East Lindsey Council had refused outline permission for plans, brought forward by developer Gladman Developments, to build an urban extension on agricultural land 2 km south of the Lincolnshire market town of Louth. The plans included 970 homes and a local centre with a community hall, shops, offices and a GP surgery.
Planning inspector J Stuart Nixon recommended that the developer’s subsequent appeal should be refused. A letter issued on behalf of Clark on 16 July (90-page / 1.3 MB PDF) said the communities secretary agreed.
Clark agreed with the inspector that the scheme would not be sustainable and would cause “adverse effects on the function and character of the town and the surrounding countryside”. The inspector had said he was inclined to agree with the fears of local residents that an additional 970 homes visually set apart from the "compact, nuclear town" of 17,000 people would change the character and identity of Louth, creating "a new satellite community on its outskirts".
The large development, on higher ground than most of the rest of the town, would extend "well to the southeast of the current town boundary", the letter said. The western slope of the appeal site was considered particularly sensitive to development and the communities secretary agreed with the inspector that the proposal would be intrusive to landscape views and would extend Louth into the surrounding open countryside "in an incongruous manner".
The inspector had considered the site to be unsustainable in terms of transport, with no local rail link, a poor bus service to surrounding towns and long walking distances to access the shops and facilities in Louth. He said the proposed travel plan lacked substance and that the likely use of cars by most residents of the urban extension would increase traffic on "poor" local highways and exacerbate an existing shortage of parking spaces in the town.
Clark gave "significant weight" to the provision of housing, including 30% affordable housing, in an area without a demonstrable five year supply of housing land. He also acknowledged the "modest" benefits of providing a primary school, shops, a doctor's surgery, a community centre, public open space, and transport improvements.
However, dismissing the appeal, the communities secretary said negative impacts of the scheme were sufficient to "significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … taken as a whole".
The communities secretary also refused permission this month for plans to build a "garden suburb" with 280 homes on 82 hectares of fields within the Northumberland green belt north west of Newcastle. A letter on behalf of the communities secretary (66-page / 889 KB PDF) said Clark agreed with planning inspector John Gray that the identified housing shortfall in the area was "not so great as to justify the release of green belt land outside the development plan process".
Developer Lugano Developments had sought to argue that very special circumstances applied that would justify the harm caused to the green belt by its proposals. However, Clark found that "the economic or social benefits of the proposed development are not at all convincingly argued" and remained unconvinced that the site would contribute to revitalising the North East economy "without going hand-in-hand with other significant inward investment aimed at providing jobs".
Clark decided that development of the site would be "seriously harmful to the green belt" and would cause additional harm to the landscape character of the area "because of the significance of the listed Birney Hall within it and the views across the site to the Cheviot Hills". He agreed with the inspector that, whilst the site was in a sustainable location, "accessibility to services and facilities is relatively poor".
The communities secretary dismissed the developer's appeal, concluding that "the very special circumstances necessary to justify a grant of planning permission for inappropriate development in the green belt do not exist".
Planning expert Elizabeth Wiseman of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com said: "These two decisions demonstrate the importance that is being placed on the value of the green belt and the need to demonstrate the high threshold of 'very special circumstances'. It is interesting to see that despite the very real housing crisis the 'major benefit' of the delivery of up to 1,250 homes and 30% affordable housing was not considered sufficient to demonstrate 'very special circumstances' and release the green belt for development."