employment elements in the scheme are appropriate having regard to the role that Bude has played and will continue to play as a "main town" (CSP) or "market town" (RSS PC). It is necessary to balance the new housing with some employment land provision to maximise the opportunity of housing and working in Bude which is consistent with RSS PC Policy ES2. Equally the retail element is a necessary and appropriate element to fill a gap in the retail offer at Bude for a deep discounter/bulky goods offer.

6.74 It is inevitable that greenfield development adjacent to Bude will change its setting from some aspects but the appeal site is the one that has emerged after an exhaustive site selection process carried out by NCDC as part of the LDF process. The landscape effects are limited and acceptable. There is no Woolley type reason why planning permission should not be granted having regard to the presence of dormice on the site. The S106 package is suitable and appropriate. A set of the recommended conditions for the site is provided.

6.75 Even if at some future date the housing needs of Bude were to be expressed as less than its share of the 13,400 that the RSS PC requires, this development would still be necessary now to address a housing shortfall which

Page 70 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

is likely to get worse. In my view, there is a pressing need for the development, the site is suitable, available and achievable and there is a compelling need to provide AH and provision for an ageing population. CC argues that it must be given the opportunity to address the proposed increase in the housing requirements for North Cornwall arising from the RSS PC. However, the RSS PC is two years old and other authorities including the former Restormel Borough Council did something about their shortfall and introduced a land release mechanism. It would not be right to let matters drift until the CS has been adopted. That approach is not in accordance with PPS3.

Page 71 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 I recommend that the appeal be allowed and that outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the Annex to this report. Harold Stephens

INSPECTOR

Page 72 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr Jeremy Cahill QC Instructed by: Michael Craggs, DPDS Regional Ltd

He called:

Mr Patrick Griffiths BSc (Hons) Dip LA DPDS Consulting Group - Landscape CMLI

Mr John Acres MSc DipTP MRTPI Catesby Property Group - Infrastructure

Mr Michael Craggs BSc (Hons) Dip TP DPDS Regional Ltd - Planning MRTPI

FOR CORNWALL COUNCIL:

Mr Adrian Trevelyan Thomas Of Counsel

He called:

Mr Mark Andrews BA (Hons) Group Leader - Planning DipTP MRTPI MA (Dist) DMS MCIM

Mr Steven Swan BA Dip LA MLI Swan Paul Partnership Ltd - Landscape

Councillor Nathan Bale Cornwall Council

Mr Martin Cookman83 Research and Information Monitoring Team Leader

FOR FRIENDS OF BINHAMY:

Mr Chris Montagu BTech MA Stephen Payne Planning Ltd r FOR BUDE-STRATTON TOWN COUNCIL

Councillor Mrs Julia Bryson84 Local resident

FOR BUDE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr Peter La Broy Local resident

83 Mr Cookman was not called but he answered questions from the Inspector on land availability issues 84 Councillor Mrs Julia Bryson stated that she represented Bude–Stratton Town Council and submitted a Public Speaking Registration Form (Document IP2). This was challenged by the Appellant’s advocate who submitted a letter from the Deputy Town Clerk of Bude –Stratton Town Council stating that the Town Council did not resolve for any Councillor to speak at the appeal hearing and that any Councillors that wish to speak do so as individuals and not as representatives of the Town Council (Document APP20).

Page 73 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

FOR NORTH CORNWALL HEALTHWATCH

Dr Peter Hillenbrand Local resident

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mr J H Bennett Local resident

Mr H McConville Local resident

Mrs J Feasey Local resident

Mrs P Knight Local resident

Mrs G Aherne Local resident

Mrs J M Bennett Local resident

Mrs T A Ball85 Local resident

PLANS

Application Plans

Plan A: Plans submitted with the Original Proposal

• Site Plan Drg No: C10058.08.01 at 1:5000 scale showing the site boundary edged in red • Application Master Plan Drg No: 198101/U/15/RevC at 1:2500 scale

Plan B: Plan submitted with the Revised Proposal

• Revised Indicative Master Plan (October 2009) Drg No: 198102/RIMP/RevD at 1:2500 scale

85 Intended to speak but handed in statement on the day

Page 74 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

INQUIRY DOCUMENTS

INQ1 Notification Letter INQ2 Letters received in response to the Notice of the Inquiry INQ3 Section 106 Agreement –Final signed and sealed copy

CORE DOCUMENTS LIST

The following documents were provided as Core Documents (CD)

