Whitehouse Farm, West Moor, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Landscaping, Wildlife Corridors, Open Space, Access And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
S Thompson & A Willis Our Ref: APP/W4515/A/12/2175554 Signet Planning Ltd Your Ref: Unit 26 Apex Business Village Annitsford 8 May 2013 Cramlington Northumberland NE23 7BF Dear Sirs TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY BELLWAY HOMES (NORTH EAST) LTD LAND AT WHITEHOUSE FARM, WEST MOOR, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE APPLICATION REF: 11/02337/FUL 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, PJ Asquith MA(HONS) MA MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 16 and 23 October 2012 into your client’s appeal against the refusal of North Tyneside Council (“the Council”) to grant a hybrid planning application comprising a full application for an executive scheme of 366 dwellings incorporating landscaping, wildlife corridors, open space, access and highways, and an outline application for up to 465 square metres of ancillary commercial development (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4) in accordance with application ref: 11/02337/FUL, dated 20 April 2012. 2. On 17 May 2012, 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 it involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units on a site of over 5 hectares (ha) 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. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s overall recommendation and is minded to agree with his recommendation subject to the satisfactory resolution of the issues raised by the conditions recommended by the Inspector in Annex B of his Report (as set out in detail in paragraphs 23–24 below). All paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s report (IR). Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Tel 0303 444 1626 Planning Casework Division Email [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU Procedural matters 4. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Like the Inspector (IR6–7) the Secretary of State is content that the ES complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposals. 5. The Secretary of State notes that the administrative boundary of Newcastle City Council runs along the western edge of the adjoining A189 (IR14–16) and part of the highway proposals linked to the development fall within the City Council’s jurisdiction. An identical application to that submitted to North Tyneside Council was submitted to Newcastle City Council and planning permission for these proposals has been granted subject to the conclusion of a Section 106 agreement. 6. The application for costs made by your client at the inquiry (IR1) is the subject of a decision letter which will be issued separately by the Secretary of State once he has made his final decision on this case. Matters arising after the close of the Inquiry 7. Following the close of the inquiry the Secretary of State received representations from those persons listed at Annex A(i) to this letter. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these representations, but is satisfied that they do not raise any matters not considered at the inquiry. 8. The Secretary of State also received a letter dated 11 February 2013 from Mary Glindon MP drawing his attention to a number of other planning applications which she considered would increase the housing provision in the locality. The Secretary of State then wrote to interested parties on 4 March 2013 inviting comments on that representation. On 19 March 2013 the Secretary of State circulated the responses received, seeking further comments. A list of the responses is set out at Annex A(ii). The Secretary of State has carefully considered all these representations and is satisfied that they do not demonstrate any significant change to the housing supply figures considered at the inquiry. 9. Copies of all this correspondence may be obtained by written request to the address at the foot of the front page of this letter. Policy Considerations 10. In deciding this appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Following the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (RSS) on 15 April 2013, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the North Tyneside Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2002). The Secretary of State does not consider that the revocation of the RSS raises any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this appeal, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. The Secretary of State also notes (IR373) that the Council’s Core Strategy is at an early stage, and he agrees with the Inspector that little weight can be attached to it. 11. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (March 2012); Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment Regulations) 2012 (the 2012 Regulations); Circular 11/1995: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended Main issues 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR 369) that the main issues are those listed at IR 44. Whether the proposal would be compliant with development plan and national planning policies 13. The Secretary of State has taken into account the fact (IR371) that the site is designated as Safeguarded Land in policy E21/1 of the UDP as it lies between the Green Belt and the urban area; and that that policy requires such land to be maintained in its open state for at least the plan period. He therefore agrees with the Inspector (IR447) that the proposal would not comply with the UDP in that respect. The Secretary of State has also taken account of the fact (IR372) that a 500m wide swathe of the site also forms part of a wildlife corridor in respect of which UDP policy E12/6 is relevant, and this is considered further in paragraphs 16-19 and 22 below. Safeguarded Land 14. For the reasons set out in IR374–381 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the terms of the Framework, the fact that the UDP is six years beyond its end date, and the timescale for the adoption of the Core Strategy as a first stage in preparing the Local Plan for the area can all be seen as arguments in favour of allowing development now on safeguarded land. Housing Land Supply 15. For the reasons given at IR382-392, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR393) that the Council’s assessment of the 5-year housing land supply situation is reasonable with a relatively small shortfall in the supply of deliverable sites and that the approach to be adopted should be in accordance with paragraphs 14 and 49 of the Framework. He further agrees (IR394-396) that, given the absence of other executive housing within the locality and the substantial contribution through a Section 106 obligation for the provision of affordable housing within the Borough, the scheme would deliver new homes to create a stimulus to the economy and address an immediate housing need, thereby according in that respect with both the UDP and national policy. Impact on Biodiversity 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, as set out at IR397, there has been an in-depth evaluation of the impact of the proposed scheme on biodiversity matters; and agreement between the main parties that the appeal proposal would have no significant effect on the nearby SSSI at Gosforth Park and no harmful impact on the adjacent Site of Local Conservation Interest at Killingworth Sidings. He further agrees (IR398) that, as stated in paragraph 11 above, a large part of the appeal site is designated within the UDP as a wildlife corridor, in which UDP Policy E12/6 seeks to protect biodiversity. 17. Having regard to his statutory duties (IR399-400), the beneficial enhancements and linkages which could be created (IR401-402) and the fact that Natural England (NE) has not objected to the scheme on the basis of the habitat creation and mitigation proposed (IR402), the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR404) that the main area of dispute between the parties regarding biodiversity is the impact on the farmland habitat and its role in supporting an associated ornithological interest. 18. Taking account of the issues discussed by the Inspector at IR405-408, and his reasoning, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR409 that the degree of mitigation within the appeal site for the bird species of principal importance (to which IR404 refers) would be limited and there would remain an adverse residual impact on biodiversity (IR410) which, unless compensated for, would conflict with EDP Policy E12/6.