Pickles refuses permission for £150m Plymouth regeneration scheme

The proposals, which comprised the building of 356 new homes, a supermarket, offices, a hotel, restaurants and bars and public open space, were refused by Plymouth City Council in July 2011 for reasons including concerns over the development's impact on the strategic road network (SRN).

Pickles said in his decision letter (95-page / 493KB PDF) that he agreed with a Planning Inspector's recommendations that the appeal should be dismissed, agreeing with the Inspector's conclusions that the scheme would not comply with the Council's Core Strategy requirement to deliver a new district centre and that this weighed "heavily" against the proposals.

"Unless it can be shown that it would comprise phase one of a district centre, the retail element has no support from the adopted CS," Pickles said.  He added that the proposals would also be likely to deter investment in the nearby Seaton Barracks Parade Ground, which is the Council's preferred site for a district centre.

In respect of the Council's concerns over SRN impacts, Pickles said he agreed with the Inspector's conclusions that, because it was probable that only the profitable elements of the scheme would be built, the SRN contributions that would be paid might not cover junction improvements at Derriford roundabout which could lead to "significant congestion for many years".

Pickles also noted the Inspector's conclusions on the probability that the scheme would lack affordable housing, which the Inspector said was "likely to be as much as a result of an inappropriate design brief as of market conditions".

He said that it would be wrong to attach the same weight to the benefits of housing in a scheme that it unlikely to provide much, if any, affordable housing when another scheme on the same site might do so.

Pickles acknowledged that, if fully implemented, the scheme would result in "significant economic development and growth", but said that the weight to be given to the benefits of growth should be balanced with the likelihood of the scheme being delivered or substantially delivered.

He said that he agreed with the Inspector that the chances of all of phase one of a new district centre on the site would be "slim" if planning permission was granted and therefore concluded that the potential benefits for economic development and growth should be given "limited weight".

"By potentially stifling investment in a new district centre elsewhere the scheme might well suppress economic growth," Pickles added.