CD1 Planning Policy Statement 1- Supplement to PPS1 – Not Supplied CD2 Planning Policy Statement 3 - Not Supplied CD3 Planning Policy Statement 4 – Not Supplied CD4 Planning Policy Statement 6 – Not Supplied CD5 Planning Policy Statement 7 – Not Supplied CD6 Planning Policy Statement 9 – Not Supplied CD7 Planning Policy Statement 11 – Not Supplied CD8 Planning Policy Statement 12 – Not Supplied CD9 Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Not Supplied CD10 Planning Policy Guidance 15 – Not Supplied CD11 Planning Policy Guidance 16 – Not Supplied CD12 Planning Policy Guidance 17 – Not Supplied CD13 Planning Policy Statement 23 – Not Supplied CD14 Planning Policy Guidance 24 – Not Supplied CD15 Regional Policy Guidance (RPG10) (2001) CD16 Planning Policy Statement 25 – Not Supplied CD17 Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (2006) CD18 Proposed Changes Regional Spatial Strategy (2008) CD19 Cornwall Structure Plan (2004) CD20 North Cornwall District Local Plan (1999) CD21 North Cornwall District Local Plan – Bude Stratton Inset (1999) CD22 North Cornwall Monitoring Report 2008/09 CD23 North Cornwall LDF Core Strategy & Preferred Options (October 2007) CD24 North Cornwall LDF Issues & Options Report (Nov 2003) CD25 North Cornwall LDF Report on the Consultation on the Issues of Options Report – Key Results Bude-Stratton (November 2004) CD26 North Cornwall LDF Site Specific Allocations & Policies Preferred Options (October 2007) CD27 Application Forms CD28 Application Plans CD29 Application Design & Access Statement CD30 Application Design & Access Statement Revised CD31 Application Environmental Statement CD32 Application Environment Statement Revised CD33 Applicants Rule 6 Statement CD34 LPA’s Rule 6 Statement CD35 Statement of Common Ground CD36 Bude Partnership, June 2008: A Vision for Bude-Stratton and Surrounding Parishes: Strategic Plan 2008-2033 CD37 Bude Stratton Town Council & Bude District Area Forum, November 2002: Bude Study and Action Plan CD38 Cornwall County Council, 2005: The Cornwall Towns Study

Page 75 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

CD39 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2008a: Living Working Countryside: The Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing – Not Supplied CD40 Housing Vision Consultancy, December 2008: The Northern Peninsula Strategic Housing Market Assessment CD41 North Cornwall District Council, October 1997 – January 1998: North Cornwall District Local Plan Correspondence with the Inspector after completion of the Inspectors Report (October 1997 – January 1998) CD42 North Cornwall District Council, March 1998, North Cornwall District Local Plan Statement of Decisions relating to the recommendations in the Inspectors report on objections to the North Cornwall District Local Plan (April 1995) CD43 North Cornwall Local Plan, November 1998a: Further Proposed Modifications to Deposit Draft CD44 North Cornwall District Council, November 1998b: North Cornwall Local Plan Statement of Decisions relating to representations received to the proposed Modifications (March 1998) CD45 North Cornwall District Council 2006, North Cornwall Housing Needs Survey Update 2006 CD46 North Cornwall District Council, draft endorsed by North Cornwall Planning Committee, March 2009: Bude Conservation Area Appraisal (and Management Plan and supporting maps) CD47 North Cornwall District Council, draft endorsed by North Cornwall Planning Committee March 2009: Stratton Conservation Area Appraisal (and Management Plan and supporting maps) CD48 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2005a: Government Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System – Not Supplied CD49 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2005d: The Planning System General Principles – Not Supplied

LPA Documents

LPA1 Summary of Proof of Evidence of Mark Andrews LPA2 Proof of Evidence of Mark Andrews LPA3 Appendices to Mark Andrews Proof of Evidence LPA4 Proof of Evidence of Councillor Bale LPA5 Summary of Proof of Evidence of Steven J Swan LPA6 Proof of Evidence of Steven J Swan LPA7 Appendices to Stephen Swan’s Proof of Evidence LPA8 Replacement Photographs in respect of Mr Swan’s Proof LPA9 Letter to Mr Craggs dated 8th March 2010 Re: Habitats Regulations LPA10 Planning Conditions LPA11 Opening Statement on behalf of Cornwall Council LPA12 Closing Submissions on behalf of Cornwall Council

APPELLANT’S DOCUMENTS

APP 1 Summary of Proof of Evidence of Patrick Griffiths APP 2 Proof of Evidence of Patrick Griffiths APP 3 Appendices to Patrick Griffith’s Proof of evidence APP 4 Proof of Evidence of John Acres

Page 76 Report APP/D0840/A/09/2115945

APP 5 Appendices to John Acres' Proof of Evidence APP 6 Summary of Proof of Evidence of Michael Craggs APP 7 Proof of Evidence of Michael Craggs APP 8 Appendices to Michael Craggs' Proof of Evidence APP 9 Proof of Evidence of Alistair Baxter (appendices included) APP 10 Letter from DPDS to Cornwall Council dated 3 March 2010 APP 11 List of Representation on behalf of the Appellant, 16 March 2010 APP 12 Opening Statement on behalf of the Appellant, 16 March 2010 APP 13 Extract from Core Document 18 APP 14 Folder of material responding to Friends of Binhamy submission APP 15 Plan and Applications for Bude Band Hall + Scout Hut building APP 16 Extract from Core Document 38 (Cornwall Towns Study) APP 17 S106 Agreement APP 18 Extract from the SW RSS Panel Report (p 161 - p 166) APP 19 Enlargement of MA Appendix 37 p. 45 APP 20 Bude Stratton Town Council Letter from Deputy Town Clerk APP 21 Note on PPS 4 APP 22 Proposed Retail Units APP 23 Note on the S106 Agreement APP 24 Folder of consultation responses on amended application APP 25 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Appellant