Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 January 2018 - Planning Inspectorate
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 January 2018
by Paul Singleton BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 26 February 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
Delamere Forest, Delamere, Cheshire CW8 2JD
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Forestry Commission and Forest Holidays against the decision of
Cheshire West & Chester Council.
The application Ref 16/03550/FUL, dated 11 August 2016, was refused by notice dated
20 April 2017.
The development proposed is reorganisation of existing visitor hub facility to provide
replacement visitor centre; new car and coach parking; change of use of existing café
and bike hire building to offices; change of use of existing workshop to bike hire
building; hard and soft landscaping; improved internal access roads and
signage/barriers; natural play areas; a bike storage compound; a bike skills area; new
and improved pedestrian/bike/multi-user trails; off-site road and footpath
improvements; a new health and wellbeing fitness, play and interpretation trail; and the
erection of 67 timber holiday cabins with associated infrastructure.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for reorganisation of
existing visitor hub facility to provide replacement visitor centre; new car and
coach parking; change of use of existing café and bike hire building to offices;
change of use of existing workshop to bike hire building; hard and soft
landscaping; improved internal access roads and signage/barriers; natural play
areas; a bike storage compound; a bike skills area; new and improved
pedestrian/bike/multi-user trails; off-site road and footpath improvements; a
new health and wellbeing fitness, play and interpretation trail; and the erection
of 67 timber holiday cabins with associated infrastructure at Delamere Forest,
Delamere, Cheshire CW8 2JD in accordance with the terms of the application,
Ref 16/03550/FUL, dated 11 August 2016, subject to the conditions set out in
the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. Following my review of a draft Unilateral Undertaking (UU) submitted by the
appellant I gave the main parties an opportunity to comment on that document
and whether it would be enforceable by the Council in the event that I was
minded to allow the appeal. The parties agreed that some of the detailed
drafting would need to be amended in order to ensure its enforceability. A
revised and completed UU was subsequently submitted by the appellant with
the Council’s agreement. As the changes made relate to the point at which the
planning obligations set out in the UU would be triggered rather than the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorateAppeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
nature and extent of the obligations themselves no other party’s interests
would be prejudiced by my accepting this revised document.
3. I have referred to the three main components of the proposal in the terms set
out below.
Visitor Hub
4. This component comprises a significant reorganisation of the visitor facilities
located at the southern edge of Delamere Forest Park immediately south of the
Manchester to Chester railway. All of the existing polytunnels would be
removed and replaced with a new visitor centre with additional offices for the
Forestry Commission (FC) provided in the existing café and bike hire buildings.
The scheme would provide a new bike hire facility in an existing workshop and
include re-organisation and expansion of fenced storage compounds.
5. The main vehicular access would be realigned and a parking barrier system
installed. Coach parking would be located just inside these barriers and the
new road would direct cars into a main, 309 space car parking area. There
would be a second, overflow parking area (220 spaces) using aggregate
running surfaces and grass bays and additional parking for occasional major
events would be within a field to the east of the main car park.
Whitefield Trails
6. In the Whitefield part of the Forest Park, to the east of Station Road, 3.5
kilometres (km) of existing trails would be upgraded with the installation of
natural play features and fitness stations, distance markers and interpretation
signs to encourage health and well-being.
Kingswood Holiday Cabins
7. Forest Holidays (FH) propose the siting of 67 timber holiday cabins in the
Kingswood part of the forest with a car park, bike store and maintenance area,
reception centre and visitor hub. The cabins would range from 1 bed to 4 bed
size with the 4 bed units being of two storey height. An existing forest track
from Ashton Road would be upgraded to provide a compacted gravel surface of
3-3.5 metres (m) width and a new route from the road would also be created
for use by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
Previous proposal
8. Proposals for the reconfiguration of the visitor hub and for 70 holiday lodges in
Kingswood were put forward in a planning application submitted in June 2013.
The Whitefield trails did not form part of that proposal. The Council resolved to
approve that application but it was subsequently called in for determination by
the Secretary of State.
9. A public inquiry was held in June 2014 and, in reaching his decision in
December of that year,1 the Secretary of State accepted the Planning
Inspector’s recommendation that planning permission should be refused. The
principal grounds for that refusal were that the holiday lodges would constitute
inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that the very special
circumstances needed to justify a grant of planning permission had not been
demonstrated. The parties agree that the Inspector’s findings and Secretary of
1
APP/A0665/V/13/2210886
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
State’s conclusions in relation to that previous proposal are material to my
consideration of the appeal proposal.
