Harris Lamb Limited Our Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 75-76 Francis Road Your Ref: P484 Edgbaston Birmingham B16 8SP Mr Chris May Our Ref: APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Pegasus Group Your ref: Bir.3689 5 The Priory Old London Road Canwell Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B75 5SH 02 July 2014 Dear Sirs, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY BARBERRY DROITWICH LIMITED SITE AT LAND AT PULLEY LANE, NEWLAND ROAD AND PRIMSLAND WAY, DROITWICH SPA, (WYCHAVON DC) APPLICATION REF: W/11/01073/OU; and APPEAL BY PERSIMMON HOMES LIMITED AND PROWTING PROJECTS LIMITED SITE AT LAND NORTH OF PULLEY LANE AND NEWLAND LANE, NEWLAND, DROITWICH SPA, (WYCHAVON DC) APPLICATION REF: W/12/02336/OU 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 MRTPI FRSA, who held a public local inquiry between 28 January and 14 February 2014 into your respective clients’ appeals against decisions by Wychavon District Council (“the Council”): Appeal A: to refuse outline planning permission for the development of land for up to 500 dwellings (Class C3); up to 200 unit care facility (Class C2); provision of mixed use local centre to include shop (Class A1); financial & professional services (Class A2); restaurants & café (Class A3); drinking establishment (Class A4); hot food takeaway (Class A5); offices (Class B1a) and police post; indoor bowls facility; means of access and estate roads; public open space; landscaping and infrastructure at Pulley Lane, Newland Road and Primsland Way, in accordance with application Ref: W/11/01073/OU; and 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 Appeal B: to refuse outline planning permission for the construction of a maximum of 265 dwellings with associated car parking, access, infrastructure provision and open space at land north of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, Newland, in accordance with application Ref: W/12/02336/OU. 2. On 26 June 2013, both appeals were 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 they involve proposals over 150 units on sites of more than 5 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 decisions 3. The Inspector recommended that both appeals be allowed and outline planning permission granted. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendations. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural matters 4. In respect of Appeal B, the applications for costs by Barberry Droitwich Ltd and by Persimmon Homes & Prowting Projects Ltd are the subjects of decision letters being issued separately by the Secretary of State. 5. The Secretary of State notes (IR1.21) that, although the development did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment, an Environmental Statement was prepared to support the outline planning applications. 6. The Planning Inspectorate wrote to interested parties on 11 March 2014, following the publication of new planning guidance on 6 March, inviting representations on any implications for these cases. The representations received were forwarded to the Inspector who has taken them into account in writing his report. Policy considerations 7. In deciding these appeals, 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 consists of the saved policies of the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006 (WDLP) as well as the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy (November 2012). 8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework); the planning guidance referred to in paragraph 6 above; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. 9. The Council is also working jointly with Malvern Hills DC and Worcester City Council to prepare a South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) (IR1.26-1.29). However, as work is still proceeding on that emerging plan and there are a number of uncertainties outstanding (see paragraph 13 below), the Secretary of State gives it very little weight. Main issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in these appeals are those set out at IR1.4. APPEAL A Consistency with development plan and sustainability of development 11. The Secretary of State notes (IR8.10) that the reasons for refusal did not allege breach of WDLP policies and both main parties accept that bringing forward housing development in the context of the district’s housing needs inescapably creates tension in particular with WDLP policies SR1 and GD1. He also agrees with the Inspector at IR8.14 that, for the reasons at IR8.12-8.14, policies GD1 and SR1 are out of date and paragraph 14 of the Framework applies, triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Furthermore, for the reasons given at IR8.15-8.18, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that only limited weight can be given to policy ENV1 (IR8.15) He also agrees that the appeal scheme would not conflict with ENV8 (IR8.18). 12. Turning to the question as to whether the development is sustainable,, the Secretary of State notes the arguments set out at IR8.19-8.20 in relation to the interpretation and application of the presumption under paragraph 14 of the Framework in the case of William Davis. The Secretary of State also notes the recent decision in Dartford Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Landhold Capital Limited where Mrs Justice Patterson rejected elevating William Davis to a formulaic sequential approach to paragraph 14 of the Framework. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State finds the relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date (IR8.24) and therefore the presumption applies and that the evidence before them both (IR8.21-8.23 )demonstrates that the Appeal A scheme is sustainable in terms of economic, environmental and social benefits.. Prematurity 13. Having regard to the arguments set out at IR8.25-8.30, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR8.30-8.36, granting permission for these appeal schemes cannot be seen as being likely to prejudice a local plan and so cannot be regarded as premature. In particular, the Secretary of State has taken account of the fact that the Council are proposing at least an extra 3,000 homes and have not yet decided where these should be located (IR8.30); that there are unresolved objections to the SWDP which dramatically reduce the weight that can be given to it (IR8.31); and that the appeal site has previously been under active consideration as a location for development (IR8.34). Whether the appeal proposal is necessary to meet housing needs 14. For the reasons given at IR8.38-8.55, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR8.56-8.58 that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, so that the test in paragraph 14 of the Framework applies. Character and appearance of the area 15. For the reasons given at IR8.59-8.72, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area and that the countervailing environmental benefits more than outweigh the limited harm caused by the loss of green field land. He therefore also agrees that the proposal would comply with the environmental policies of the WDLP and the emerging SWDP and with the relevant provisions of the Framework. Effect on local highway infrastructure 16. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments at IR8.74-8.80, the Secretary of State agrees with him that the location of the appeal site, with good access to the centre by cycle and foot, would minimise the highways impact which any substantial development inevitably brings (IR8.81); so that it would not give rise to highway safety or the free-flow of traffic in accordance with the relevant development plan policy . (IR8.82). Brine Run 17. For the reasons given at IR8.83, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no sound and robust evidence to suggest that the Brine Run could have any adverse implications for the appeal scheme so long as appropriate engineering measures to mitigate the risk of damage were agreed via the Council’s Building Control Department in advance of any development. Conditions 18. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions and the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions thereon in respect of Appeal A (IR8.84-8.87), and he is satisfied that the conditions as proposed by the Inspector and set out at Annex A to this letter are reasonable, necessary and would meet the tests of paragraph 206 of the Framework and the planning guidance. However, he also agrees with the Inspector (IR8.87) that it would not be appropriate to attach a planning condition regarding a Brine Run Monitoring Report (IR8.87) since this is a matter covered through the Building Control regime.