Our ref: APP/K3605/W/20/3249790 Chloe Ballantine Your ref: 2019/0551 Rapleys First Floor 33 Jermyn Street LONDON SW1Y 6DN 12 May 2021 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY JOCKEY CLUB RACECOURSES LTD LAND AT SANDOWN PARK RACECOURSE, PORTSMOUTH ROAD, ESHER APPLICATION REF: 2019/0551 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of David Prentis BA BPl MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 16 November and 1 December 2020 into your client’s appeal against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for: hybrid planning application for the redevelopment of sections of Sandown Park Racecourse involving: outline application for development/redevelopment of sections of the site to replace/ modify existing operational/associated facilities, and to provide up to 150 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1), family/community zone, residential development up to 318 units (Use Class C3) and to relocate existing day nursery (Use Class D1), all with car parking, access and related works following demolition of existing buildings and hardstanding (for access only); and full application for the widening of the southwest and east sections of the racecourse track including associated groundworks, re-positioning of fencing, alterations to existing internal access road from More Lane and new bellmouth accesses serving the development, ref. 2019/0551, dated 18 June 2019 (see paragraph 6 of this letter below). 2. On 15 June 2020, 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 the appeal be dismissed. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal. 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 3594 Andrew Lynch, 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 2017. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR9, 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. Procedural matters 6. The application was initially submitted on 22 February 2019 incorporating ownership Certificate A. Subsequently, a revised planning application form was submitted on 18 June 2019 incorporating ownership Certificate B, notice having been served on an owner of part of the site (IR3). Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 7. On 6 January 2021 the Secretary of State received a letter from Dominic Raab MP attaching representations made on behalf of Save Esher Green Belt and Esher Residents’ Association. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised have been considered, and no other new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex A. Copies of these letters may be obtained on request to the email address at the foot of the first page of this letter. 8. An application for a partial award of costs was made by Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd against Elmbridge Borough Council (IR1). This application will be the subject of a separate decision letter. Policy and statutory considerations 9. 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. 10. In this case the development plan consists of the Elmbridge Core Strategy (2011) (CS) and the Elmbridge Development Management Plan (2015) (DMP). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR16-22. 11. 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’), as well as the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) together with a Companion Guide: Esher and The Developer Contributions SPD (IR23). A Green Belt Boundary Review (GBBR) forms part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan review and is relevant to this appeal as referred to at IR297-305. 12. 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 2 their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 13. 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. Main issues Green Belt 14. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis (IR297-305) of site character and contribution to Green Belt purposes. For the reasons given there, he agrees with the Inspector that Sandown Park racecourse as a whole contributes to Green Belt purposes 1, 2 and 3 as set out in paragraph 134 of the Framework (IR305). 15. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s analysis of the extent to which the appeal proposals could be regarded as facilities for outdoor sport and/or recreation (IR306-IR313). While he agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on this matter, as set out at IR306, he further agrees that it makes little practical difference which approach is taken because it is necessary to consider the effect on openness in any event (IR306). Given that the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector’s findings on openness and purposes, discussed below, he agrees that this matter is not important to the overall assessment. 16. For the reasons given in IR314-315, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appropriate way to analyse these proposals in terms of Green Belt policy is to look at the sites individually first, before drawing higher level conclusions about the scheme as a whole. 17. For the reasons given at IR316-317, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that sites A, C, E1, E2 and F would not amount to inappropriate development. 18. With regard to Site B (Hotel), the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR318-322, that the proposals would amount to inappropriate development and would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (IR322), bringing it into conflict with policy CS24 (IR462). 19. In respect of Site D (works to car park), he further agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR323-326 that the proposals would fail to preserve openness and would therefore be inappropriate development (IR325) and that more intensive use for car parking would have an urbanising effect that would conflict with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (IR326). 20. For the reasons given at IR327-332, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that residential sites 1 and 2 would each result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and would therefore amount to inappropriate development (IR328 and IR332). 21. With regard to residential site 3, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR333-343 that the proposals would amount to inappropriate development (IR333), would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt 3 (IR339), and would cause significant conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, in particular with purposes 1, 2 and 3 (IR343). 22. For the reasons given at IR344-349, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposals for residential site 4 would amount to inappropriate development (IR344), would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (IR348), and would amount to a conflict with purpose 3 (IR349). 23. With regard to residential site 5, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR350-353 that it should be regarded as previously developed land for the purposes of the Framework (IR350), but that the proposals would lead to substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and would, therefore, amount to inappropriate development (IR353). 24. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR354 that the new view from More Lane is a minor consideration which does not materially alter his overall conclusions on Green Belt matters. 25. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the inspector at IR356 that viewed in the round, the appeal proposals as a whole would amount to inappropriate development, would also result in substantial harm to openness and would represent a significant conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. He attaches substantial weight to this harm. Character & Appearance 26.