Main Issues
10. The main issues in the appeal are:
i) Whether the proposal includes development that would be
inappropriate development in the Green Belt;
ii) If the proposal includes inappropriate development, whether the
harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any
other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Reasons
Inappropriate development
11. Policy STRAT 9 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (CWCLP) states
that additional restrictions will apply to development in the Green Belt in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).
12. Paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the erection of new buildings is
inappropriate development in the Green Belt other than in a small number of
exceptions. One exception is for the provision of appropriate facilities for
outdoor sport and recreation as long as it preserves the openness of the Green
Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in it (second
bullet). Paragraph 90 states that, subject to these same tests, certain other
forms of development are not inappropriate. These include engineering
operations (second bullet) and the re-use of existing buildings provided that
the buildings are of a permanent and substantial construction (fourth bullet).
13. The Visitor Hub proposals include the change of use of the existing café, bike
hire centre, toilets and workshop. All of these buildings are of a permanent
and substantial construction and, as no extensions or substantial alterations
are proposed, there would be no detriment to openness or to any of the
purposes of including land in the Green Belt. These changes of use are
consistent with the fourth bullet of paragraph 90 and do not constitute
inappropriate development.
14. The new Visitor Centre would be a new building and the fences to the storage
and bin compounds and picnic areas should also be treated as buildings for the
purpose of applying Green Belt policy. All of these works would provide
significantly enhanced facilities to meet the needs of some 750,000 annual
visitors to Delamere Forest and support its established role as a major
destination for sport and recreation in the North West region. They do,
accordingly, comprise appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
15. The parking areas, new sections of access road and related barriers, bollards
and other furniture and equipment should be treated as comprising engineering
works and be considered with reference to the policy test set out in the second
bullet of paragraph 90.
16. The new Visitor Centre would be considerably larger than any existing building
in this part of the Forest Park and the proposals would concentrate car parking
provision in one central location. Both of these elements would be sited in part
of the site which is currently occupied by a large number of polytunnels and
associated storage areas. The proposal would result in a net reduction in the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
area of land taken up by buildings and structures and would, for this reason,
have a beneficial effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
17. All fencing to storage compounds, bin stores and picnic areas would be within
part of the site which already has a number of existing buildings and
structures. In that context neither these works, nor the new sections of access
road and footpath, would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. As
land in this area is already used for similar purposes none of the development
proposed as part of the new Visitor Hub would result in further encroachment
of these uses into the open countryside or offend any of the other purposes of
including land in the Green Belt.
18. Accordingly, I find that none of the development or works proposed as part of
the new Visitor Hub would constitute inappropriate development in the Green
Belt. This judgement has been informed by my assessment of the likely effects
on openness and on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and there
is no need for me to consider those matters further. As this component does
not include inappropriate development there is no requirement that very
special circumstances be demonstrated for this part of the scheme.
19. Some degree of upgrading of the Whitefield trails could arguably be undertaken
without the need for planning permission. Insofar as these proposals would
constitute new structures or engineering works their small scale and scattered
distribution across a large area of forest means that they would have minimal
effect on openness. Neither would these works have any potential to conflict
with any of the purposes set out in paragraph 80 of the Framework. None of
these works would, in my view, constitute inappropriate development in the
Green Belt.
20. The Kingswood proposals would result in the introduction of a large number of
buildings in an area which is largely free of such development. Although
distributed across an area of some 26.5 hectares (ha) the combined footprint
and volume of these buildings would lead to a substantial loss of openness.
The parking of vehicles adjacent to each of the cabins would also result in some
loss of openness. The siting of the cabins would inevitably result in the
blocking or foreshortening of some of the views currently available between
rows of trees, thereby harming the visual dimension of openness.
21. Notwithstanding the reduction in the number of cabins in comparison to the
earlier proposal, I concur with the previous Inspector’s conclusion that the
Kingswood proposals would result in a significant encroachment of built form
and hard surfaces into an area which, although a planted forest, has a semi-
natural, countryside character. This would cause harm to one of the purposes
of including land in the Green Belt
22. For these reasons the Kingswood component of the proposal would be
inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the Framework
states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt
and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph
88 requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green
Belt and advises that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm
by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by
other considerations.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
Other Considerations
Landscape and visual effects
23. The Visitor Centre and related facilities would not feature significantly in views
from the nearest residential properties on the opposite side of the railway. The
main views would be from the existing paths on Old Pale Hill and those within
and around this central area of the Forest Park. Changes to the landscape
character and the visual amenity of this area would also be experienced by
those coming by car, cycle or on foot to make use of the Visitor Hub.
