Our ref: APP/C2741/W/19/3233973 Lizzie Marjoram Your ref: 18/02687/OUTM Bird Wilford & Sale [email protected] 13 May 2020 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY BARWOOD STRATEGIC LAND II LLP LAND AT MOOR LANE, WOODTHORPE, YORK, YO24 2QR APPLICATION REF: 18/02687/OUTM 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of P W Clark MA(Oxon) MA(TRP) MRTPI MCMI, who held a public local inquiry on 12 – 28 November 2019 into your clients appeal against the decision of City of York Council to refuse their application for planning permission for 516 residential units, a Local Centre, a Sports Pavilion and associated infrastructure, the demolition of existing buildings and structures and creation of an Ecological Protection and Enhancement Zone EPEZ) and vehicular access arrangements, in accordance with application ref: 18/02687/OUTM, dated 12 November 2018. 2. On 18 September 2019, 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. 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. Environmental Statement 4. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken account of the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, as well as the Inspector’s comments at IR10, 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. Ministry of Housing, Communities & 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 Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 5. The Secretary of State has received post inquiry correspondence from the local MP Julian Sturdy on behalf of a cross party group of Yorkshire MPs, Philip Davies, Cat Smith, Julian Smith, Alec Shelbrooke, Stephen Flynn and Rachael Maskel. 6. All the correspondence received raises concerns about the potential harm to Askham Bog. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, 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 written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutory considerations 7. 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. 8. In this case, the City of York has not had an adopted statutory Development Plan since 1956. The Council have approved for development control purposes the City of York Fourth Set of Changes (Development Management) Local Plan, but this has no statutory status. 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’). The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018 and further revised in February 2019. Unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the 2019 Framework. Emerging plan 10. The emerging plan comprises the City of York Local Plan, which was submitted for examination in May 2018 and the examination continues. The policies which parties consider to be relevant are set out at IR21. 11. Paragraph 48 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. The Secretary of State considers that, due to its stage in the examination process, little weight can be attributed to the emerging local plan. The Inspector noted that in practice, no party placed much reliance on any of the emerging plan policies as such; rather, considerable reliance has been placed on the Framework and the evidence underlying the policies in the emerging plan (IR21). Main issues Green Belt 12. Although it is established development plan policy that York should have a Green Belt, its boundaries have never been defined. The Secretary of State agrees with the 2 Inspector and the parties that, for the purposes of this appeal, the site should be taken as forming part of the York Green Belt and that the proposal should be regarded as inappropriate development within the Green Belt (IR278-282). 13. For the reasons given at IR283-285, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s consideration of the potential impact on the openness of the Green Belt at and agrees that the proposed development would compromise the visual openness of the Green Belt. He also agrees that the degree of harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt would be substantial rather than overwhelming; and he considers that substantial weight should be given to this harm. Landscape 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR286-296 that the main issues are the impact on views of Askham Bog from the north and the effects of the proposed EPEZ. He agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would bring built form closer to the Bog but also agrees that isolation is not one of the Bog’s interest features. He notes that the development would be screened by planting and by the EPEZ (IR287) and agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would cause little harm to the landscape as the site is a relatively self-contained element in the landscape while open countryside would continue to surround York (IR289). 15. However, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR292-294 that while the loss of the site to built development would cause little harm to the landscape, in contrast the EPEZ would cut across existing hedgerows, drains and landscape features and would present an abrupt slope to the new bund. He therefore agrees that the EPEZ would be an alien feature at odds with the existing character of the countryside; and that it would fail to respect the intrinsic character and beauty of the landscape. He therefore also agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the EPEZ would be inconsistent with national policy expressed by Framework policy 170(b). Askham Bog 16. The Secretary of State agrees (IR297) that Askham Bog comprises a precious and delicate range of habitats that requires continued human intervention to maintain it in a stable condition, or to restore it to a previous condition. Water 17. The Secretary of State notes that there is universal agreement that the Bog depends on water to survive, but disagreement about what effects, if any, the development would have on the Bog’s water supply (IR298). He agrees with the Inspector at IR299 that, while urban pollution would be harmful to the Bog, natural filtration prevents pollution in surface water run-off from reaching the Bog, and there is no reason to disbelieve the appellant’s assertion that a SUDS scheme could be designed to filter out the pollutants. 18. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s points on groundwater (IR300-308), permeability (IR309-313), attenuation ponds (IR314-317) and flooding (IR318-319), the Secretary of State agrees with his reasoning and agrees with his conclusions at IR320- 321, including that the hydrology of the bog is complex and nobody can have absolute certainty about the source of the Bog’s water supply and the route by which it reaches the Bog; therefore conclusions can only be presented in terms of likelihood and probability. He further agrees that the built development itself is likely to have very little 3 adverse effect but that much more noticeable effects would result from the attenuation ponds. He particularly agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the attenuation ponds would greatly reduce the contribution that the site as a whole makes to the supply of base-rich nutrients to the area in the vicinity of Askham Bog Drain and that these effects would probably cause harm to the interests for which the Bog is cited as an SSSI and to the deterioration of irreplaceable fenland habitat. Ecological isolation 19. Having carefully considered the inspector’s discussion at IR322-329, the Secretary of State agrees that there would be a biodiversity net gain resulting from the development proposal, and that the EPEZ and the rest of the green infrastructure would be consistent with the aim of achieving a Green Infrastructure Corridor through the city (IR324). He further agrees at IR327 that the benefits of the increase in habitat benefiting the greater number of species relevant to the Bog outweighs the effects of hindering deer movements, and at IR330 that it would be wrong to think of the built development of this proposal as presenting an environment that would be sterile to wildlife.