Annette Wood Our Ref: APP/U4230/A/11/2156151 Andrew & Co Solicitors APP/U4230/A/11/2156165 St Swithin’s Court APP/U4230/A/11/2156163 1 Flavian Road APP/V4250/A/11/2160319 Nettleham Road APP/V4250/A/11/2160321 Lincoln LN2 4GR Your Ref: APW.BM 01S0038/278 8 November 2012 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEALS BY WILLIAM SINCLAIR HORTICULTURE LTD LAND AT CHAT MOSS PEAT WORKS, OFF CUTNOOK LANE, IRLAM M44 5WB APPLICATION REFS: 10/58824/FULEIA, 10/58826/FULEIA, 10/58825/FULEIA, A/10/74592 MIN, A/10/74593 MIN 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector Alan Robinson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry commencing on 13 March 2012 into your client's appeals against the decision of Salford City Council to refuse planning permission for: Appeal 1: the variation of conditions attached to planning permission Ref. 91/28449/FUL, dated 15 July 1994, for the continued use of land for the extraction of peat with variation of conditions imposed on planning permission E/11002 (application reference 10/58824/FULEIA dated 24 March 2010); Appeal 2: the variation of conditions attached to planning permission Ref. 91/28450/FUL, dated 15 July 1994, for the continued use of land for peat extraction with variation of conditions imposed on planning permission E/22095 (application reference 10/58826/FULEIA dated 24 March 2010); and Appeal 3: the variation of conditions attached to planning permission Ref. 97/37333/FUL, dated 14 August 1998, for variation of planning permission E/24741 (application reference 10/58825/FULEIA dated 24 March 2010); and into your client’s appeals against the decision of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse planning permission for: Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 4441634 Christine Symes, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Appeal 4: the variation of conditions attached to planning permission Ref. A/31651/89, dated 21 January 1991, for the extraction of peat and restoration of the land for amenity use (nature conservation) (application reference A/10/74592 MIN dated 24 March 2010); and Appeal 5: the variation of conditions attached to planning permission Ref. A/36475/91, dated 7 September 1994, for peat working and restoration to nature conservation/amenity after use - proposed variation of conditions attached to permission E/24741 (application reference A/10/74593 MIN dated 24 March 2010); 2. On 17 October 2011, the appeals were recovered for the Secretary of State's own determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because they concern major proposals involving the winning and working of minerals. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeals be dismissed. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and with his recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural Matters 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 27 March 2012, after the Inquiry’s last sitting day. The Framework replaced those Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements, Minerals Planning Guidance Notes, Circulars and letters to Chief Planning Officers set out in its Annex 3; reference to which was made in written evidence and at the Inquiry. The Secretary of State notes (IR3) that the parties’ written representations on the Framework were subsequently invited and received, and that the Inspector has taken them into account in his report. The Secretary of State also notes that the parties’ closing submissions were submitted in writing after the Inquiry’s last sitting day (IR2). 5. Following the Inquiry’s last sitting day, the Secretary of State received a representation from Paul Edwards dated 10 April 2012. The Secretary of State has taken account of this representation in his consideration of these appeals. However, he is satisfied that it does not raise matters which require him to refer back to parties prior to reaching his decision. A copy of the representation is not attached to this letter but may be obtained on written request to the address or the email address on the first page of this letter. 6. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the revised Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 as amended (‘the EIA Regulations’). Like the Inspector (IR1056 -1058), the Secretary of State is satisfied that the environmental information is adequate and satisfies the requirements of the EIA Regulations. 7. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the additional information submitted by your client as a result of discussions with the Environment Agency and Natural England in respect of buffer zones, hydrogeology and the phasing of restoration although this does not form part of the ES (IR10). 8. The application for costs (IR1) made by Salford City Council at the Inquiry is the subject of a separate decision letter, also being issued today by the Secretary of State. Policy considerations 9. In deciding these appeals, 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. 10. The North West Regional Spatial Strategy (2008) (RSS) forms part of the development plan relating to all 5 appeals. The saved policies of the Salford Unitary Development Plan (2006) (SUDP) also form part of the plan in respect of appeals 1, 2 and 3 and the saved policies of the Wigan Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) (WUDP) also form part of the plan in respect of appeals 4 and 5. The Secretary of State considers that the policies relevant to these appeals include those listed by the Inspector at IR25 – 34 and IR896 - 898. 11. The Localism Act 2011 provides for the abolition of Regional Strategies. However, until such time as the RSS is formally revoked by Order, the Secretary of State has attributed limited weight to its proposed revocation in determining these appeals. Any decision to revoke the RSS will be subject to the environmental assessment which is in train. 12. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s comments at IR900 -904 and to his conclusions in IR899 that only a little weight can be attached to the emerging development plan documents. With regard to the draft Salford Core Strategy (CS), the Secretary of State has taken account of Salford City Council’s letter of 31 October 2012 to Mr Richard E Hollox, the Planning Inspector appointed to conduct the independent examination of the draft Salford CS. With regard to the draft Wigan CS, he has taken account of the letter dated 24 May 2012 from Mr Kevin Ward, the Planning Inspector appointed to conduct the independent examination of the draft Wigan CS. With regard to the draft Greater Manchester Minerals Plan, he has taken account of the fact that the examination into this draft plan is due to reconvene later this month. In common with the Inspector, the Secretary of State attributes little weight to these three draft documents which are still subject to change. Copies of the aforementioned letters may be obtained on written request to the address or email address on the first page of this letter. 13. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include: the Framework; Technical Guidance to the Framework; The Planning System: General Principles; Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management; the White Paper “The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature” published in June 2011; the “Consultation on Reducing the Horticultural Use of Peat in England” published in December 2010; Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended; the Written Ministerial Statement by Baroness Hanham CBE – Abolition of Regional Strategies (25 July 2012); and the local policy document “Mossland Project – The Vision”. Main issues The need for peat and the availability of non peat alternatives 14. The Secretary of State [otherwise] agrees with the Inspector’s analysis of the need for peat and the availability of non peat alternatives (IR922-946). He agrees with the Inspector that the Framework does not preclude planning permission for continued peat extraction on sites that have already been worked for peat (IR1060). However, in common with the Inspector, he considers that this does not mean that proposals on existing sites should automatically be approved, rather that careful consideration needs to be given to each case looking in particular at the consequences for climate change and biodiversity (IR1060). The Secretary of State considers these matters below. 15. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that there is no national planning policy imperative for new sources of peat supply to be brought forward (IR946). He agrees with the Inspector that the release of peat resources in Chat Moss would frustrate the move from peat to non peat media and discourage the development and take up of peat substitutes. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State is not convinced that a compelling need argument has been advanced to support the appeal proposals (IR946). The effect of the proposals on climate change 16.