24. Due to its relatively low height, contemporary form and well-mannered use of
timber and glass, the Visitor Centre would be of a high quality design and
would be visually attractive and inviting. Together with the extensive
landscaping proposed, the Visitor Centre and main parking area would appear
well ordered and welcoming to visitors and would help to define this area as
the Visitor Hub. These facilities would cover a smaller area of land than that
currently occupied by the existing facilities and polytunnels. In a material
change from the previous scheme, all of the polytunnels would be removed.
25. Having considered the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for this
part of the scheme, I find that the replacement of the polytunnels with a new
timber building, which is low in height and attractively designed, would result
in significant landscape and visual benefits. The car parking and sections of
roadway would have some prominence in the early years after completion but
their effect on the landscape would be softened as the new planting becomes
established. Taking that mitigation into account, the Visitor Hub proposals
would have a significant positive effect on the character of the landscape and
on the visual amenity of this part of the Forest Park.
26. The play and fitness equipment to be installed in Whitefield would be of small
scale and would be constructed mainly in timber. These features would not be
out of place in a densely planted forest and would neither have a significant
effect on landscape character nor be visually obtrusive. No harm to landscape
character or visual amenity would result from this component of the proposal.
27. The cabins proposed in Kingswood would be distributed across an area of some
26.5 ha and would be designed to fit within the woodland context. The base
for each cabin would be suspended above the forest floor on piles and the
detailed siting of each cluster would be determined to work with the local
topography and minimise the loss of trees. The considerable variation in the
alignment and floor level of the units would result in a loose and scattered
pattern of development and reduce the visual impact of the cabins.
28. The small number of cabins of double height would not be out of place given
that they would be surrounded by mature and statuesque trees. The ancillary
buildings would form a tighter group at the entrance to the site. The proposal
includes the upgrading of the access road, new and upgraded trails and car
parking provision adjacent to each of the cabins. The development would also
lead to an increase in the numbers of people using this part of the forest and in
greater levels of activity.
29. The LVIA for this component of the proposal defines four landscape character
types in and around Kingswood as follows:
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
Active Forest, including the south eastern edge of the area to be developed
and the area to the south through which the main access road would pass.
Wild Forest, covering the major part of the site of the cabins and extending
beyond this to the west.
Undulating Farmland, including all of the open, largely agricultural land to
the north east and south west.
Wooded Settlements, including the residential area at Kingsley Park.
30. In landscape terms the greatest effect would be within the Active Forest area
where there would be a large number of additional vehicle movements in an
area predominantly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and an increase
in the number of visitors and levels of activity. Mitigation would be provided by
new paths and bridle ways to segregate vehicles and other users and the
incorporation of safe crossing points over the vehicular access. The works
proposed would be less harmful than constructing a new access road through
the forest and, with the proposed mitigation in place, there would be a minor
adverse effect on the landscape over the long term.
31. The cabins and increased levels of use of this area would, inevitably, lead to
some loss of wildness in the Wild Forest character area. The landscape would,
however, benefit from the long term management of a part of the forest where
clear felling would otherwise take place from 2022. New native planting would
be introduced and a number of new bridleways and paths would be provided
around the edge of the area used for the cabins. The long term effect on the
landscape would, therefore, be minor beneficial.
32. There are some limited views into the forest from the north east that might
possibly be altered and the proposal could lead to increased usage of public
footpaths passing through the adjacent fields. Substantial mitigation would be
provided by a 40 metre wide planting buffer along this boundary and the
resultant effect on the landscape in the Upland Farmlands would be a neutral
one. There would be no direct effect on the landscape in the Wooded
Settlements area but the possible increased use of footpaths in this area could
result in a minor adverse impact over the long term.
33. Very few residential properties have views into this part of the forest and, with
the buffer zone planted as proposed, there would be no material effect on
those views. The development would partially be visible from one section of
Footpath 25 but, due to the mitigation provided by additional planting, this
would result in only a moderate effect. With the screening provided by existing
and proposed planting the effect on views from other paths and routes would
be slight or neutral. My observations on my site visit support these findings of
the LVIA.
34. Having regard to the beneficial effect in the Wild Forest character area I
conclude that the Kingswood proposals would have only a minor adverse effect
on the landscape character of the northern part of the forest and that their
visual effects would be neutral.
Recreational effects
35. In addition to larger and better quality café and toilet facilities the Visitor
Centre would include meeting and classrooms and provide access to
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
information and orientation services to help people make the most of their visit
to the Forest Park. These are services which one might reasonably expect to
find at a major leisure destination with around 75,000 visitors each year but, at
present, they are either poorly provided for or absent altogether. The increase
in the level of car parking in this area would not be excessive given the existing
and future potential use of the Forest Park. The proposed subdivision of the
parking into main, overflow and major events parking zones would strike an
appropriate balance between catering for peak demand and minimising harm to
the landscape. Parking for coaches would be considerably improved compared
to the existing arrangements.
