Case Reference: 3208426

Our ref: APP/N4205/V/18/3208426
Mr N Graham, Your ref:
Associate Director
Turley,
Manchester M1 4HD
Nick.graham@turley.co.uk 30 July 2020
Dear Sir
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATION MADE BY PEEL HOLDINGS (LAND AND PROPERTY) LIMITED
LAND AT AND ADJACENT TO, HULTON PARK, MANCHESTER ROAD, OVER
HULTON, BOLTON BL5 1BH
APPLICATION REF: 00997/17
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of Karen L Ridge LLB (Hons) MTPl Solicitor, who held a public local inquiry on 1-3,
9-11 and 15-16 October 2019 into your client’s application for planning permission
reference 00997/17 dated 19 May 2017 for:
• PART A: a full planning application for restoration works to Hulton Park and
various existing structures and heritage assets within it, including the pleasure
grounds, dovecote, walled garden and lakes; and for the development of a golf
resort, including: an 18-hole championship-grade golf course and clubhouse; a
golf academy including driving range, practice course, adventure golf course
and academy building with sports and learning facilities, a golf shop and café; a
hotel with adjoining spa and conference facility; other ancillary buildings,
structures and engineering and landscape works, including a maintenance
building, halfway house, highway accesses, highway underpass, various
bridges, boundary treatments, internal access roads, external lighting, parking
areas, and new and replacement landscaping; the demolition of various
existing buildings and structures; and, where applicable, the re-routing,
upgrading and extension of the Public Rights of Way network; and
• PART B: an outline application for the residential development of 56.03
hectares of land providing up to 1,036 dwellings, a local centre, and, where
applicable, the re-routing, upgrading and extension of the Public Rights of Way
network, with all matters reserved except for (in part) highways.
• Listed building consent application for the restoration of a Grade II Listed
Dovecote.
.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 3594
Andrew Lynch, Decision Officer Email: PCC@communities.gov.uk
Planning Casework Unit
2. On 31 July 2018, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him instead of
being dealt with by the local planning authority.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions
and with the benefit of the obligations in the section 106 agreement.
4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with her recommendation. He has decided
to grant planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All
references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Environmental Statement
5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental
Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the environmental information submitted
before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR1.9 to
IR1.13, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other
additional information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient
information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the
proposal.
Procedural matters
6. The Secretary of State notes at IR1.3 that there is a separate application for Listed
Building Consent before the Council which is not subject to the call-in procedure. He
therefore agrees with the Inspector that an appropriately amended description of
development should be used (see paragraph 45 below). Like the Inspector the Secretary
of State has assessed the proposal on the basis of the updated plans described in IR1.13
Policy and statutory considerations
7. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
8. In this case the development plan consists of the Bolton Core Strategy Development Plan
Document (CS-DPD) adopted in March 2011; the Bolton Allocations Plan Document (AP)
adopted in 2014 and the Greater Manchester Minerals and Waste Plan (GMMP) adopted
in 2013. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most relevant
development plan policies include those set out at IR4.2.
9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning
guidance (‘the Guidance’).
10. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the
desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or
their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may
possess.
Emerging plan
11. The emerging plan comprises the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF). The
Secretary of State considers that the emerging policies of most relevance to this case
include STRAT8 which sets out a vision for a Wigan-Bolton Growth Corridor (IR4.3).
However, the GMSF is at an early stage and consultation on a Further Revised Draft of
the Greater Manchester Plan is due to take place summer 2020 (IR4.4).
12. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant
policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan;
(2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the
emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the
Framework. For the reasons given in IR4.3-4.4 the Secretary of State attributes limited
weight to emerging policies.
Main issues
The Ryder Cup
13. The Secretary of State notes that the proposal is predicated on a bid to be the venue for
the Ryder Cup in 2030 or 2034 (IR14.10), with that decision expected to be made summer
2020. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at 14.13 that the development
should only proceed if the Ryder Cup is secured.
14. For the reasons given at IR14.14 to 14.16, he agrees with the Inspector that it is
appropriate to consider the planning application prior to a Ryder Cup contract having been
secured, and that the covenants in the section 106 agreement are binding and would
prevent development commencing until such time as the Ryder Cup was secured in 2030
or 2034.
Socio-economic effects
15. For the reasons given in IR14.17-14.40 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the totality of UK-wide economic and social benefits generated by the proposal will
be substantial with estimates for jobs created and Gross Value Added generated being
1686 jobs and £1.1 billion (GVA) respectively (IR14.36). Aggregated monetarised social
benefits are estimated to amount to over £72m (IR14.38-14.39).
16. For the reasons given in IR14.40-14.53, he further agrees with the Inspector that while in
any location in the UK the benefits would be very significant and would attract very
significant weight, in the context of a local and regional area which lags behind
economically and evidences higher levels of deprivation and economic inactivity, the
economic benefits described take on a greater significance (IR14.51). The Secretary of
State further agrees with the Inspector that the non-monetary benefits associated with the
scheme set out in IR14.52 are benefits which go hand in hand with the monetised socio-
economic benefits.
Housing
17. The Secretary of State notes at IR5.9 that the main parties agree the Council does not
have a 5YHLS and agrees for the reasons given at IR14.90 and that the current housing
supply is between 3.5 and 3.7 years with a current deficit of around 1,300 homes. The
Secretary of State notes that the appeal site is not an allocated housing site (IR14.88).
