Final Decision Letter - Planning Appeal Rectory Road / Main Road ...
Mr Martin Hull Kember Loudon Williams Ltd Ridgers Barn Bunny Lane Eridge Tunbridge Wells Kent TN3 9HA
Our Ref: APP/B1550/A/09/2118700
22 July 2010
Dear Mr Hull TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEAL BY DAVID WILSON HOMES, APPLICATION REF: 09/00529/OUT LAND BETWEEN MAIN ROAD AND RECTORY ROAD AND CLEMENTS HALL WAY, HAWKWELL, ESSEX, SS5 4JU 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, J O Head BSc(Econ) DipTP who held a public local inquiry on 27-30 April 2010 into your client’s appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Rochford District Council to refuse outline planning permission for the development of approximately 330 dwellings, associated infrastructure, new vehicular access onto Rectory Road, new on-site accesses and road network, cycle way and footpath network, public open spaces, landscaping, health facilities and local amenities, on land between Main Road and Rectory Road and Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell, Essex SS5 4JU. 2. On 16 December 2009 the 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, because the appeal relates to proposals for significant development in the Green Belt. 3. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions and with his recommendation. All paragraph references, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s report (IR). Procedural matters Representations received after the close of the Inquiry 4. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Secretary of State received 40 written representations which he has carefully considered. However, he does not consider that this correspondence 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 Michael Taylor, Decision Officer Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU
Tel 0303 444 1631 Email: [email protected]
correspondence are not attached to this letter but may be obtained on written request to the above address. Policy Considerations 5. 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. On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State revoked all Regional Strategies including the East of England Plan (EEP) and it is therefore no longer part of the development plan. In determining this appeal the Secretary of State has taken this into account but he does not consider it necessary to refer back to parties on the implications of this change before reaching his decision. This is because he would anyway have refused planning permission for this proposal on the grounds that very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt have not been demonstrated and that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and national plan policies in a number of respects – his consideration of these issues being set out in this letter. 6. In this case, the development plan comprises the saved policies of the Rochford District Local Plan 2006 (RDLP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those set out in IR15 and IR19. 7. Other material considerations include, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 2: Green Belts, PPS3: Housing, PPS25: Development and Flood Risk and Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission. 8. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations which came into force on 6 April 2010, and which replace the policy tests for planning obligations set out in Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations with three statutory tests. 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 latter document is still at consultation stage and may be subject to change, he affords it little weight. 9. The emerging Core Strategy (SCS) is a material consideration of some weight, having reached submission stage. However, the Secretary of State gives less weight than the Inspector to those aspects of the SCS which are reliant on the EEP given that this has now been revoked. Main Issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main considerations are those set out in IR212-213. Impact on the Green Belt 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt, as set out in IR214-217. He agrees that in addition to harm from inappropriateness, the appeal proposal would
cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and that harm would also be caused because of the conflict of the proposal with the purposes of the Green Belt to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (IR217). Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, as set out in IR218-224. He agrees that the impact of the appeal proposal, particularly on Rectory Road, would cause significant harm to the semi-rural character of the surroundings and that the proposal would therefore detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area (IR224). Impact on the Council’s housing strategy and sustainability 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the impact on the Council’s housing strategy and sustainability, as set out in IR225-231. He agrees that directing almost twice as much housing development to the South Hawkwell location than is proposed in the SCS could have a destabilising influence and that allowing the appeal proposal before the result of the Examination into the SCS is known could prejudice its effectiveness and thereby the Council’s sustainable strategy for the distribution of housing in the District (IR230). Whether there is a realistic 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing in the district 14. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on whether there is a realistic 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing in the district, as set out in IR232-240. He notes that the Inspector states that whether or not there is a 5 year supply depends, to a certain extent, on whether Green Belt boundaries are reviewed (IR240). But, given that both the release of Green Belt land and housing targets are essentially driven by the now revoked EEP, any weight afforded to these former policy requirements must be reduced. However, in as much as this leaves any doubt about whether or not a 5 year supply exists, the Secretary of State wishes to make it clear that even if it was subsequently determined that there was a much greater housing need than that concluded by the Inspector, this would not justify allowing the appeal given those factors weighing against the proposal. Furthermore, he agrees with the Inspector, that any deficiencies in the 5 year supply are not so pressing as to justify allowing the appeal proposal in advance of a decision on the SCS in a situation where this could undermine emerging policy objectives (IR254). Affordable housing 15. For the reasons given in IR241-242 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the provision of an additional 55 affordable housing units would be a positive benefit arising from the appeal proposal (IR242) to which he affords significant weight.