36. As a whole, the Visitor Hub proposals would result in a major enhancement of
these core facilities and have a significant positive effect in terms of increasing
visitor comfort and enjoyment. They would also have the potential to inform
and educate visitors and inspire them to try new activities. The proposals
incorporate a number of design and other improvements compared to those
considered in 2014 and I find that the provision of an enhanced Visitor Hub as
now proposed would be a social benefit of substantial weight.
37. The Council suggests that the Forest Park would continue to be a popular
destination even if the existing visitor facilities were not improved and that the
appellant has not demonstrated what risks would flow from a failure to make
the proposed investment in these facilities. Such arguments run counter to the
conclusions of the 1999 report of the Delamere Forest Forum which appear,
subsequently, to have been accepted by the multi-agency steering group which
included representatives of the Council. They also ignore the obvious evidence
on the ground that the existing facilities are inadequate. In my view, it is
readily apparent that the replacement of those facilities is needed if FC is to
ensure that visitor numbers are maintained over the long term.
38. The Whitefield trails proposal forms part of the Active Forests Programme run
by FC in partnership with Sport England to encourage gentle and more extreme
exercise in the forest environment. In the context of increasing concerns about
obesity, particularly in children and young people, and about general levels of
fitness, this proposal would encourage improved levels of activity and have a
positive effect on the health and wellbeing of many users of the Forest Park.
39. Some objectors argue that this provision is unnecessary and not dependent
upon the other elements of the proposal. I accept that alternative funding
might possibly be found for these or similar facilities in the longer term.
However, the appeal proposal would provide capital funding for the installation
of these facilities and an annual payment towards their future maintenance.
These arrangements would secure the early delivery of facilities that would, in
my view, provide a positive social benefit of significant weight.
40. I consider the issue of the need for the holiday cabins below. However, I
accept the appellant’s argument that the provision of such accommodation
would enable visitors to enjoy longer periods of time within the Forest Park and
gain a different experience than that available to day visitors. This would,
however, be a social benefit of only modest weight.
Need and economic effects
41. In 2014 the Secretary of State concluded that the Visitor Centre and associated
infrastructure are needed and would provide a tangible benefit to the Forest
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
Park. That need remains unmet. The need for self-catering holiday
accommodation has previously been accepted by the Council2 and by a number
of local organisations involved in promoting tourism in the region.
42. There is a resident population of approximately 17.5 million (m) within the 2
hour drive time catchment. The existing self-catering holiday accommodation
stock in the surrounding area is comprised mainly of individual cottages and
small clusters (up to 10 units). The few existing lodge parks are either of very
small scale or are used mainly by private owners rather than for short term
letting. There is a clear quantitative and qualitative need for the proposed
cabins to satisfy unmet demand and strengthen the tourism offer in this part of
Cheshire.
43. Planning permission has been granted for 200 lodges and a sailing facility at
Fourways Quarry, some 2.5 miles from the site. On the evidence provided,
that development would offer lodges for sale to private owners rather than
operate as a site for short term lets. The initial phase of development is also
likely to be of very small scale to test the market for such accommodation.
There is no evidence that the proposal would make a significant contribution to
meeting the need for high quality accommodation for short breaks.
44. The Kingswood component of the proposal would provide a new and distinctive
form of accommodation within the short-term holiday market and contribute to
meeting the need for additional and better quality accommodation in the
region. This conclusion is supported by the comments from Marketing Cheshire
that there is a current shortfall in high quality self-catering accommodation of
the type proposed and that the proposal would complement its vision and
attract visitors from across the country. The proposal is also supported by
Cheshire Business Attractions, Destination 49 and Cheshire Business Leaders.
45. The cabins development would generate 40 to 50 full time equivalent (FTE) job
years in the construction sector and 38 FTE jobs through the direct
employment of managers, assistants and other staff. There would also be
construction employment resulting from the development of the Visitor Hub
and some 5 additional jobs created as a result of that investment. These
estimates have not been seriously challenged and are a reasonable estimate of
the likely direct job creation.
46. The appellants estimate that the Kingswood proposal would generate some
£2.4m of additional leisure, tourism expenditure within Cheshire West and
Cheshire. Manley Parish Council argues that someone staying for 5 nights in a
cabin would spend money locally on only four of those days but this seems to
me to be an unfair criticism of the way in which the estimate of leisure
spending has been prepared. The Parish Council also questions the extent to
which that expenditure would assist in the creation of new jobs in the tourism/
leisure sector as opposed to supporting existing levels of employment.