However, for the reasons given in IR14.95 he agrees with the Inspector that, given
of date, only limited weight should be attributed to the harm caused by the proposal being
contrary to policy OA4 in terms of the location of new housing. For the reasons given in
IR14.87-14.102 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal will
deliver 1036 dwellings (IR14.67) of a type in demand and would be likely to contribute
towards the objective of diversifying the existing housing stock (IR14.93) in an area of
considerable shortfall. Taking into consideration national policy to significantly boost the
supply of housing, the Secretary of State considers this represents a significant benefit
which attracts significant weight.
18. The Secretary of State notes at IR14.56 that CS policy SC1 sets out a requirement of
35% affordable housing on new greenfield housing developments and that a lower
proportion may be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that development
would not be financially viable. For the reasons given in IR14.54-14.77 the Secretary of
State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR14.74 and 14.75 that the scheme
cannot currently afford to bear the costs of affordable housing provision. The Secretary of
State agrees with the Inspector at IR14.77 that the mechanism and triggers for review
offer adequate opportunities to revisit the question of viability and optimise the likelihood
of securing affordable housing.
19. For the reasons given in IR14.78-14.86 the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s preference at IR14.84 of a policy compliant affordable housing tenure split
delivered with a mix of 65% social rented and 35% intermediate housing to comply with
policy expectations and meet the needs of the local population (IR14.83). The Secretary
of State notes that the offer of affordable housing is agreed by the parties to be above
and beyond policy requirements (IR13.6). As such it is not necessary to make the
development acceptable in terms of the policy tests relating to the planning obligation
(IR13.6). Given this, unlike the Inspector, the Secretary of State considers that the initial
offer of 10% provision of affordable housing does not carry any weight as a material
consideration. However, given the Inspector’s findings at IR13.6 and IR14.299, the
Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that provisions relating to any further
provision of affordable housing arising from the Review Mechanism are necessary to
make the development acceptable given that they meet policy requirements, and further
agrees that this should attract limited weight given its uncertainty.
Biodiversity
20. For the reasons given in IR14.103-14.115 the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector at IR14.115 that there would be substantial benefits in relation to the
diversification of the ecological features and habitats on site and further agrees at
IR14.115 that this should be accorded substantial weight.
Highways
21. For the reasons given in IR14.116-14.145 the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector at IR14.144 that the package of measures secured by condition and the s106
agreement would be sufficient to address the additional traffic impact arising as a result
of the proposal, including the holding of the Ryder Cup event, and that the introduction of
the link road would significantly improve the operation of the Chequerbent roundabout
when the proposed development and all committed development is taken into account.
He further agrees at IR14.144 that the benefit delivered by the link road attracts moderate
weight.
Heritage
22. For the reasons given at IR14.146-14.222 the Secretary of State agrees with the
inspector that there would be substantial benefits of the proposal and that there would
also be substantial harm to the parkland character area and the loss of some historic
material (IR14.221). Overall, he agrees with the Inspector at 14.222 that there would
remain some overall harm to the RPG which would be less than substantial harm, not at
the upper end of the spectrum.
23. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given in IR14.227-
14.229 that in this case only one heritage balance is required to be undertaken. He
further agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR14.231 that overall the proposal would
cause less than substantial harm to the heritage assets on the site and he agrees this
harm attracts considerable weight.
24. With regard to the Dovecote, for the reasons given in IR14.223-14.225 the Secretary of
State agrees with the Inspector at IR14.225 that the heritage asset and its significance
would be enhanced. He also agrees with the Inspector at IR14.226 that the listed
buildings at 791-792 Manchester Road would be preserved.
Landscape Character
25. For the reasons given in IR14.241-14.246 the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector at 14.246 that there would be limited harm to the landscape character, most
significantly through loss of land to housing and that the proposal would to some extent
be at odds with policies CG1.1, CG3.2 and CG3.7. Like the Inspector the Secretary of
State at IR14.246 considers this harm attracts moderate weight.
Other matters
26. For the reasons given at 14.247-14.249 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
at IR14.249 that there would be a net benefit to Public Rights of way both in terms of
provision and also in terms of attractiveness and utility, which attracts moderate weight.
27. For the reasons given at IR14.250 to 14.252, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector that a precautionary approach has been taken in terms of the imposition of
conditions requested by the Coal Authority. He further agrees at IR14.253-254 that the
relevant tests in respect of Policy 8 of the Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan have
been passed. He therefore agrees with the Inspector that the proposal is policy
compliant in this respect (IR14.254).
28. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR14.255-259
that the proposal would not cause any material harm to living conditions of existing
residents (IR14.256), that the hotel complex would not undermine the operation of
existing or planned developments in existing town centres and it would not impact upon
the overall vitality and viability of such town centres (IR14.258) and that the local centre
would comply broadly with the objectives of CS policy P2 (IR14.259). He further agrees
for the reasons given at IR14.260 that the financial and other contributions are sufficient
to ameliorate additional demands on local infrastructure generated by new residents.
29. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR14.261-263
contrary to policy CS policy CG1 (IR14.261), and further agrees at IR14.294 that, given
the scale of the loss, this harm attracts limited weight. While there would be some loss of
best and most versatile land, in terms of this application it would be ‘de minimis, and the
Secretary of State agrees with the inspector that this loss carries no weight in the overall
planning balance (IR14.262).
30. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR14.263 that the proposal would
comply with CS policy CG1 and the Framework objectives which seek to reduce flooding
risk.
Green Belt
31. The Secretary of State notes that the entire application site is located within the adopted
Greater Manchester Green Belt (IR14.264). For the reasons given in IR14.267 the
Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that policy CG7AP of the allocations plan
document is out of step with more recent national policy in the Framework. Like the
Inspector he has therefore conducted his Green Belt analysis by applying the principles
set out in the Framework. For the reasons given at IR14.265-270 the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector that the introduction of over 1000 new homes, internal roads
and a local centre and primary school onto the western fields would cause significant
harm to the openness of the Green Belt (IR14.269). He further agrees for the reasons
given in IR14.271-275 that overall the development would result in a substantial erosion
of this part of the Green Belt, and like the Inspector, he attributes substantial weight to
the global harm to openness (IR14.275).
32. For the reasons given in IR14.276-286, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the development would result in substantial urban sprawl (IR14.279) and that the
proposed housing would result in encroachment into the open countryside (IR14.284).
The sprawl would be significant and cause substantial harm to the Green Belt. Due to
the quantum of development on the western fields in particular, the encroachment would
also be significant. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the
development would not offend the Green Belt purpose of preventing neighbouring towns
merging into one another nor is there any harm to the purposes of preserving the setting
and special character of historic towns and assisting in urban regeneration. He does not
accept, for the reasons given at IR 14.287-291, that there would be improved access to
the Green Belt (IR14.288) by the proposal but agrees with the Inspector that the proposal
would result in a modest beneficial use of the Green Belt to which he attributes limited
weight (IR14.291).
Planning conditions
33. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR12.1-
12.12, the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR in Appendix D and the
reasons for them, and to national policy in paragraph 55 of the Framework and the
relevant Guidance. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector
comply with the policy test set out at paragraph 55 of the Framework and that the
conditions set out at Annex A of this letter should form part of his decision.
Planning obligation
34. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR13.1-13.10 the planning obligation
dated 5 November 2019, paragraph 56 of the Framework, the Guidance and the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion for the reasons given in IR13.10, with the
exception of the initial 10% affordable housing provision, that the obligation complies with
Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 56 of the Framework.
Planning balance and overall conclusion
35. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the application is not
in accordance with policies in the Bolton Core Strategy in relation to housing (SC1) and is
also in conflict with Policy OA4 in relation to housing site allocations and conserving and
enhancing the historic environment. Further he considers the proposal is not in
accordance with policies in the Bolton Allocations Plan Document in relation to Green
Belt (CG7AP) and is at odds with CS policies CG1.1, CG3.2 and CG3.7. He considers
the proposal is not in accordance with the development plan overall. He has gone on to
consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal
should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.
36. As Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land
supply paragraph 11(d) of the Framework indicates that planning permission should be
granted unless: (i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or
assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development
proposed; or (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
37. The Secretary of State considers the socio-economic benefits of the proposal carry very
significant weight, the housing benefits carry significant weight, the biodiversity benefits
carry substantial weight, highways and PROW benefits each carry moderate weight and
the benefits to the Grade II listed Dovecote carries limited weight, as does the benefit
arising from the beneficial use of the Green Belt, and the benefit of affordable housing
provision arising from the Review Mechanism.
38. The Secretary of State considers that the harm to the Green Belt carries substantial
weight, the ‘less than substantial’ harm to the heritage assets carries considerable
weight, harm to landscape character carries moderate weight and harm caused by loss of
agricultural land carries limited weight.
39. In accordance with the s.66 duty, the Secretary of State attributes considerable weight to
the harm to Hulton Park RPG and has gone on to consider whether the identified ‘less
than substantial’ harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
40. Overall, the Secretary of State considers that the enormity of the benefits of the appeal
scheme are collectively sufficient to outbalance the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm
to the significance of Hulton Park RPG, and that the proposed project represents the
optimum viable use in accordance with PPG guidance. He considers that the balancing
exercise under paragraph 196 of the Framework is therefore favourable to the proposal.
41. The Secretary of State considers that when the Green Belt and other harms are taken
together, they are clearly outweighed by the benefits and other considerations, and that
the range and magnitude of the socio-economic benefits and the context in which they
would be realised have contributed to this finding. He therefore concludes that very
special circumstances exist in this case and that policies in the Framework relating to
Green Belt land do not provide a clear reason for refusing the development
42. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that there are no policies in the Framework
that protect areas or assets of particular importance that provide a clear reason for
refusing the development proposed. He also concludes that any adverse impacts of
granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
43. Overall the Secretary of State considers that the material considerations in this case
indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. – i.e. a grant of
permission.
44. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that planning permission should be granted.
