Our ref: APP/R0660/W/16/3150968 Mr Mark Bassett APP/R0660/Q/16/3157808 Freeths LLP 80 Mount Street Your ref: 14/5671N Nottingham 16/3092N NG1 6HH 9 October 2017 Dear Sir APPEAL A: TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY HADDON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED LAND AT FORMER GORSTYHILL GOLF CLUB, ABBEY PARK WAY, WESTON, CREWE CW2 5TD APPLICATION REF: 14/5671N APPEAL B: TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 106B APPEAL MADE BY HADDON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED LAND AT FORMER GORSTYHILL GOLF CLUB, ABBEY PARK WAY, WESTON, CREWE CW2 5TD APPLICATION REF: 16/3092N 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Claire Sherratt DipURP MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry over 4 days from 31 January 2017 into your client’s appeals against: Appeal A: the failure of Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) to determine your client’s application for planning permission for a proposed housing development (up to 900 new dwellings) together with associated new employment development, a new primary school, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, supporting retail development and the layout of significant areas of new landscaped open space to complement both the new development and the existing Gorstyhill Country Park, in accordance with application ref: 14/5671N, dated 15 December 2014. Appeal B: the refusal by the Council to modify planning obligations dated 8 October 2003 and 9 May 2011, as set out in application ref: 16/3092N, dated 23 June 2016 so as to exclude the proposed access link to the appeal site from the terms of the obligation dated 9 May 2011 and to exclude the application site from the section 106 restriction on the number of dwellings which can be built upon the Golf Course Site as specified in the obligation dated 8 October 2003. Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 2. On 5 July 2016 Appeal A was recovered and on 21 September 2016 Appeal B was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that both appeals be dismissed and planning permission refused for Appeal A. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendation. He has decided to dismiss both appeals and refuse planning permission for Appeal A. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural matters 5. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR4, no prejudice has been caused as a result of the delay in serving notice on Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd under Articles 13 and 36 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Environmental Statement and Habitats Regulations Assessment 6. In reaching his decision on this appeal, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the subsequent addendum (IR5-6). Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR292-295, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. The Secretary of State has also taken account of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (IR7). Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 7. On 20 June 2017 the Local Plan Inspector published The Report on the Examination of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (LPS), and the LPS was adopted on 27 July 2017. At the time of writing her report, the appeal Inspector considered the version of the LPS titled ‘Local Plan Strategy Proposed Changes Final Version July 2016’ but, having given careful consideration to the adopted version of the LPS, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the policies of relevance to the appeal are not materially different from those considered by the appeal Inspector, and so he has not considered it necessary to refer back to the parties on them. 8. The Secretary of State also notes the appeal Inspector’s comments with regard to responses received on the Weston and Basford Neighbourhood Plan (NP) at IR12-13, and is satisfied that the publication of the Examiner’s report on the NP on 31 August 2017 does not necessitate any further referral back to parties on this matter. 9. The correspondence submitted to the Secretary of State after the close of the Inquiry is listed at Annex A to this letter. He has carefully considered these representations and is satisfied that the issues raised do not necessitate any further referrals back to parties prior to reaching his decisions on these appeals. Copies of these letters may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. 2 Policy and statutory considerations 10. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 11. In this case the development plan consists of the LPS and the saved policies of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan (CNRLP). At the time of writing her report, the appeal Inspector considered that the policies in the then emerging LPS of most relevance to this case were PG2, PG5 and PG6 (IR22-24). The Secretary of State agrees. However, he notes that, in adopting the LPS, some if its policies have been re- numbered, so that LPS Policy PG5 (Open Countryside) is now numbered Policy PG6 and Policy PG6 (Spatial Distribution of Development) is now numbered PG7. Nevertheless, apart from the renumbering, the Secretary of State is satisfied that Policies PG6 and PG7 in the adopted LPS are not materially different from Policies PG5 and PG6 as referred to by the appeal Inspector in her Report. 12. At the time of writing her report, the appeal Inspector considered that the saved policies of the CNRLP of most relevance to this case were Policies NE.2, RES.5 NE.5, NE.9, BE.1 and BE.2 as set out at IR19-21. The Secretary of State agrees. CNRLP Policy NE.2 has now been replaced by LPS Policy PG6 and CNRLP Policy BE.2 has been replaced by LPS Policies SD2 and SE1, but the other relevant CNRLP policies remain as “saved” policies. 13. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’); sections 1 and 3 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. Emerging neighbourhood plan 14. As indicated above, the Examiner published his report on the emerging NP on 31 August 2017. He recommended that the Plan, once modified, should proceed to referendum, but this has not yet been held. Accordingly, having regard to the terms of section 1(2) of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 and the advanced stage of the NP, the Secretary of State gives significant weight its policies. Main issues Appeal A 15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR277. The development plan 16. For the reasons given at IR279, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would conflict with CNRLP Policy NE.2 (which has now been replaced by LPS Policy PG6 – see paragraph 12 above). 17. For the reasons given at IR280, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would be significant and the proposal would conflict with saved CNRLP Policy RES.5 which envisages small scale infilling in the open countryside. The 3 Secretary of State considers that the Inspector’s discussion at IR281-284 has been superseded by the adoption of the LPS but, for the reasons given at IR285-286, he agrees with her at IR287 that the appeal scheme is neither small scale nor is it proportionate to or commensurate with the function and character of the settlement. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector at IR288 that, for the reasons given at IR279 and IR285-287, the proposed development would clearly conflict with LPS Policies PG2, PG6 and PG7. 18. For the reasons given at IR289, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR290 that the development would be contrary to the emerging NP. Character and appearance of the area 19. For the reasons given at IR291, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the overall scale of the development would result in a significant incursion into the open countryside which would be disproportionate in scale to the existing developments of Wychwood Village and Park. He therefore also considers that the development would be contrary to CNRLP Policy BE.2 (now LPS Policies SD2 and SE1). Ecological interests 20. For the reasons given at IR292-294, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR295-296 that the proposed development could be accommodated whilst conserving and enhancing the ecological qualities of the site, so that there would be no conflict with the development plan or the Framework in this regard.