GET IN!!!!
Well, the first bit of good news is here!
The LDF report is in and... NEWMARKET IS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF GREENBELT!
ESW40 is the site reference for the 57 hectares of the Newmarket site now to be taken out of greenbelt for the B8 industrial units.
I will post some follow up information later but everyone should read paragraph 88.
I can not see past anything than other than a positive decision now from Eric Pickles when you read what the inspector has written below. The fat lady is taking to the stage folks...
The full text of the LDF inspectors report (Shelagh Bussey) is here -
[i79. ES W40A – The allocation of this site for B8 wholesale and freight uses reflects
the need to provide 51 hectares of B8 land in addition to the other proposed
B8 freight allocations, all of which are sound. Many alternative sites
throughout the District and alternative boundaries for a site at this location
have been considered and rejected by the Council for the reasons given in
[6077, [6081 and [6081.1, with which I agree. A site area of around 57
hectares is allocated at ES W40A, which is larger than is strictly necessary to
provide the required amount of B8 land, to enable the identification of
permanent Green Belt boundaries and to provide a robust configuration of
land, whether or not a ‘called-in’ planning application at this location is
granted planning permission by the Secretary of State.
80. In order to clarify and to make necessary provision for vehicular access from
the strategic road network, (MMCC10) adds text to the site policy box
informing that direct access to the site will be from the A642 Aberford Road.
(MM69), which adds a new policy box to the Transport section of the Sites
Plan, ‘TS W239 – Newmarket Access Road’ that protects a corridor for an
access road direct from the A642, is also necessary to make the proposal
deliverable and effective. Although the precise alignment of the access road is
unknown at this stage, its general alignment within the safeguarded corridor
has been rigorously appraised as part of the ‘called-in’ application and is
supported by the Highways Authority. The SA indicates that the proposed
access could have negative environmental impacts resulting from tree loss.
However, Natural England does not object and the policy box contains
mitigation requirements. Furthermore, the safeguarded corridor is of sufficient
width to enable the consideration of precise alternative alignments of the road
and to ensure that tree loss is minimised. For soundness, a corresponding
change to the Policies Map is also necessary.
81. The proposed allocation of this site is the subject of a significant number of
representations and petitions, both of objection and support. Representations
that object to the allocation question the adequacy of public consultation, the
compliance of the proposal with the development strategy of the CS, the
removal of the land from the Green Belt, the impact on the natural
environment, accessibility and the provision of other necessary infrastructure,
and the proper consideration of alternatives.
82. Confusion over public consultation has arisen because during the Sites Plan
Examination period, a Public Inquiry was held in respect of the ‘called-in’
planning application concerning a mixed-use development that, in addition to
the B8 freight development, would accommodate a re-located rugby sports
stadium, B1 uses and a hotel [5009. However, it is clear that the Council has
complied with the requirements of its SCI with regards to public engagement
concerning the Sites Plan allocation.
83. Some representations perceive the site as being a non-sustainable, isolated
incursion into the Green Belt that conflicts with the CS vision and objectives,
and its locational strategy set out in policy CS1. However, the allocation of the
site accords with the spatial vision, by promoting economic growth and
assisting the urban renaissance and regeneration of the Wakefield Sub-
Regional City, where some of the most deprived communities in the District
live. Whilst the site is isolated in the sense that it does not abut an urban
area, it is not remote, being only about 1 mile from the urban areas of
Wakefield and Normanton. Sporadic bus services connect the site to
Wakefield. However, the frequency of the public transport services are
demand led and could be increased; the site policy box highlights the possible
need for developer contributions towards improving accessibility to local
services and public transport. Thus the allocation has a reasonable prospect of
being made accessible by public transport and sustainable. It is also close to
the extensive B8 logistics development at Europort and would, therefore,
support the positive economic dynamics of clustering like and complementary
uses. Consequently, the allocation accords with the thrust of the CS spatial
vision and promotes many of its objectives.
84. CS policy CS1 does not require that all development is located within the main
urban areas, and policy CS8 together with its supporting text, acknowledges
the specific locational requirements of B8 freight development. Amongst other
locations, allocations along the M62 motorway corridor are encouraged. Policy
CS12 exceptionally permits removal of Green Belt land to meet an overriding
development need that cannot be met elsewhere and where the Green Belt
offers the most sustainable option. It is generally accepted that sustainable
Green Belt locations along the M62 motorway corridor are the only remaining
available and suitable locations for providing the CS B8 land requirement. The
‘M62 corridor’ is not defined in the CS, but the site is located very close to
junction 30 of the M62 motorway. At the hearings there was a consensus that
the site falls within its corridor. It is a part greenfield, part brownfield former
colliery site with an industrial legacy. Thus its allocation is consistent with the
relevant policies of the CS.
85. It is questioned in some representations, including from Leeds City Council,
whether removal of this particular site from the Green Belt accords with
national policy and the Council’s site selection methodology [1009. They
perceive that the proposed allocation would result in a significant reduction in
the strategic gap between Leeds and Wakefield. Also, that the site would
result in an isolated pocket of development creating boundaries that would be
difficult to defend.
86. The development of the site would physically reduce the gap between
settlements in Leeds and Wakefield, but not to the extent that any would
coalesce or other Green Belt purposes would be compromised. The M62
motorway forms a very clear, strong northern boundary to the site that would
discourage further reduction in the width of the ‘Leeds gap’. The southern
boundary is clearly defined by the line of a former railway. To ensure that the
western and eastern boundaries remain sufficiently robust and sound,
(MM6icon_cool.gif is necessary. It adds additional text to the site policy box that
requires structural tree planting at the boundaries of the site in association
with its development.
87. Turning to concerns regarding environmental and wildlife considerations, the
designated Wakefield Nature Area WNA 34 is adjacent the site and its wildlife
value is adequately safeguarded by a site policy box requirement for a full
environmental assessment to accompany any development proposal. The
policy box also highlights other environmental matters and infrastructure
requirements that must be satisfactorilly addressed.
88. Some representations suggest that it is a risky strategy to concentrate around
half the B8 freight land requirement at one site. However, the submission of
the ‘called-in’ planning application that is accompanied by all of the necessary
assessments and which is supported by the Council demonstrates that delivery
is feasible and has a reasonable prospect of coming to fruition.
89. With regards to alternative sites that have been considered and rejected by
the Council some more closely align with the Council’s site selection
methodology, would accord with the CS spatial vision, objectives and policies,
and score well in their SA. However, whilst the balance is fine in some of these
cases, particularly for rejected site ES N159, which would form an urban
extension to Castleford, overall none are clearly more appropriate than the
allocated site ES W40A. The defining issue in respect of site ES N159 is that its
development would substantially reduce the already narrow Green Belt gap
between Castleford and Pontefract. This adverse impact on preventing
coalescence of settlements would be significantly greater than the effect of the
allocated site on reducing the strategic gap between Wakefield and Leeds.
Furthermore, its deliverability is less evident.
90. With the Main Modifications referred to above, all of the allocated employment
sites are sound.[/i
