Our Ref: GM/lec/COO2/GM/8311

(Please reply to Banbury office)

26th October 2012

Mr Darren Grant

Planning Officer

Regeneration and Public Protection

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

Town Hall

Coton Road

Nuneaton

CV10 5AA

Dear Darren,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

PLANNING APPLICATION 031648 GIPSY LANE, NUNEATON

A R CARTWRIGHT LTD

Further to our meeting on Friday 19th October, I have set out below my responses on matters discussed.

  1. Policy Comments

I note that following consideration of my letter and enclosures of 3rd October, you now accept that the ‘sequential approach’ as set out in the text accompanying Policy ENV2 of the adopted Local Plan is out of date as a basis for controlling housing land supply.

Consequently, having regard to paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), and on the basis that your Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, paragraph 14 of The Framework is engaged whereby there is a presumption in favour of granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in NPPF as a whole. As discussed, this also involved an assessment of the extent to which very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the removal of the site from Green Belt. We have undertaken this assessment as part of the application submissions.

I request therefore that in the light of the above the Policy Team should reconsider its former response as to the correct approach to be adopted – which we consider is as set out in the planning statement accompanying the planning application. This would lead to a different approach and conclusion in terms of the appraisal of the proposal than that was previously undertaken by your planning policy colleagues.

  1. Environment Agency – consultation response fUT/2012/110847/01-L01 24th October 2012

M-EC is investigating the flood risk issues points raised by the EA and a response will be available within the next few days.

As discussed, I have provided a comment directly (by email on 25th October 2012 and copied to you) to Sarah Victor at the EA dealing with the ‘ecology issues’ mentions in her response. I await her response with interest.

You will be aware of course that our intention is to reach agreement with the Environment Agency so that no objection to this application exists in respect of flooding issues.

  1. Transport Issues

I understand that WCC has no objection to this application subject to the appropriate contributions being made to off-site highway works as identified in recent correspondence. Please can you provide me with a copy of the latest WCC response on this matter.

  1. Archaeology – Geophysics results

Please find attached a report from Stratascan providing the results of the geophysical survey. Please can you forward this document onto Anna Stocks for her consideration.

  1. Education

As yet WCC has provided no request for an education contribution.

  1. Improvements to Rights of Way

I understand that WCC Rights of Way is seeking a contribution of £5,000 towards maintenance of rights of way in the vicinity of the site.

The three tests for judging whether a s.106 obligation can legitimately be sought are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (para. 204) using the same language as in the CIL regulations, which in turn borrowed the phrases from Circular 05/05 and preceding policy circulars (i.e. planning obligations must be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development).

It is therefore reasonable for us to request a clear and transparent justification for any contribution being sought to be necessary to make the development acceptable in the sense that without them planning permission could reasonably be refused; whether they are directly related to the development, and whether what is being sought is fair and reasonable in terms of scale and kind. These are questions of judgment for the decision-maker, be it the council when it comes to consider the application or the inspector should the matter proceed to an appeal.

Please can you provide me with a copy of a justification as to how the request being sought meets the CIL tests? The figure of £5,000 as presented in the email from WCC seems rather arbitrary

  1. Ecology

An updated ecology report has been prepared by BDA and a copy is attached for your consideration.

  1. Masterplan

We discussed with you the implications of taking account of the need to protect the ecological wildlife corridor along the brook course. This has now been undertaken and is portrayed on the attached revised masterplan.

The revised masterplan IS supported by a supplement to the Design and Access Statement and an addendum to the LVIA that was submitted with the application. Copies of both of these documents are attached.

  1. WCC Libraries Contribution

You undertook to provide me with details of how the WCC request for a contribution of £29,871 to libraries has been calculated and a justificationby reference to the CIL tests.

  1. Community Contribution

We are in discussions with Whitestones Community Centre about the possibility of making a contribution to improvements to the existing Community Centre. We have met with the governing members of the Community Centre and undertaken a physical survey of the premises to assess the extent to which physical improvements can be undertaken. We should be in a position very shortly to provide you with details of what is proposed. We have carefully assessed the principle of such a contribution and are satisfied that it would meet the CIL tests.

I trust that the above comments are of assistance.

Please contact me if you require further information.

Yours sincerely

G Mitchell

Enc:Masterplan Update

LVIA Update

Ecology Update

Stratascan Report and email

Cc:T Cartwright

L Bradley

J Hayward

R McCulloch