Formal decision
45. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby grants planning permission subject to the
conditions set out in Annex B of this decision letter for:
• PART A: restoration works to Hulton Park and various existing structures and
heritage assets within it, including the pleasure grounds, dovecote, walled
garden and lakes; and for the development of a golf resort, including: an 18-
hole championship-grade golf course and clubhouse; a golf academy including
driving range, practice course, adventure golf course and academy building
with sports and learning facilities, a golf shop and café; a hotel with adjoining
spa and conference facility; other ancillary buildings, structures and
engineering and landscape works, including a maintenance building, halfway
house, highway accesses, highway underpass, various bridges, boundary
treatments, internal access roads, external lighting, parking areas, and new
and replacement landscaping; the demolition of various existing buildings and
structures; and, where applicable, the re-routing, upgrading and extension of
the Public Rights of Way network; and
• PART B: outline planning permission for the residential development of 56.03
hectares of land providing up to 1,036 dwellings, a local centre, and, where
applicable, the re-routing, upgrading and extension of the Public Rights of Way
network, with all matters reserved except for (in part) highways.
46. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
Right to challenge the decision
47. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an
application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for
leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
48. An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of this
permission for agreement of reserved matters has a statutory right of appeal to the
Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or granted conditionally or
if the Local Planning Authority fail to give notice of their decision within the prescribed
period
49. A copy of this letter has been sent to Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council and Hulton
Estate Area Residents Together (HEART) and notification has been sent to others who
Yours faithfully
Andrew Lynch
Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
Annex A List of conditions
General Conditions applying to all parts of the development
1) The development hereby approved shall not be begun until a phasing scheme
has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. The phasing scheme shall identify the proposed phasing of the
development hereby approved, including the following:
• the Golf Resort development;
• the residential development;
• the phased implementation and opening of the Hulton Trail; and
• the heritage restoration works across the site.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved phasing scheme.
2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
objectives, parameters, works, commitments and other relevant details set
out in the following approved plans and documents:
• Site Location Plan (dated 28:03:17);
• Updated Conservation Plan Volume 2: Conservation Strategy (May
2019), including the provisions for regular monitoring and review;
• Public Right of Way Strategy (Version 4.0, May 2017; 6628-LD-REP-
800);
• Crime Impact Statement (February 2017); and
• Updated Design and Access Statement (Version 8, July 2019).
3) That part of the development hereby approved in full, as defined on drawing
“LUC-6628- LD-PLN-000 Issue E” (hereafter referred to as the “Golf Resort
Development”), shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the
date of this planning permission.
4) No phase of the development hereby approved in outline (hereafter referred to
as the “Residential Development”) the extent of which is defined on drawing
“LUC-6628-LD-PLN-000 Issue E”), shall be begun until details of all of the
reserved matters for that phase (appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and
access (in part)) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority.
Applications for the approval of all reserved matters in respect of the first
phase of the Residential Development shall be submitted no later than three
years from the date of this permission. Applications for the approval of
reserved matters for all other phases of the Residential Development shall be
submitted no later than eighteen years from the date of this permission.
The first phase of the Residential Development shall be begun before the
expiration of five years from the date of this planning permission or two years
of the date of the final reserved matters approval in respect of that phase,
whichever is the later. Each subsequent phase of the Residential Development
shall be begun before expiration of two years from the date of approval of the
last of the reserved matters to be approved in respect of that phase. Each
phase of the Residential Development shall thereafter be implemented in
accordance with the approved reserved matters in respect of that phase.
5) No more than 1,036 dwellings shall be constructed as part of the Residential
Development.
The Hulton Trail & Public Rights of Way
6) No more than 499 dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until the
Public Right of Way infrastructure referred to as the “Hulton Trail”, shown on
drawings “507C 08 to 12 Revision C”, has been completed and opened to the
public. The development of the residential development area referred to in the
“Updated Design and Access Statement” (Version 8, July 2019) as “Park End
Farm” shall not be begun until a specification and route in respect of the part
of the Hulton Trail which is reserved, as identified on approved drawing “507C
12 Revision C”, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The Hulton Trail shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details, including the phasing scheme approved pursuant to
Condition (1).
7) No phase of the Hulton Trail, as referred to in Conditions (1) and (6), shall be
begun until details of the following, in respect of that phase, have been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
i) surfacing materials; and
ii) any appropriate measures to be installed to restrict access by motor
vehicles, in broad accordance with the proposals illustrated on approved
drawing “Hulton Trail Access Restriction Proposals” (reference: 507C 13
Revision A); and
iii) the specification for and design of public art and interpretative material to
be provided along the route of that phase (as defined by the phasing
scheme approved pursuant to Condition 1), in broad accordance with
Section 5.15 of the approved “Updated Design and Access Statement”
(Version 8, July 2019).
Each phase of the Hulton Trail shall thereafter be implemented in full in
accordance with the approved details for that phase prior to its use by
members of the public.
8) The development hereby approved shall not be begun until a scheme to secure
works to the following Public Rights of Way (PRoW) for the purposes of
providing connections to the Hulton Trail has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include the
following:
i) Construction of a 2m-wide rolled stone path where necessary in respect
of PRoW ATH28;
ii) A new footpath connection between PRoW ATH28 and Spa Road;
iii) Construction of a 2m-wide rolled stone path where necessary in respect
of PRoW WES127;
iv) Widening of the footpath at the Greendale Road subway link to 5.5m and
associated landscape improvements;
v) Installation of associated signage along Spa Road;
vi) Associated vegetation clearance, edging and drainage; and
vii) A programme for its implementation and completion prior to the opening
of the Hulton Trail.