47. Those arguments are focused on the question of how many new jobs would be
created and do not, for example, consider the cumulative effect of existing part
time staff being given additional working hours in response to increased
demand. Even if the 40 FTE indirect jobs suggested by the appellant is an
overestimate the proposal would, nevertheless, have a significant positive
2
IR 156 appended to Secretary of State’s Decision Letter of December 2014
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
impact when direct, indirect and construction employment is considered in the
round.
48. My reading of the previous decision suggests that many of the concerns raised
by Manley Parish Council were submitted in evidence to the public inquiry in
2014 and were taken into account by the Inspector and Secretary of Statement
in reaching their findings. In her report, the Inspector concluded that there
would be a tangible increase in overall employment in the local area and that
the proposal would provide a significant boost to the local economy. I have
seen no evidence that would lead me to a different conclusion.
49. The Inspector reduced the weight to be given to the economic benefits created
by the cabins development because she found that there was no convincing
evidence that there were no alternative sites outside of the Green Belt where
these same benefits could be delivered. This has been addressed in the
current proposal in a comprehensive assessment of some 16 potential forest
locations across the North West region. This assessment has been carried out
against an appropriate set of criteria based on the essential components of a
viable holiday cabins operation and the need to avoid development within or
adjacent to ancient woodlands or other sensitive locations.
50. The report concludes that none of those options would provide a viable
alternative to the Kingswood site. The reasons include that the block of
available woodland would be too small to absorb the proposed development,
poor accessibility, proximity to operational commercial forest or to areas of
particular ecological, mineral or other value, and other constraints. I accept
this evidence and agree with the Council’s planning officers that the economic
benefits generated by this element of the proposal would be unlikely to be
delivered on any alternative site outside of the Green Belt. Accordingly, I
conclude that those economic benefits weigh strongly in favour of the proposal.
51. Under the terms of the legal agreement between FC and FH the holiday cabins
would provide a revenue income which is expected to step up to about
£210,000 per year at the end of year 3. This would be used as seed corn
funding to enable finance to be raised to fund the new Visitor Centre and
access improvements. Following completion of those facilities the income
would provide support for other investment in Delamere Forest.
52. The previous Inspector broadly accepted FC’s argument that some cross
subsidy is needed for the delivery of the new Visitor Centre but found it difficult
to understand why, in the context of a national forest estate, such funding
could not be secured through a cabin development in a less harmful location.
The assessment now submitted demonstrates that there are no suitable, non-
Green Belt sites in other FC managed forests in the North West region. This
may not expressly deal with the question of whether cross funding might be
provided by a cabin development outside of the region. However, there would
appear to relatively limited scope for such a solution given the geographical
distribution of the 9 existing FH holiday cabin developments. Accordingly, I
find that the cabin Kingswood development would help to secure the early
delivery of the new Visitor Hub and that substantial weight should be attached
to that benefit.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
Other potential benefits.
53. The realignment of the access road would provide for better segregation
between vehicles and visitors arriving on foot or cycle and would improve the
safety of those users. The changes to the junction with Station Road, including
a new footway over the railway bridge, a new pedestrian crossing and
alterations to the junction would improve the safety of pedestrians and other
users accessing the Forest Park from this direction. The proposed reduction in
the speed limit on this section of Station Road to 40mph would also improve
safety for all users of the highway. These social benefits should be afforded
significant weight.
54. The implementation of a Woodland Management Plan and Pond Enhancement
Plan in Kingswood would result in a net benefit in terms of biodiversity. In
addition, FH would make an annual payment of £7,000 for a period of 10 years
for further ecological enhancements to the protected meres and mosses within
Delamere Forest. Together, these amount to environmental benefits of
significant weight.
Conclusions re other considerations
55. I find that the early delivery of the enhanced Visitor Hub would be a social
benefit of substantial weight. The provision of the Whitefield trails and the
improvements to the safety of all non-car users accessing the visitor facilities
would also be social benefits to which I attach significant weight. Visitors to
the holiday cabins would be able to enjoy an enhanced experience of the Forest
park but this would be a benefit of only modest weight. The economic benefits
weigh strongly in favour of the proposal and I attach considerable weight to
these. There would also be benefits resulting from the retention and
management of woodland, ecological enhancements and the financial
contributions to other ecological improvement and management works. I
attach significant weight to these environmental benefits of the proposal.
56. On the other side of the balance, there would be harm by reason of the
Kingswood component comprising inappropriate development in the Green Belt
and some limited harm to openness and to one of the purposes of including
land in the Green Belt. Modest harm would also be caused to the landscape
character of the Kingswood part of the Forest Park. Notwithstanding the
requirement, in paragraph 80 of the Framework, that substantial weight should
be given to any harm to the Green Belt I find that the harm resulting from the
proposal would clearly be outweighed by the benefits when taken as a whole.
