EXAM/19 19 August 2010 Ms Amanda Beresford Our Ref: APP/H5020/A/09/2112959 Addleshaw Goddard Your Ref: 09/00342/OUT Sovereign House PO Box 8 Sovereign Street LEEDS LS1 1HQ Dear Ms Beresford, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY STRAWSON DEVELOPMENTS LTD/OMNIVALE LTD AT FORMER RAF UPWOOD, UPWOOD ROAD/RAMSEY ROAD, BURY/RAMSEY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE PE26 2XN APPLICATION: REF 09/00342/OUT 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, P E Dobsen MA (Oxon) DipTP MRTPI FRGS, who held a public local inquiry on dates between 26 January and 30 April 2010 into your client's appeal against non-determination by Huntingdonshire District Council (‘the Council’) of an outline planning application for the demolition and clearance of redundant buildings, removal of redundant fixed infrastructure, reclamation and remediation of land, and redevelopment for mixed uses, including housing (at least 650 units), employment (at least 10ha), a neighbourhood centre and landscaped open space at the former RAF Upwood, Upwood Road/Ramsey, Bury/Ramsey, Cambridgeshire PE26 2XN in accordance with application Ref 09/00342/OUT, dated 24 April 2009. 2. On 22 October 2009, the appeal was recovered, for the reasons set out by the Inspector at paragraph 18 in his report, for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to 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 and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 44 41624 Maria Stasiak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU with the Inspector’s conclusions and agrees with his recommendation. For the main parties, a copy of the full Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. For all other parties, a copy of the Inspector’s conclusions is enclosed. Copies of the full report can be obtained upon request to the address on the first page of this letter. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to the IR. Procedural matters 4. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR60 and is content that the ES complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application. 5. At the inquiry, applications for award of costs were submitted by the appellants against the Council, and by the Council against the appellants. These applications are the subjects of separate decision letters. Matters arising after the close of the inquiry 6. Following the close of the Inquiry, a representation from Mr A Large, dated 26 March, was forwarded to the Secretary of State and he has taken account of this representation in reaching his decision. He does not, however, consider that it raises any matters which would require him to refer back to parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision. A copy of the representation can be made available upon written request. 7. Regional Strategies, including the East of England Plan (EEP) which formed part of the development plan at the time of the inquiry, were revoked by the Secretary of State on 6 July 2010. The Secretary of State has had no regard to the EEP, or the Inspector’s conclusions on the extent to which the scheme gains support from or conflicts with the EEP, in his determination of this appeal. He does not consider that his revocation of Regional Strategies, or his decision not to take account of policies in the EEP in his determination of this appeal, raises any matters which would require him to refer back to parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision. Policy considerations 8. In deciding the application, 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 now comprises the Huntingdonshire Core Strategy (HCS), adopted September 2009, and saved policies of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) and the Alteration to that Plan (2002). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to this appeal are those HCS policies referred to by the Inspector at IR55. 2 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS: Planning and Climate Change (supplement to PPS1); PPS3: Housing; PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment; PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPS9: Biodiversity & Geological Conservation; PPG13: Transport; PPS25: Development & Flood Risk; Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations; the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, which came into force on 6 April 2010; and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance documents referred to by the Inspector at Annex 2 (section 5) of the IR. 11. He has also taken into account the draft document entitled New Policy Document for Planning Obligations, issued for consultation on 25 March 2010. However, as this document is still at consultation stage and may be subject to change, he affords it little weight. Main issues 12. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are the relationship of the proposal to the development plan and those issues listed at IR289. The relationship of the proposal to the development plan 13. As explained at paragraph 7 above, the Secretary of State has had no regard to the EEP, or the Inspector’s analysis of the scheme’s compliance with it as set out at IR276-280. For the reasons given at IR281-287, and IR305-312, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposals conflict with the HCS housing and employment proposals for the Ramsey Spatial Planning Area, and also with development plan transport policies. He further agrees that despite the use of that imprecise term ‘at least’, the appeal proposals are so much in excess of the indicative figures set out in the relevant HCS policies that they cannot be said to conform with the HCS (IR281). He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which outweigh this conflict. Previously developed land 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions with respect to the development of previously developed land (PDL), as set out at IR290-295. He agrees that national and local policies aim to maximise the re-use of PDL in sustainable locations, and thus there is no presumption in favour of the development of PDL in unsustainable or otherwise unsuitable locations (IR290). The Secretary of State’s conclusions on the sustainability of the proposed development are set out at paragraphs 17 and 18 below. 15. The Secretary of State agrees that while it is preferable in principle to remediate and redevelop all of a particular self-contained reserve of PDL than to treat just a part of it, this does not override all other considerations (IR295). Overall, he concludes that the remediation of the PDL is a benefit of the scheme, but one that must be weighed in the balance against other considerations. 3 Commercial property market 16. For the reasons given in IR296-302, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR303-304 that both need and demand for employment space at the appeal site would not exceed 2ha during the HCS plan period, and that any much larger amount was neither realistic nor deliverable and could undermine the balanced, mixed package of land uses claimed by the appellants. Transport and sustainability 17. For the reasons given in IR305-312, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development would be highly dependent on the private car, and would not be consistent with development plan transport policies (IR312). He further agrees that the development would not be very sustainable in transport terms as the appellant claims, but would tend to perpetuate the existing high level of commuting from Ramsey to other centres (IR312). 18. The Secretary of State has taken into account the case made by the appellant on the sustainability credentials of the proposed development (IR78). He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on the danger that the balanced mixed-use character envisaged may not be achieved in practice (IR304), that the amount of PDL on the site is less than the appellants claim (IR294), and that there would be a high degree of dependence on the private car (IR312). He further agrees with the Inspector that while the proposal that Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes should be achieved is beyond what is currently required under national or local policy, there may be an undesirable trade-off between this and the quantum of affordable housing which could be provided (IR339). Overall, he does not agree with the appellant’s view of the proposed development as highly sustainable (IR275). Viability 19. For the reasons given at IR313-320, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment at IR321 that the Council’s viability assessment, which discounts the historic land acquisition and holding costs, is preferable.