All surfacing works shall comprise a non-slip material. The works shall
thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.
Construction management applying to all parts of the development
9) No demolition, ground works, construction works, or restoration works shall
take place outside the following hours: 0800 to 1800 hours on Mondays to
Fridays and 0900 to 1400 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no such work on
Sundays or Public or Bank Holidays.
10) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun until a
Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) in relation to that
phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority. Each CEMP shall be in accordance with the “Outline Construction
Environmental and Management Plan” dated April 2019 and include details of
the following:
• Temporary boundary treatments/hoardings to be erected on all
boundaries and retained throughout the construction period of each
particular phase of development;
• Site access proposals;
• A Traffic Management Plan;
• Construction vehicle parking and workers parking;
• Operatives access;
• Off-street parking provision for the delivery of plant and materials;
• Wheel washing facilities;
• Signage arrangements;
• Hours of construction and deliveries;
• Publicity arrangements and a permanent contact / Traffic Manager
once development works commences to deal with all queries and
authorised by the developer / contractors to act on their behalf;
• Details of the measures to be employed to control and monitor noise
and vibration;
• Construction routes within the site; and
• Compound locations within the site.
Development of that phase shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance
with the approved CEMP for that phase.
11) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun including any
tree felling or excavation works, until details of the methods to be employed to
minimise noise disturbance during construction of that phase have been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Those
details shall include the measures detailed in “Table 13.32: Recommended
Construction Phase Mitigation Measures” of Chapter 13 of the “Environmental
Statement Volume 2: Environmental Assessments” (May 2017). The approved
details shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to the commencement of
any demolition or construction works and shall be retained throughout the
demolition and construction periods.
12) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun until a scheme
for the management of dust or windblown material associated with the
construction of that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the local planning authority. The scheme shall:
• be prepared in broad accordance with the details provided in the
“Updated Outline Construction and Environmental Management Plan”
(April 2019);
• include proposals for dust deposition, dust flux and/or real time PM10
continuous monitoring locations;
• specify that baseline monitoring of dust emissions shall begin at least
three months before the construction of that phase is begun; and
• require that that phase shall not be begun until all monitoring data has
been provided to the local planning authority.
The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to commencement of
any demolition or construction works on that phase of the development and
shall be retained throughout the demolition and construction periods.
Drainage-applying to all parts of development
13) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a scheme
for the management of foul and surface water from that phase has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
details shall be prepared in broad accordance with the following:
i) Drainage Strategy Report dated January 2018;
ii) Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-
DR-CE-00117 Revision F),
iii) Academy Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-ACM-
XX-XX-DR-CE-00108 Revision P3),
iv) Clubhouse Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-
ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE- 00107 Revision P3),
v) Maintenance Building General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-
ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00106 Revision P3) and
vi) Hotel / Car Park Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference:
PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE- 00105 Revision P4).
The submitted details shall include:
• A hydraulic model of the proposed surface water drainage scheme
for that phase;
• A programme for the delivery of the foul and surface water drainage
scheme for that phase; and
• A management and maintenance plan for the foul and surface water
drainage scheme for that phase, including arrangements for either a)
adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker or b)
management and ongoing maintenance by an appropriate
management company.
Each phase of the development shall be constructed in full in accordance with
the approved scheme for that phase, prior to the occupation of any of the
dwellings within that phase.
14) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a scheme
for the provision of Water Framework Directive (WFD) mitigation and
enhancement within that phase has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme(s) shall be prepared in
accordance with the recommendations of the “Preliminary Water Framework
Directive (WFD) Compliance Assessment” (March 2017). Thereafter, the
relevant phase of the development shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved scheme for the phase.
Ground Conditions applying to all parts of the development
15) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until the
following information in respect of that phase has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
i) a preliminary risk assessment to determine the potential for that phase to
ii) prior to any physical site investigation, a methodology for undertaking an
assessment to determine the nature and extent of any contamination
affecting that phase and the potential for off-site migration;
iii) provision of a comprehensive site investigation and risk assessment
examining identified potential pollutant linkages in the approved
“Preliminary Risk Assessment”; and
iv) where necessary a scheme of remediation to remove any unacceptable
risk to human health, buildings and the environment.
Following the approval of the above information by the local planning
authority, each phase of the development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved scheme of remediation (where necessary) for that phase.
The local planning authority shall be notified regarding the presence of any
additional or unforeseen contamination encountered during the development
of any phase as soon as practicably possible and a scheme of remediation to
deal with such unforeseen contamination shall be submitted to, and approved
in writing by the local planning authority, and thereafter implemented in full in
accordance with the approved details.
Upon completion of the approved remediation schemes for each phase, and
prior to the occupation of that phase, a completion report demonstrating that
the scheme of remediation for that phase has been appropriately implemented
and the site for that phase is suitable for its intended end use shall be
submitted to the local planning authority.
Transport- all parts of the development
16) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or operated
until the following off-site highway works have been completed and are open
to traffic:
• Improvements at the A58 Snydale Way / Chequerbent roundabout
junction, as shown and identified as “additional third lane to be
created on approach” at Snydale Way and “lane markings to be
amended” at A6 West on drawing “ITM10187-SK-199 Revision A”;
• Improvements at the A58 Snydale Way / M61 Junction 5 junction, as
shown on drawing “ITM10187-SK-192 Revision C”;
• Improvements at the A6 Manchester Road / Newbrook Road
junction, as shown on drawing “ITM10187-SK-194 Revision D”; and
• Improvements at the A58 Park Road / B5235 Leigh Road junction, as
shown on drawing “ITM10187-SK-193”.
17) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun until details of
the design, construction, specification, lighting and drainage of all internal
access roads within that phase have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling within each phase shall be
occupied until the internal access roads to serve that phase have been
constructed to at least base course level in accordance with the approved
details. The internal access roads for each phase shall thereafter be completed
in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the final
dwelling within that phase.
Landscaping- all parts of the development
18) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a detailed
planting specification in respect of the soft landscaping works to be provided
within that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. Each scheme shall be prepared pursuant to, and in broad
accordance with, the detail identified by the “Indicative Planting Schedule &
Specification” (reference: 6628-LD-SCH-705; dated April 2017) and the
associated drawings; and shall also include details of the programme for
implementing and completing the planting. No phase of the development shall
be occupied unless the soft landscaping works have been completed in
accordance with the approved scheme for that phase.
19) All soft landscape works for each phase of the development hereby approved
shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved pursuant to
Condition (18) for that phase and shall comply with the relevant
recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes
of Good Practice. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after
planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning
authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is
reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally
approved, or with alternative species, size and number as approved in writing
by the local planning authority.
Heritage and Archaeology- all parts of the development
20) The development hereby approved shall not be begun until, a scheme for
investigation of the landscape history of the Registered Park and Garden,
written analysis and interpretation of that history, and timescales for their
publication, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. Development shall thereafter be implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
21) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a Written
Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for undertaking archaeological assessment and
recording work within that phase has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be submitted and
approved in advance of the demolition of any buildings or above ground
structures within that phase.
The archaeological assessment and recording work for each phase shall be
undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of Chapter 9 of the
“Environmental Statement Volume 2: Environmental Assessments” (May
2017), including:
• a programme and methodology of investigation and recording to
include historic building surveys (Historic England Level 1-3), an
archaeological evaluation through trial trenching and geophysics,
and targeted area excavation and/or a watching brief;
• a programme for post-investigation assessment, including analysis of
the site investigation records and finds, production of final reports on
the significance of the archaeological and historic interest, and
deposition of the final reports with the Greater Manchester Historic
Environment Record;
• publication of the results of the archaeological assessment and
recording work; and
• provision for the archive deposition of the results of the
archaeological assessment and recording work, including the final
reports.
Each phase of the development hereby approved shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved WSI for that phase.
B. Conditions relating to the Full Planning Permission ONLY (i.e. the Golf Resort
Development)
22) The Golf Resort Development hereby approved shall be carried out in
accordance with the following approved plans:
• Landscape Masterplan Site Wide (Full Development) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_103 Issue H);
• Demolition Plan (reference: 6628-LD-PLN-010 Issue E);
• Restoration Plan (reference: 6628-LD-PLN-011 Issue A);
• The Dovecote (Grade II Listed): Elevations and Masonry Repairs
(reference: dov/lbc/001);
• The Dovecote (Grade II Listed): Plans & Sections (reference:
dov/lbc/002);
• Golf Grading Overview (reference: 1263.405.01 Revision H);
• Golf Grading 1 of 3 (reference: 1263.405.02 Revision C);
• Golf Grading 2 of 3 (reference: 1263.405.03 Revision B);
• Golf Grading 3 of 3 (reference: 1263.405.04 Revision B);
• Golf Grading Analysis (reference: 1263.415.01 Revision G);
• General Arrangement Overview Plan (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_200 Issue B);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (1 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_201 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (2 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_202 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (3 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_203 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (4 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_204 Revision F);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (5 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_205 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (6 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_206 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (7 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_207 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (8 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_208 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (9 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_209 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (10 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_210 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (11 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_211 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (12 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_212 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (13 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_213 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (14 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_214 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (15 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_215 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (16 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_216 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (17 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_217 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (18 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_218 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (19 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_219 Revision E);
• Detailed Area; Golf and Academy Entrance (reference: LUC-6628-
LD-PLN-231 Issue C);
• External Lighting Layout (reference: 3023-(97)-EX-01 Rev P5);
• Clubhouse Lower Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan
(reference: L(20)24A);
• Clubhouse Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)25A);
• Clubhouse Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)26A);
• Clubhouse General Arrangement Elevations (reference: L(20)32A);
• Clubhouse Section A-A (reference: L(20)15A);
• Clubhouse Views, sheets 1 and 2 (reference: L(20)33A and 34A);
• Academy Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)27A);
• Academy Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)28B);
• Academy General Arrangement Elevations (reference: L(20)29B);
• Academy Sections A-A B-B C-C (reference: L(20)19A);
• Academy views, sheets 1 and 2 (reference: L(20)30C and 31C);
• 9 Hole Adventure Golf & 9 Hole Ryder Cup Course;
• Hotel Views, sheets 1 to 4 (reference: 7433-L(00)141B to 144B);
• Hotel Lower Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)01);
• Hotel Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)02);
• Hotel First Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)03);
• Hotel Second Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)04);
• Hotel Third Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)05);
• Hotel Fourth Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)06);
• Hotel Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)07);
• Hotel General Arrangement Elevations North & South (reference:
L(20)08A);
• Hotel Elevations East & West (reference: L(20)09A);
• Hotel Sections A-A B-B (reference: L(20)10A);
• Maintenance Shed General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)20);
• Maintenance Shed General Arrangement Elevations & Sections
(reference: L(20)21);
• Maintenance Building Views (reference: 7433-L(00)149);
• Halfway House General Arrangement Plans & Elevations (reference:
L(20)22);
• Starters Hut General Arrangement Plans & Elevations (reference:
L(20)23);
• Bridge 1 (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.001-1D);
• Bridge A (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.004-1D);
• Bridge B (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.005-0D);
• Bridge C (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.006-1D);
• Underpass North & South Ramps (reference: PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-
CE-00115 Revision P3);
• Detailed Area; Hotel and Pleasure Grounds, drawings 1 to 4
(reference: LUC-6628-LD-PLN-225 to 228 Issue C);
• Detailed Area; Clubhouse (reference: LUC-6628-LD-PLN-229 Issue
F);
• Detailed Area; Golf Academy (reference: LUC-6628-LD-PLN-230
Issue F); and
• Proposed Clubhouse, Hotel and Academy Accesses from A6
Manchester Road (reference: ITM10187–SK–197 Rev B).
