Our ref: APP/N4720/W/17/3168897 Ms Kate Thompson Your ref: EMS.2738 Pegasus Planning Group 4 The Courtyard Lockington Derby DE74 2SL 12 July 2018 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY ROCKSPRING HANOVER PROPERTY UNIT TRUST LAND WEST OF STREET 5, THORP ARCH ESTATE, WETHERBY APPLICATION REF: 16/05226/OT 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Richard Clegg BA(Hons) DMS MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 12-15, 19-22 and 26-29 September and 20-24 and 27 November 2017 into your client’s appeal against the failure of Leeds City Council to determine your client’s application for outline planning permission for up to 874 dwellings (a maximum of 840 dwellings with two or more bedrooms); a 66 bed care home; a one form entry primary school; a new local centre including a class A1 convenience store (up to 420m2), a five unit parade of small retail units (up to 400m2), and class D1 uses (up to 750m2); on-site open space, including areas for both public access and biodiversity enhancements; together with associated highway and drainage and infrastructure, in accordance with application ref: 16/05226/OT, dated 10 August 2016. 2. On 27 February 2017, this 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. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that that the appeal be dismissed and outline planning permission be refused. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where noted, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse outline planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 42853 Philip Barber, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR6 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. He agrees with the Inspector (IR7) that the ES Addendum is capable of being taken into account in this appeal, and to do so would not cause prejudice to any other parties. Policy and statutory considerations 6. 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. 7. The adopted development plan consists of in this case, the adopted development plan for the area comprises of the saved policies of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (UDPR) 2001, Leeds Core Strategy (CS) 2012-2028, the Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan (NRWLP) 2013 and the Thorp Arch Neighbourhood Plan (NP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR21-30. 8. The Boston Spa NP does not include any part of the appeal site though provides a range of facilities within a relatively close distance. The Secretary of State considers that the most relevant policies are those set out at IR32. 9. 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’). 10. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 11. In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 2 Emerging site allocation plan 12. The Secretary of State considers that the emerging Site Allocation Plan (SAP) is of relevance to this case, and the most relevant policies are those set out at IR33. Although examination of the SAP commenced in October 2017, housing and mixed-use policies will not be examined until July- August 2018. 13. Paragraph 216 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. Given that the hearings on the housing elements of the SAP have only just begun, and that there are unresolved objections to it, the Secretary of State gives the SAP only little weight. 14. The Walton Neighbourhood Plan is not at an advanced stage, and the Secretary of State affords its policies only limited weight. Procedural matters 15. The Secretary of State has had regard to representations by Thorp Arch Trading Estate Action Group (1 February 2018) and Pegasus Group (4 July 2018) on an appeal relating to a development on land off Walton Road. His conclusions are set out below. As all parties were aware of the Council’s evidence at that appeal he has not found it necessary to refer back to them for comments. Main issues Housing land supply 16. The Secretary of State notes that it is common ground between the parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons given at IR233 – 243, that the Council has adopted a thorough and proactive approach to land availability, and that on the evidence before him on this case the supply of housing land is closer to the figure of 4.38 years than the 2.74 years suggested by the appellant. Sustainability of the site’s location 17. For the reasons set out at IR222-233, the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would not be consistent with policy SP1 of the Core Strategy. For the reasons given at IR224, the Secretary of State agrees that policy SP7 does not represent a commitment to residential development at Thorp Arch Estate. However, he also agrees that the fact that a substantial part of the area intended for built development is previously developed land, which provides support for the proposal (IR225). 18. The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR226-232 that the proposal would not fully meet the accessibility standards set out in the Core Strategy. He further agrees that the location is not, or would as a result of the proposal not be, adequately served by public transport, and would thus conflict with Policy T2 of the Core Strategy. He also agrees that opportunities for pedestrian access are limited. As such, he concludes that the site is not a sustainable location for the proposed development. 3 19. The Secretary of State agrees (IR295) that policies SP6, SP7 and H2 are relevant policies for the supply of housing, and thus not up-to-date in the absence of a five year supply of housing land. Traffic movement and highway safety 20. For the reasons set out IR244-249, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector in preferring the distribution and assignment of development traffic put forward in the appellant’s Transport Assessment to that put forward by the Council. 21. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons given at IR250-261 that the traffic generated by the proposed development would be likely to seriously worsen existing problems of traffic movement on Thorp Arch Bridge. He has had regard to the representations referred to at paragraph 14 above as to the benefits of a resident only parking scheme in maintaining the free flow of traffic along Bridge Road in regard to the Walton Road scheme. However, the Secretary of State considers that the traffic impact of the Walton Road scheme (119 dwellings) would be significantly smaller than that of the Thorp Arch Estate scheme (up to 874 dwellings, plus care home and other development). As such he concludes that the traffic signal scheme does not offer the prospect of effectively mitigating the impact of the development in this location. 22. He agrees that the traffic generated by the appeal proposal would be accommodated on the Walton Road/A168 junction without causing adverse effect (IR262).He further agrees that the proposed pedestrian crossing at Wighill Lane would not present a risk to highway safety (IR263-265). 23. Overall he concludes that there would be a significant increase in movement through Boston Spa, and that the residual cumulative impact of the proposed development would be severe, contrary to paragraph 32 of the Framework (IR266). As the proposal would not be adequately served by the highway network, and congestion problems have not been resolved, it would be contrary to Policy T2 of the Core Strategy and Policy GP5 of the UDPR.