The very special circumstances needed to justify a grant of planning permission
for the holiday cabins have, therefore, been demonstrated. Accordingly, I find
no conflict with the policies in section 9 of the Framework.
Conditions
57. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and to the
appellants’ statement that these conditions are acceptable to them. I have
amended the wording of the conditions to use PINS standard wordings where
possible and to ensure compliance with the tests set out in the Framework.
58. For the avoidance of doubt a condition is needed requiring that development be
carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In the interests of ensuring
safe access for all users conditions have been attached to require details and a
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
programme for the implementation of the off-site works on Station Road and
Ashton Road to be agreed with the planning authority. A condition requiring
approval of a phasing plan for the construction of the various paths and trails
proposed is needed to ensure that these are provided at appropriate stages of
the development. Also to ensure continued public access, a condition is
needed to require approval of the details of and programme for the diversion of
the public footpath affected by the upgraded access to the Visitor Centre.
59. In the interests of providing genuine choices of travel for staff and visitors a
condition requiring the approval of a Travel Plan is needed. Due to the
potential for features of archaeological interest to be uncovered during
construction works a condition is needed to require that a programme of works
be agreed in relation to these matters. As no details were submitted with the
application I have attached conditions requiring that schemes for surface and
foul water drainage be approved and implemented in accordance with the
approved details and programmes.
60. In the interests of safeguarding existing ecological features and enhancing
biodiversity conditions have been attached setting out requirements in respect
of the preparation of an Ecological Procedure Method Statement and Pond
Restoration and Management Plan, the undertaking of a badger survey and
that all pruning and removal of vegetation be undertaken outside of the bird
breeding season. To avoid the spread of Himalayan Balsam a condition
requiring a Method Statement for the management of this species is also
necessary. To minimise disruption to highway users and users of the forest,
and disturbance to nearby residential properties, a condition is needed which
requires the approval of and subsequent adherence to a Construction Method
Statement for the duration of the construction works. A condition has also
been attached to require appropriate protection measures for all trees
proposed for retention so as to ensure their long term health.
61. To ensure a high quality of development a condition is needed to require prior
approval of all external materials to be used in the construction of all the
buildings approved under the permission. The detailed siting of the proposed
cabins is to be determined following local survey works to minimise the loss of
trees and a condition is, therefore, needed to require the approval of their
siting before they are installed. Also to ensure a high quality of development,
conditions are needed to require the approval of a full scheme and programme
of landscape works to the Visitor Centre and associated development and the
completion of the landscape works to the cabins development in accordance
with the approved plans.
62. To ensure the long term success of all new planting a series of conditions have
been attached relating to the quality of the plant material, the methods of
planting and the replacement of plants that die or are otherwise lost in the first
5 years after completion of the works. For the same reason a condition is
needed requiring the approval of a Landscape Management Plan. A condition
requiring that the cabins development be carried out in accordance with the
submitted tree report and woodland management plan is needed to minimise
the risk of unnecessary loss or damage to existing trees.
63. In the interests of minimising harm to biodiversity conditions have been
attached to specify that non-alkaline materials be used in the construction of all
roads and paths and to require that the bat mitigation measures proposed are
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
carried out. For the same reason, a condition is needed to require that bat and
bird boxes be provided in accordance with the proposed mitigation. To avoid
harm to the natural environment a condition requiring the approval and
implementation of a Pollution Prevention and Control Plan has also been
attached. A condition requiring that all vehicle and parking facilities are
completed before any building which that parking serves is brought into use is
needed to ensure a satisfactory development. Finally, in order to ensure that
the proposed cabins are retained for holiday use only a condition has been
attached which precludes their occupation as a main residence.
Planning Obligations
64. Paragraph 204 of the Framework and Regulation 122 of the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations require that planning obligations should only be
sought, and that weight be attached to their provisions, where they are:
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly
related to the development proposed; and are fairly and reasonably related in
scale and kind to the development.
65. The UU has been prepared under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 and would be enforceable by the Council. This
includes an obligation that provides for the delivery of the Visitor Hub and
associated infrastructure within a period of 5 years from the date on which the
first of the holiday cabins is brought into use for visitor occupation. This
obligation secures the funding link between the cabins development and the
non-profit making Visitor Hub facilities and is, therefore, needed to ensure that
these facilities are provided in an appropriate timescale. The UU also provides
for the removal of the holiday cabins in the event that the Visitor Hub is not
delivered in the agreed delivery period.