Other matters 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on those other matters addressed at IR244-249. Conditions and obligations 17. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions in the light of the Inspector’s comments at IR209 and national policy as set out in Circular 11/95. He considers that the proposed conditions comply with the policy tests in that Circular. 18. With regard to the s106 obligation the Secretary of State, like the Inspector, is satisfied that the s106 agreements meet the statutory tests set out in the CIL Regulations (IR211). Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development 19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on whether very special circumstances exist to justify the development, as set out in IR250-257. He agrees that even having regard to the identified benefits of the proposal (such as helping meet a general and affordable housing need, additional public open space, local shops and medical centre and highway and public transport improvements) and having weighed in the balance the possibility of a greater housing need over 5 years, the considerations in its favour do not outweigh the harm that would be caused by its inappropriateness, the harm to the openness and purposes of the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of the locality, and the harm that could result from prejudice to the proper implementation of the SCS (IR257). He therefore considers that very special circumstances necessary to justify allowing the proposed development in the Green Belt do not exist. Overall conclusion 20. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s overall conclusions as set out in IR261-262. Having weighed up all of the material considerations he concludes that the benefits of the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt do not exist. He considers that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and national plan policies as set out above, and that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight which would justify granting planning permission. Formal Decision 21. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client’s appeal and refuses outline planning permission for the development of approximately 330 dwellings, associated infrastructure, new vehicular access onto Rectory Road, new
on-site accesses and road network, cycle way and footpath network, public open spaces, landscaping, health facilities and local amenities, on land between Main Road and Rectory Road and Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell, Essex SS5 4JU, in accordance with application number 09/00529/OUT, dated 8 September 2009. Right to challenge the decision 22. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court. 23. A copy of this letter has been sent to Rochford District Council and all parties who appeared at the inquiry. Yours sincerely,
Michael Taylor Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
Our Ref: APP/B1550/A/09/2118700
22 July 2010
Dear Mr Hull TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEAL BY DAVID WILSON HOMES, APPLICATION REF: 09/00529/OUT LAND BETWEEN MAIN ROAD AND RECTORY ROAD AND CLEMENTS HALL WAY, HAWKWELL, ESSEX, SS5 4JU 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, J O Head BSc(Econ) DipTP who held a public local inquiry on 27-30 April 2010 into your client’s appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Rochford District Council to refuse outline planning permission for the development of approximately 330 dwellings, associated infrastructure, new vehicular access onto Rectory Road, new on-site accesses and road network, cycle way and footpath network, public open spaces, landscaping, health facilities and local amenities, on land between Main Road and Rectory Road and Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell, Essex SS5 4JU. 2. On 16 December 2009 the 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, because the appeal relates to proposals for significant development in the Green Belt. 3. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions and with his recommendation. All paragraph references, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s report (IR). Procedural matters Representations received after the close of the Inquiry 4. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Secretary of State received 40 written representations which he has carefully considered. However, he does not consider that this correspondence 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 Michael Taylor, Decision Officer Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU
Tel 0303 444 1631 Email: [email protected]
correspondence are not attached to this letter but may be obtained on written request to the above address. Policy Considerations 5. 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. On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State revoked all Regional Strategies including the East of England Plan (EEP) and it is therefore no longer part of the development plan. In determining this appeal the Secretary of State has taken this into account but he does not consider it necessary to refer back to parties on the implications of this change before reaching his decision. This is because he would anyway have refused planning permission for this proposal on the grounds that very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt have not been demonstrated and that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and national plan policies in a number of respects – his consideration of these issues being set out in this letter. 6. In this case, the development plan comprises the saved policies of the Rochford District Local Plan 2006 (RDLP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those set out in IR15 and IR19. 7. Other material considerations include, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 2: Green Belts, PPS3: Housing, PPS25: Development and Flood Risk and Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission. 8. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations which came into force on 6 April 2010, and which replace the policy tests for planning obligations set out in Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations with three statutory tests. 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 latter document is still at consultation stage and may be subject to change, he affords it little weight. 9. The emerging Core Strategy (SCS) is a material consideration of some weight, having reached submission stage. However, the Secretary of State gives less weight than the Inspector to those aspects of the SCS which are reliant on the EEP given that this has now been revoked. Main Issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main considerations are those set out in IR212-213. Impact on the Green Belt 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt, as set out in IR214-217. He agrees that in addition to harm from inappropriateness, the appeal proposal would
cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and that harm would also be caused because of the conflict of the proposal with the purposes of the Green Belt to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (IR217). Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, as set out in IR218-224. He agrees that the impact of the appeal proposal, particularly on Rectory Road, would cause significant harm to the semi-rural character of the surroundings and that the proposal would therefore detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area (IR224). Impact on the Council’s housing strategy and sustainability 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the impact on the Council’s housing strategy and sustainability, as set out in IR225-231. He agrees that directing almost twice as much housing development to the South Hawkwell location than is proposed in the SCS could have a destabilising influence and that allowing the appeal proposal before the result of the Examination into the SCS is known could prejudice its effectiveness and thereby the Council’s sustainable strategy for the distribution of housing in the District (IR230). Whether there is a realistic 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing in the district 14. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on whether there is a realistic 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing in the district, as set out in IR232-240. He notes that the Inspector states that whether or not there is a 5 year supply depends, to a certain extent, on whether Green Belt boundaries are reviewed (IR240). But, given that both the release of Green Belt land and housing targets are essentially driven by the now revoked EEP, any weight afforded to these former policy requirements must be reduced. However, in as much as this leaves any doubt about whether or not a 5 year supply exists, the Secretary of State wishes to make it clear that even if it was subsequently determined that there was a much greater housing need than that concluded by the Inspector, this would not justify allowing the appeal given those factors weighing against the proposal. Furthermore, he agrees with the Inspector, that any deficiencies in the 5 year supply are not so pressing as to justify allowing the appeal proposal in advance of a decision on the SCS in a situation where this could undermine emerging policy objectives (IR254). Affordable housing 15. For the reasons given in IR241-242 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the provision of an additional 55 affordable housing units would be a positive benefit arising from the appeal proposal (IR242) to which he affords significant weight.
Other matters 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on those other matters addressed at IR244-249. Conditions and obligations 17. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions in the light of the Inspector’s comments at IR209 and national policy as set out in Circular 11/95. He considers that the proposed conditions comply with the policy tests in that Circular. 18. With regard to the s106 obligation the Secretary of State, like the Inspector, is satisfied that the s106 agreements meet the statutory tests set out in the CIL Regulations (IR211). Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development 19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on whether very special circumstances exist to justify the development, as set out in IR250-257. He agrees that even having regard to the identified benefits of the proposal (such as helping meet a general and affordable housing need, additional public open space, local shops and medical centre and highway and public transport improvements) and having weighed in the balance the possibility of a greater housing need over 5 years, the considerations in its favour do not outweigh the harm that would be caused by its inappropriateness, the harm to the openness and purposes of the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of the locality, and the harm that could result from prejudice to the proper implementation of the SCS (IR257). He therefore considers that very special circumstances necessary to justify allowing the proposed development in the Green Belt do not exist. Overall conclusion 20. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s overall conclusions as set out in IR261-262. Having weighed up all of the material considerations he concludes that the benefits of the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt do not exist. He considers that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and national plan policies as set out above, and that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight which would justify granting planning permission. Formal Decision 21. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client’s appeal and refuses outline planning permission for the development of approximately 330 dwellings, associated infrastructure, new vehicular access onto Rectory Road, new
on-site accesses and road network, cycle way and footpath network, public open spaces, landscaping, health facilities and local amenities, on land between Main Road and Rectory Road and Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell, Essex SS5 4JU, in accordance with application number 09/00529/OUT, dated 8 September 2009. Right to challenge the decision 22. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court. 23. A copy of this letter has been sent to Rochford District Council and all parties who appeared at the inquiry. Yours sincerely,
Michael Taylor Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
