Mr Mark Schmull Our Ref: APP/J0405/A/11/2155042 Hives Planning APP/J0405/A/11/2155043 46 Queen’s Road Reading RG1 4AU 19 March 2012 Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEALS BY ARNOLD WHITE ESTATES LTD AND OXFORD DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE. APPLICATION REFS: 10/00135/AOP (Appeal A) & 10/00136/APP (Appeal B), LAND AT QUARRENDON FIELDS, AYLESBURY, BUCKS. 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Christina Downs, BSc DipTP MRTPI who held a public local inquiry, which opened on 18 October 2011, into your client’s appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, against the failure of Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an outline planning application for a mixed use development including up to 1,380 dwellings; a two form entry primary school; a neighbourhood centre including retail uses; a community centre including place of worship; a visitor centre; allotments; community orchard; formal and informal public open space and associated landscaping, in accordance with planning application ref:10/00135/AOP, dated 19 January 2010 (Appeal A). Also against the failure of the same Council to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for a 2MW wind turbine including access and associated infrastructure, in accordance with planning application ref:10/00136/APP, dated 19 January 2010 (Appeal B). 2. Appeal A was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 20 June 2011 in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because it involves a proposal for residential development of over 150 units on a site of more than 5 hectares, 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. Appeal B was recovered at the same time because it would be more efficiently and effectively decided alongside Appeal A. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that Appeal A be dismissed and planning permission refused, and Appeal B be allowed and planning permission granted. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Tel 03034441626 Planning Casework Division Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. All paragraph references, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s report (IR), or the Assessor’s Report (AR) attached to it at Annex E. Procedural Matters 4. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement and Addendum submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (IR6-7 and IR388-389). In doing so he has noted those shortcomings identified by the Inspector in IR389. Had he been minded to grant planning permission for Appeal A he would have needed to consider whether it was necessary to seek further information on those matters (by way of a request under Regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations). However, given that he is refusing planning permission for Appeal A, and that there are other factors of sufficient weight which lead him to do so, he does not consider it necessary to seek further information on the identified shortcomings. 5. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Secretary of State received written representations from AVDC, dated 22 November 2011, and Gosschalks Solicitors (on behalf of Arnold White Estates Limited), dated 25 November 2011, about land ownership issues in relation to the Unilateral Undertaking. He has carefully considered this correspondence, but he does not consider that it raises any new issues which would affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties prior to reaching his decision. Copies of this correspondence may be obtained on written request to the above address. Policy considerations 6. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (2005), the South East Plan (2009) and the saved policies in the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those set out at IR23-29. 7. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include those documents listed at IR30 and IR32-33; Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (2010 and 2011). 8. The draft National Planning Policy Framework which was published for consultation on 25 July 2011 is a material consideration. However, as this is a consultation document and is subject to change, the Secretary of State has afforded it little weight. Similarly, the Aylsbury Vale Core Strategy is a material consideration, but as it is at an early stage in the adoption process it can be afforded little weight. 9. The Secretary of State considers that the revocation of Regional Strategies has come a step closer following the enactment of the Localism Act on 15 November 2011. However, until such time as the South East Plan is formally revoked by Order, he has attributed limited weight to the proposed revocation in determining this appeal. Main Issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in these appeals are those set out in IR301. Appeal A Consideration 1: Whether the proposal would deliver a sustainable urban extension that would contribute to the housing requirements of the district 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on whether the proposal would deliver a sustainable urban extension that would contribute to the housing requirements of the district, as set out in IR302-338. He notes that AVDC has a serious housing land supply shortfall (IR336), but agrees that the contribution towards resolving the 5 year deficit is unlikely to be as great as that anticipated by the appellants (IR337). In sustainability terms, he agrees that the lack of employment opportunities weighs against the scheme and that, although the proposed wind turbine would bring a renewable energy benefit, this would be for a temporary period (IR338). Consideration 2: The effect of the proposed development on the landscape 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the effect of the proposed development on the landscape, as set out in IR339-352. He agrees that the proposal would result in a significant adverse impact on landscape character (IR344) and visual intrusion into the wider vale landscape (IR347), and would therefore be unduly harmful to the landscape (IR352). Consideration 3: The effect of the proposed development on heritage assets 13. In considering the effect of the proposed development on heritage assets, the Secretary of State has had regard to the AR and, like the Inspector, endorses the Assessor’s conclusions (IR353). He agrees that the proposal would obliterate the principal remaining visual link with the historic rural agricultural setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) (AR11) and would damage regionally important below ground remains (AR20). Consideration 4: Whether the development would be accessible to a range of travel modes and would promote sustainable travel choices 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on whether the development would be accessible to a range of travel modes and would promote sustainable travel choices, as set out in IR354-363. He agrees that, whilst the proposal would enable pedestrian or cycle access along the western link road to the railway station and Park and Ride sites, there would be no direct access to the Berryfields MDA itself. He also agrees that the accessibility of the appeal site is compromised by the uncertainties surrounding delivery of a fast and efficient bus service (IR362). Overall he agrees that the proposal would not be highly accessible to a range of travel modes and that for many journeys, including trips to the town centre and the commute to work, it would be likely to be car reliant. Consideration 5: Whether the development would generate traffic that would cause unacceptable congestion or undue harm to highway safety 15. For the reasons given in IR364-370, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the transport assessment does not provide a realistic assessment of the traffic impacts of the appeal scheme, and that the proposal is likely to result in traffic generation that would add to existing problems of congestion and result in harm to the safety and free flow of traffic on the highway network (IR370). Consideration 6: Whether any permission should be subject to planning conditions and a unilateral undertaking 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the proposed planning conditions and unilateral undertaking (UU) as set out in IR277-286, IR291- 300 and IR371-384. He accepts that the UU is flawed in a number of respects (IR383) and considers that he could not therefore give it any weight. Overall conclusions 17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s overall conclusions as set out in IR388-395. He considers that there are some factors in favour of the proposal, including a contribution towards meeting the 5 year housing supply and the pedestrian and cycle provision.