66. The UU would secure the payment of £250,000 to the FC for the construction of
the Whitefield Trails component of the development, an annual payment of
£15,000 for its future maintenance, and an annual payment of £7,000 for other
ecological works in the Forest. These obligations are necessary to secure the
delivery of these social and environmental benefits.
67. I am satisfied that the obligations included in the UU are necessary to make
the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the
development and are fairly and reasonably related in scale. They do,
accordingly, meet the relevant tests and I have afforded them considerable
weight in my determination of the appeal.
Other Matters
68. A number of objectors raise concerns about noise and disturbance from the
proposed cabins development and the effect that this would have on the peace
and tranquillity of the Forest Park and on the enjoyment of other users. Given
the 90% occupancy level anticipated by FH, there would inevitably be a
significant increase in activity and noise levels in this part of the forest.
However, I have seen no new evidence to challenge the conclusions of the
previous Inspector that noise generated by the use of the cabins would be
intermittent and localised, arising from individual cabins in dispersed locations
across the site. This noise would likely be below existing ambient noise within
the forest.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
69. Given the likely peak flows and very low speed limit to be imposed, additional
traffic resulting from the proposal would not generate excessive noise and, in
common with the previous Inspector, I see no reason to conclude that the
proposal would result in any material harm either to recreational users of the
forest or to the nearest residential properties. Although there would be some
loss of peace and tranquillity this would affect only a relatively small area of
the Forest Park and the experience for users of paths in this area would not be
dissimilar to that of using a public footpath that runs in close proximity to
residential properties.
70. The cabins proposals would introduce significant additional vehicle movements
in the northern part of the forest. However, the safety of other users of the
paths and trails in this area would be safeguarded by the proposals to
segregate vehicle and pedestrian movements, to provide safe crossing points
and to create additional new trails to provide alternative routes. The additional
traffic generated in the wider area, either during the construction period or
over the longer term, would not be such as to have a significant impact on the
safe operation of the local highway network.
Development Plan
71. In light of my conclusions with regard to the existence of very special
circumstances the proposal complies with CWCLP Policy STRAT 9 and saved
Policy RT9 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan (VBLP) which seek to avoid
inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Due to the social and
recreational benefits that would flow from the enhanced Visitor Hub and
Whitefield trails the proposal complies with VBLP Policy RT24 and CWCLP Policy
SOC6 which seek the protection and enhancement of recreational facilities.
The proposals derive positive support from CWCLP Policies ECON 1 and ECON 3
which respectively seek to promote sustainable economic growth and support
the enhancement of the tourism sector.
72. There would be no adverse effect on the local highway network and the
improved access and traffic management proposals weigh in favour of the
scheme. The proposal complies with CWCLP Policy STRAT 10 which seeks to
ensure the safety of all users of the highway. By improving opportunities for
recreational activity and not giving rise to any harm to the amenity of any
residential properties, the proposal also complies with Policy SOC5 which seeks
to promote health and wellbeing. The proposal provides for an overall net
benefit in terms of biodiversity and is, therefore, consistent with Policy ENV4
which requires that development should avoid the loss of natural assets and
seek to provide net gains. It also complies with VBLP Policy NE1 in this
respect.
73. In summary, I agree with the Planning Officers’ conclusion that the proposal
would meet the social, economic and environmental needs of the borough and
comprise sustainable development. It would, therefore, be consistent with
CWCLP Policy STRAT 1. The modest landscape harm caused in the Kingswood
part of the forest and to the Area of Special Conservation Value give rise to a
conflict with VBLP Policy NE11 and the associated Supplementary Planning
Document. This limited conflict is, however, outweighed by the many benefits
of the proposal that I have identified above.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
Conclusions
74. For the reasons set out above I find that the proposal constitutes sustainable
development and that planning permission should be granted. I therefore
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Paul Singleton
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 14Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
Schedule of Conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans as listed in Appendix 1 to Concept Town Planning Limited’s Planning
Statement of Support dated August 2016.
3) No development shall take place until full details of works to Ashton
Road, comprising the public and private access points, signage, visibility
splays and footway provision and a programme for the implementation of
these works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and programme.
4) No development shall take place until full details of works to Station
Road, comprising the public and private access points, signage, visibility
splays, footway provision and proposals for the implementation of a 40
mph speed limit and a programme for the implementation of these works
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and programme.
5) No development shall take place until full details of the phasing of works
to provide the proposed footways, bridleways and multi-user trails have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and programme and shall, thereafter, be retained during
the lifetime of the development.