23) Notwithstanding the approved plans, the Golf Resort Development hereby
approved shall not be begun until details of the following have been submitted
to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
• all materials to be used on all external elevations;
• all materials to be used in respect of hard landscaping works,
including boundary treatments and surfacing materials;
• any materials to be imported to the site for the purpose of
constructing the golf course;
• the colour of the materials to be used to surface buggy paths;
• the location, scale and appearance of direction signs, tee markers,
hole flags and other golf course furniture required for the operation
of the golf resort;
• a detailed scheme in respect of the golf buggy underpass, to be
prepared in broad accordance with the “Illustrative Golf Buggy
Underpass Sections” (reference: PSAM-ACM-XX-XX- DR-CE-00002
Revision P3); and
• details of the existing and proposed site levels and finished floor
levels of the buildings and the level of the proposed roads, footpaths
and other landscaped areas relative to above ordnance datum
points, the location of which has previously been approved by the
local planning authority.
The Golf Resort Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
24) The adventure golf course hereby approved as shown on drawing “9 Hole
Adventure Golf & 9 Hole Ryder Cup Course”, shall not be begun until details of
its layout, appearance, scale and landscaping have been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The adventure golf course
shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details
prior to its first use.
Heritage-Golf Resort only
25) The Golf Resort Development hereby approved shall not be begun until a
detailed specification for the restoration of historic structures and features
identified within the Historic Structures: Condition/Repair Issues Report
(March 2017) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The specification shall be prepared in accordance with the
Historic Structures: Condition/Repair Issues Report (March 2017) and shall
include:
i) a detailed condition survey of all historic structures and features identified
in that report, including all lakes, streams, dams and cascades;
ii) a schedule of restoration works for each structure and feature;
iv) a programme for the implementation of the proposed restoration works
for each structure and feature.
The Golf Resort Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with
the approved specification and in accordance with the approved timescales.
26) Prior to the de-silting of the Ornamental Lakes hereby approved, a Lake
Desilting and Restoration Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority. This shall be based on the Outline Lake De-
Silting Feasibility Study and Strategy (January 2018), and shall include:
i) a programme for implementation;
ii) a method statement for protection of fish species;
iii) a water and materials management plan; and
iv) details of the proposed haul routes, which shall be via the existing
driveway from Newbrook Road in respect of the works at the Back O’ th’
Lawn Lake and via the construction route for the 13th golf hole in respect
of the works at the Mill Dam Lake as defined by drawings PSAM-ACM-XX-
XX-DR-CE-0031 and PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-0032 , unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
The de-silting works shall be completed in accordance with the approved Lake
Desilting and Restoration Plan prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort
Development hereby approved.
27) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development hereby approved, a
programme of public access events in the Registered Park and Garden shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
programme shall identify the frequency, timings and other organisational
details of such events, and shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with
the approved details. As a minimum the programme shall provide for at least
50 such events per annum for the lifetime of the development, including:
i) guided walks along and through the historic drive, the pleasure grounds
and the Mill Dam Lake and stream;
ii) heritage open days and/or visits/tours around the Registered Park and
Garden;
iii) talks/presentations/lectures about the history and/or heritage value of
the Registered Park and Garden;
iv) nature and ecology tours of the Registered Park and Garden; and/or
v) visits to the Registered Park and Garden by schools and other local
organisations.
28) Prior to operation or occupation of each phase of the development within the
Registered Park and Garden, the specification for and design of interpretative
signage and other material to be provided in that phase shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved scheme
for each phase shall be completed prior to first operation or first occupation of
that phase.
29) Prior to the demolition of Hulton Cottage, details of the relocation of the blue
heritage plaque presently mounted on Hulton Cottage shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The details shall
include a programme for relocation of the plaque. The blue heritage plaque
shall be displayed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter
permanently retained in that position.
