Report to the Secretary of State for The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House Communities and Local Government 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN By Michael Ellison MA(Oxon) 0117 372 8000 An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Date: 17 September 2008 Communities and Local Government Assisted by Colin Ball Dip Arch, Dip Arch Cons, RIBA, FRSA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 SOLIHULL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL APPEALS by SWAYFIELDS LTD in connection with the proposed development of a motorway service area adjacent to the M42 at Catherine de Barnes and SHIRLEY ESTATES (DEVELOPMENT) LTD in connection with the proposed development of a motorway service area on land at Junction 4 of the M42 Inquiries opened on 12 February 2008 File refs: APP/Q4625/A/98/1013084 and APP/Q4625/A/06/1199380 TABLE OF CONTENTS Case Details 1 1 Introduction and preliminary matters 1 2 The appeal sites and the surrounding areas 12 3 The proposed developments 16 4 Planning policy 18 5 The issue of need 19 6 The case for Swayfields, the Appellants in Appeal A 27 7 The case for Shirley Estates, the Appellants in Appeal B 73 8 The case for Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 95 9 The case for the Highways Agency 111 10 The case for Hockley Heath Parish Council 125 11 The case for the Warwickshire Branch of the Campaign to Protect 133 Rural England 12 The case for the Solihull Against Motorway Service Areas Group 135 (SAMSAG) 13 The case for Welcome Break Group Ltd 142 14 The representations of the interested parties 144 15 Written representations 148 16 Conclusions 151 17 Recommendations 204 Appendix A – List of Appearances 205 Appendix B – List of Documents 207 Appendix C – Recommended conditions – Appeal A 233 Appendix D – Recommended conditions – Appeal B 241 Appendix E – List of Abbreviations 249 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/Q4625/A/98/1013084 and A/06/1199380 CASE DETAILS Appeal ref: APP/Q4625/A/98/1013084 APPEAL A Site adjacent to the M42 Motorway, Catherine de Barnes, Solihull • The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal was made by Blue Boar Motorways Ltd and the Executors of Sir John Gooch (“the Applicants”) against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”). By letters dated 24 August 2006 and 31 August 2006, the Applicants agreed that their appeal could be pursued by Swayfields Ltd. • The application (ref: 97/1930) is dated 19 December 1997. • The development proposed is comprehensive motorway service area. • The appeal was originally considered with two others which also related to proposed motorway service areas on the M42 at a public inquiry held between November 1999 and June 2000. The other two appeals were dismissed, but the then Secretary of State indicated in March 2001 that he was minded to allow Appeal A and to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and to the satisfactory resolution of a number of specific outstanding issues. • In the light of material changes in circumstances which had taken place since 2001, the Secretary of State decided, in September 2005, to reopen the inquiry into Appeal A to allow all concerned an opportunity to give further evidence on the changed circumstances which now apply to this appeal. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be dismissed. Appeal ref: APP/Q4625/A/06/1199380 APPEAL B Site at Box Tree Farm, Junction 4, M42 Motorway, B93 8NJ • The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Shirley Estates (Development) Ltd against the Council. • The application (ref: 2001/1943) is dated 23 August 2001. • The development proposed is motorway service area. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be dismissed. 1. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1.1 These appeals concern applications to build a Motorway Service Area (“MSA”) to serve the M42 motorway in the area of Solihull. Both 1 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/Q4625/A/98/1013084 and A/06/1199380 potential sites lie along the stretch of the M42 between Junction 3A (“J3A”) and Junction 7 (“J7”), a length of the M42 which forms the eastern section of the motorway ring around the Birmingham conurbation. 1.2 Appeal A concerns an outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval apart from means of access. The appeal was recovered for determination by the then Secretary of State by direction dated 19 February 1999, because the proposals would involve significant development in the Green Belt. 1.3 The report of the Inspector who held the public inquiry into this and other appeals in 1999 and 2000 will be found at Document CD212. The Secretary of State’s decision indicating that he was minded to grant outline planning permission for a MSA at the Appeal A site, excluding the use of Walford Hall Farmhouse as a training centre, is contained in a letter dated 6 March 2001, a copy of which forms Document CD211. 1.4 That minded letter was expressed to be subject to: a. appropriate conditions; b. the execution of a signed agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the Appellant and the Highways Agency and the completion of any additional procedures required under the same Act necessary to enable the Highways Agency to reach a final decision on whether auxiliary lanes should be constructed; c. consideration of the views of the parties on the omission of the use of Walford Hall Farmhouse as a training centre; d. consideration of the views of English Heritage and of any further representations received in respect of the impact of the proposed MSA on the setting of that listed building; and e. the entering into of a new Deed of Planning Obligation by Undertaking which binds all owners of the land and off-site land in respect of each obligation in the Deed. 1.5 The minded letter made it clear that the Secretary of State had noted the Inspector’s view that the best option for Walford Hall Farmhouse would be a reinstatement of residential use. He agreed with the Inspector that the MSA development would harm the setting of the listed building, and, not finding it possible to reach a balanced decision on this matter without further consultation with English Heritage (“EH”), invited views from EH on the impact of the proposed MSA development on the setting of Walford Hall Farmhouse. 1.6 EH set out their views in a letter dated 26 March 2001, and also agreed that reinstatement to domestic use would be the best option for the house. EH expressed concern that subdivision of the farmstead might 2 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – APP/Q4625/A/98/1013084 and A/06/1199380 threaten the survival of the outbuildings, and indicated a preference for the whole farm group to fall within a single curtilage as part of the overall application site (Document CD235). 1.7 Following subsequent correspondence with the parties to the inquiry held in 1999/2000, the Secretary of State decided by letter dated 6 September 2005 that, in the light of material changes in circumstances since the original public inquiry, a fair way of proceeding to a decision in order to serve the interests of natural justice would be to reopen the inquiry. The Secretary of State considered that the changes in circumstances were sufficiently wide ranging and complex to indicate that it would not be appropriate to proceed to a decision without the relevant evidence being tested at a public inquiry. 1.8 In the same letter, the Secretary of State gave notice of the following matters on which he particularly wished to be informed for the purposes of consideration of the appeal: a. the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with West Midlands Regional Planning Guidance 11; b. the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the emerging Solihull Unitary Development Plan (“UDP”), including consideration of the weight to be attached to it; c. the extent to which development of a MSA on the appeal site would conflict with national policies, as set out in the White Paper “The Future of Air Transport”, published on 16 December 2003, on the development of Birmingham International Airport (“BIA”) as the West Midlands’ principal international airport; d. to what extent development of a MSA on the appeal site would be prejudicial to the review of Airports policies set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (published 15 June 2004, and which now forms the Regional Spatial Strategy (“RSS”)) to be undertaken against the framework set out in the Government White Paper, “The Future of Air Transport”; e. to what extent proposals for a MSA at Catherine de Barnes should be regarded as prejudicial to the completion of the Master Planning of Birmingham International Airport currently being undertaken in accordance with the Government White Paper, “The Future of Air Transport”, having particular regard to the Master Plan’s role to inform the regional and local planning process, facilitate engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, identify long term land requirements and any consequential revisions to safety surfaces and public safety zones so that relevant areas within and outside the airport boundary can be shown on an updated safeguarding map; f.