6) No development shall take until a scheme for the diversion of Footpath
Delamere FP4 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The diversion shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details prior to any of the holiday cabins being brought
into use and the alternative route shall, thereafter, be maintained during
the lifetime of the development.
7) No development shall take place until a Travel Plan and a programme for
its implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The agreed measures shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and programme.
8) No development, including any works of demolition, shall take place until
a scheme and programme of archaeological works has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme
shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and
programme.
9) No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The scheme shall include a programme for the implementation
of the works and proposals for the future maintenance of the approved
scheme. All works shall be completed in accordance with the approved
details and programme.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 15Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
10) No development shall take place until a foul drainage scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall include a programme for the implementation of the works
and proposals for the future maintenance of the approved scheme. All
works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and
programme.
11) No development, including any works of demolition and pruning or
removal of vegetation, shall take place until an Ecological Procedure
Method Statement, including a habitat management plan, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All
works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance with the
approved Method Statement and management plan.
12) No development shall take place until a Pond Restoration and
Management Plan and a programme for its implementation have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
Restoration and Management Plan shall subsequently be implemented in
strict accordance with the agreed details and programme.
13) No development shall take place until a badger survey has been carried
out and full details of: (i) the findings of that survey; (ii) any mitigation
required; and (iii) a programme for the implementation of the mitigation
measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The agreed mitigation measures shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved details and programme.
14) All pruning or removal of vegetation shall take place outside of the bird
breeding season.
15) No development shall take place until a Himalayan Balsam Method
Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. All works shall subsequently be undertaken in
accordance with the approved Method Statement.
16) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until
a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide
for:
i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the
development;
iv) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during
construction;
v) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works;
vi) delivery, demolition and construction working hours.
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to
throughout the construction period for the development.
17) No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until
a scheme for the protection of retained trees (the tree protection plan)
and the appropriate working methods (the arboricultural method
statement) in accordance with paragraphs 5.5 and 6.1 of British Standard
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 16Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
BS 5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction -
Recommendations (or in an equivalent British Standard if replaced) shall
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be
carried out as approved.
In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be
retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.
18) No works for the construction of any of the buildings hereby approved
shall take place until samples of all materials to be used in the external
construction of that building have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The relevant works shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.
19) None of the holiday cabins hereby approved shall be installed until plans
showing their detailed siting and placement have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall
subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and
details.
20) No works for the construction of the Visitor Centre and related parking
areas shall commence until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme
shall include:
(1) details of all hard landscaping proposed;
(2) indications of existing trees and hedgerows on the land,
identifying those to be retained;
(3) planting plans and written specifications of cultivation, tree shrub,
hedge or grass establishment;
(4) schedules of plant species, sizes and proposed
numbers/densities; and
(5) a programme for the implementation of the landscaping works.
All landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details and programme.
21) The landscaping proposed as part of the holiday cabins development
hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details
shown on the approved plans and shall be completed in the first planting
season following the completion of the first cluster of cabins or in
accordance with a programme agreed in writing by the local planning
authority.
22) All trees, shrubs and hedge plants planted as part of the approved
landscaping works shall comply with the standards set out in BS 3936:
Specifications for Nursery Stock.
23) All site preparation, pre-planting works and post-planting maintenance
shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of BS 4428
(1989): Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations.
24) All trees planted as part of the approved landscaping works shall be
positioned in accordance with the requirements of Table 2 of BS 5837: A
Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 17Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/17/3185481
25) Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion
of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or
diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of
similar size and species.
26) Before any part of the development hereby approved is first occupied or
brought into use a landscape management plan, including long term
design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance
schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The landscape management plan
shall be carried out as approved.
27) The holiday cabins development at Kingswood shall be carried out in
strict accordance with the recommendations of the Tree Report and
Woodland Management Plans submitted with the application.
28) All roads, paths and parking areas constructed as part of the
development hereby permitted shall be constructed using non-alkaline
materials.
29) All bat mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with the
Delamere Forest Ecology Planning Report submitted with the planning
application.
30) Details of any floodlighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority before the use hereby permitted takes
place and the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
31) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied or brought into use until
works for the provision of bird and bat boxes have been completed in
accordance with a scheme and programme that has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
32) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied or brought into use until a
Pollution Prevention and Control Plan has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development
shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved Plan.
33) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied or brought into use until
all vehicle and cycle parking spaces related to that building have been
provided in accordance with the approved plans. All areas laid out for
parking and turning use shall, thereafter, be retained exclusively for
those purposes during the lifetime of the development.
34) The holiday cabins hereby approved shall be occupied only by persons
with a main place of residence elsewhere and shall at no time be used as
a main place of residence.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 18You can also read
