Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know

Out-Law News 2 min. read

Pickles refuses permission for replacement of community facilities with new homes


Communities secretary Eric Pickles has refused permission for plans to demolish a disused theatre and a closed sports centre in a Suffolk village and build nearly 50 new homes, after deciding that the proposal conflicted with the local development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Developer Walnut Tree Properties (WTP) applied to Suffolk Coastal District Council in November 2012 for permission to demolish the Angel Theatre and the Rendlesham Sports Centre, which had both been unused for several years, and build 49 new homes, including nine affordable homes, in their place.

The Council failed to give notice of its decision within the period prescribed by law and the communities secretary recovered WTP's subsequent appeal for his own determination, due to the submission of a neighbourhood plan proposal in the area.

Following a public inquiry in November 2014, planning inspector Jonathan Manning recommended that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission should be refused for the scheme. A decision letter (47-page / 714 KB PDF) issued on Thursday on behalf of the communities secretary said Pickles agreed with the inspector's recommendation.

Pickles agreed with the inspector that the proposed development complied with policies in the Council's local development plan which allowed the redevelopment of key community facilities and the loss of sports facilities and playing space in limited circumstances.

However, both the inspector and the communities secretary considered that the proposed loss of community facilities under the plans was in conflict with policies in the emerging Rendlesham Neighbourhood Plan (RNP), on which a referendum is due to be held this week. The RNP allowed for the redevelopment or change of use of key facilities in Rendlesham district centre for leisure, education, retail or community use. It only provided for residential redevelopment of such facilities where the allowed uses were maintained or enhanced.

Pickles agreed with the inspector that "the district centre is at the heart of the emerging RNP" and that "the appeal sites both form a significant part of the district centre". The communities secretary took the view that "the proposal would be so substantial in terms of its implications for the emerging RNP that it would significantly undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions on the type and location of development within the district centre of Rendlesham, which is central to its aims, objectives and strategy".

The communities secretary gave only "moderate weight" to the conflict with the emerging RNP, noting that it "has not been through a referendum" and that "it is not part of the adopted development plan". However, Pickles gave "significant weight" to the fact that the appeal proposal would "prejudice the ability to promote a healthy, sustainable community and a strong neighbourhood centre at Rendlesham", in conflict with Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the NPPF and policies of the Council's local plan. He also gave "significant weight" to the insufficient provision for education, open space and affordable housing offered by the developer.

Whilst the inspector had given only "moderate weight" to the benefit of delivering "two moderately sized [housing] sites" under the proposal, Pickles attributed "significant weight to the housing benefits" due to "the need for housing in Suffolk Coastal District". The communities secretary said the effective use of previously developed land, the removal of derelict buildings "that are currently eyesores" and the "reasonable links to public transport and existing facilities" each merited "moderate weight" in favour of granting permission.

The communities secretary concluded that the appeal scheme "does not comply with the development plan overall" and that "the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposals when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole".

WTP, or any other interested party, has the right to challenge the decision in the High Court within six weeks.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.