Patrick Downes BSc (Hons) MRICS Our ref: APP/C3430/W/15/3039163 Harris Lamb Your ref: P968/PD/clw Grosvenor House 75-76 Francis Road Edgbaston BIRMINGHAM BS16 8SP 31 March 2021 By email: [email protected] Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY DIGNITY UK LAND ADJACENT TO HOLYHEAD ROAD, WERGS, CODSALL, STAFFORDSHIRE WV8 2HF APPLICATION REF: 14/00838/FUL 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of David Nicholson RIBA IHBC, who held a public local inquiry commencing on 16 January 2019 into your client’s appeal against the decision of South Staffordshire Council to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for the construction of a new crematorium with associated car parking, memorial gardens and access off Holyhead Road (A41), application ref: 14/00838/FUL, dated 14 October 2014. The inquiry also considered an appeal against the decision of the Council to refuse planning permission for a proposed crematorium at Broad Lane, Essington (“the Essington appeal”), South Staffordshire, in accordance with application ref: 14/00906/FUL, dated 4 November 2014. 2. On 22 March 2017, 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. 3. The Secretary of State initially issued his decision in respect of both appeals by way of his letters dated 6 November 2017. Those decisions were challenged by way of an application to the High Court and subsequently quashed by order of the Court dated 23 March 2018. Both appeals have therefore been redetermined by the Secretary of State, following a new inquiry into this matter at January 2019 and the Essington appeal decision can also be accessed via the link provided. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 44 45374 Mike Hale, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 4. The Inspector recommended that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions and planning permission granted. 5. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 6. On 13 November 2020, the Secretary of State wrote to the main and interested parties to afford them an opportunity to update the evidence before him, primarily on need and on any rebalancing of the use of crematoria in the area that may occur should one or both crematoria be developed. The resulting representations were circulated to the parties on 8 December 2020 with further comments from three parties circulated on 30 December. A list of all representations about planning matters received post inquiry and separately those received in response to the reference back exercise are all listed at Annex A. 7. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised in the other post-inquiry correspondence do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Policy and statutory considerations 8. 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. 9. In this case the development plan consists of the South Staffordshire District Local Plan, comprising the Core Strategy (2012) and Site Allocations Document (September 2018). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those in the Council’s Statement of Common Ground with Dignity UK and with Westerleigh Group Limited, with those set out at IR3.4 – 3.9. being of particular relevance. 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’), associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as material referred to in IR3.1 and 3.2. 11. 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. Emerging plan 12. 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 2 Framework. The emerging South Staffordshire plan is at a relatively early stage with the Local Plan Review Preferred Options consultation having been moved back to summer 2021. As there are currently no draft policies for consideration, consequently very little weight can be given to the emerging plan. Main issues Green Belt 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to policy in Paragraph 143 of the Framework, and that it would encroach into the countryside, in conflict with Paragraphs 133-134 of the Framework (IR13.44). For the reasons given at IR13.25, IR13.45 and IR13.46, he also agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would affect openness, with significant harm to the visual dimension of openness (IR13.46). He further agrees that it would conflict with Core Policy 1 and Policy GB1 (IR13.55). In line with Paragraph 144 of the Framework, the Secretary of State considers that substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt. He has gone on to consider whether very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. Historic interest 14. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of the impact of the scheme on the historic interest of Wergs Hall, a grade II listed building (IR13.18- 13.24). Parties agree that the site with its wall (an undesignated heritage asset), covert and tree avenue is within its setting, and part of the Historic Landscape Area (HLA). The site contributes to the special interest and significance of the Hall (IR13.18). For the reasons given at IR13.19-13.23, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that it is unlikely that the reconstruction of the wall would significantly improve its appearance or its integrity, and that the wide road margin would be at odds with the relationship between other historic walls next to roads in the area (IR13.21). He further agrees that while the works proposed for the avenue and covert might enhance the landscape qualities and prevent turf cutting, these works would also undermine their historical significance (IR13.23). Overall, he agrees with the Inspector that the proposals would harm the historic setting to Wergs Hall and would also cause significant harm to the HLA and detract from the values that led to its designation (IR13.24). He further agrees that although this harm would be less than substantial harm, and could be reduced by conditions, it carries considerable weight. 15. The Secretary of State agrees that the scheme would conflict with Core Strategy policy EQ3, some aspects of EQ4 and the advice in paragraphs 184,192-3 and 196-7 of the Framework (IR13.24). Therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 196 of the Framework he has gone on to weigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets against the public benefits of the development (see paragraph 26 below). Other harm and alternatives 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR13.41 that traffic and wildlife concerns should be given limited weight. For the reasons given at IR13.38-IR13.40 he agrees with the Inspector on the likelihood and timing of facilities at alternative locations. 3 Need 17. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the quantitative need for both proposals as set out by the Inspector at IR13.2-13.14 alongside the updated evidence from the parties following the reference back exercise in November 2020. The Inspector considered that the evidence provided no definitive answer to the extent of quantitative need (IR13.14), but concluded there is an overall shortage of facilities near the West Midlands Conurbation which is only going to get worse (IR13.13). Overall he considers that there is a quantitative need for both appeals to relieve pressure on existing crematoria in the future (IR13.14). Having considered the updated information provided by the parties, the Secretary of State notes that forecast need is now greater than at the time of the inquiry. This reinforces his overall conclusions on the quantitative need for these developments. 18. In terms of the quality of experience (i.e. qualitative need) the Inspector considers that many of the existing crematoria are ageing, in need of investment and updating, and at or reaching capacity and also that this will only get worse until rival facilities offer competition and so drive investment (IR13.15). Moreover, and for the reasons given at IR13.16 the Secretary of State agrees that existing crematoria do not serve different parts of the community as well as they ought to and that the provision of a viewing gallery would be an option at Wergs, subject to careful internal reconfiguration controlled by condition.