Ecology and Landscaping-Golf resort only
30) Prior to the operation of the Golf Resort Development hereby approved, the
detailed design of 5(no.) ‘bat hotels’ shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The bat hotels shall thereafter be
installed in the locations identified on drawing G6471.06.001 (within Appendix
H of the Bat Management Strategy within the Updated Interim Landscape and
Habitat Management Plan (April 2019)) prior to the operation of the Golf
Resort Development.
31) Prior to the demolition of any of the buildings at Home Farm, a barn owl
method statement in respect of each of those buildings shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The method
statement shall be prepared in broad accordance with the details provided in
Appendix G Barn Owl Management Strategy of the Updated Interim Landscape
and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019). The demolition works shall
thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved method statement.
32) Prior to the construction of the Clubhouse hereby approved, a planting
specification and maintenance plan for the areas of green roof shown on the
Clubhouse Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)26A) shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
planting specification should include a wildflower species mix. The green roof
shall be installed prior to the first use of the Clubhouse in accordance with the
approved details. Thereafter it shall be maintained in accordance with the
approved maintenance plan.
33) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the Golf Resort
Development shall not be begun until a scheme for the soft landscaping works
adjacent to the proposed 13th hole and fairway, including the proposed bridge
crossing over the Mill Dam Stream has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be prepared
pursuant to, and in broad accordance with, the detail illustrated by the
drawing “General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (15 of 19)” (reference: LUC-
6628-LD_PLN_215 Issue E) and labelled “HOLE 13 REFINEMENT:
ILLUSTRATIVE LAYOUT SHOWING REDUCED AREA OF EXISTING WOODLAND
REMOVAL & INCREASED AREA OF PROPOSED WOODLAND”. The Golf Resort
Development shall not be open to the public until the approved scheme has
been carried out and completed in full.
Highways and access-Golf Resort only
34) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no passing places
shall be provided along the historic driveway running within the site between
Newbrook Road and the hotel complex, such that its maximum width along its
whole length does not exceed 3m (excluding the adjacent grasscrete surface
or similar shown on the approved plans). Prior to the first operation of the
hotel complex within the Golf Resort Development, a scheme for traffic control
measures, including appropriate signage, which imposes a one-way traffic
system along the historic driveway, shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in
full, in accordance with the approved details prior to the first operation of the
hotel complex within the Golf Resort Development and permanently retained
thereafter.
35) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development, a Travel Plan for
by, the local planning authority. The Travel Plan should be consistent with the
objectives, targets, governance arrangements and monitoring schedule set out
in the Updated Golf Resort Travel Plan (April 2019). The Golf Resort
Development shall be operated at all times in accordance with the approved
Travel Plan.
Environmental Health-Golf Resort Development only
36) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development, a Noise
Management Plan (NMP) containing details of the methods to be employed to
prevent noise disturbance during the operating hours of the Golf Resort
Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first
operation of the Golf Resort Development and shall thereafter be operated in
accordance with the approved NMP.
37) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development, a scheme for the
provision of electric vehicle charging points within the Golf Resort
Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be prepared in accordance with the
Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance and comprise the
provision of one charging point per 1,000sqm of floorspace. The charging
points shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the
first operation of the Golf Resort Development and permanently maintained
thereafter.
38) Prior to the first operation of the clubhouse, academy building, and hotel
complex within the Golf Resort Development, a scheme for the installation of
equipment to control the emission of fumes and smells/odours from the
respective buildings shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the
local planning authority. No building shall be occupied until the equipment to
control the emission of fumes and smells/odours in that building, has been
installed in accordance with the approved scheme. The equipment shall
thereafter be operated and maintained at all times in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions.
39) Prior to the installation of any external lighting within the Golf Resort
Development, a scheme for that external lighting shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
prepared in broad accordance with the details and parameters provided in the
Updated Lighting Impact Assessment (April 2019) and illustrated on drawing
3023-(97)-EX-01 Rev P5.
The submitted scheme shall include details regarding the protection of key
features of importance for barn owls and bats as identified in Appendix G Barn
Own Management Strategy and Appendix H Bat Management Strategy of the
Updated Interim Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019). With
the exception of temporary external lighting installed for the purposes of
staging a golf tournament pursuant to Condition (47), the external lighting
shall:
i) be designed to an illumination value of 5 lux at the nearest residential
property; and
ii) achieve a beam angle below 70 degrees and be fitted with spill shields
where it is directed towards any potential observer.
With the exception of temporary external lighting installed for the purposes of
staging a golf tournament pursuant to Condition (48), no external lighting
within the Golf Resort Development shall be provided otherwise than in
accordance with the approved scheme.
40) The operational hours of the Golf Resort Development shall be limited as
follows:
The Academy
i) The Academy shall only be open to patrons between 0600 hours and
2200 hours daily.
ii) External lighting used for the operation of the driving range shall be not
be switched on between 2200 hours and 0600 hours daily.
iii) Grass cutting at the Academy site shall only take place between the hours
of 0800 hours to 2000 hours daily.
iv) Between the 2200 hours and 0100 hours daily any ball collector used
must not exceed background noise levels when such levels are measured
at the boundaries of the site.
v) No deliveries shall be taken at, or despatched from, the Academy building
other than between 0700 hours and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday, and
not at any time on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.
The Golf Course
vi) The Golf Course shall only be open to patrons between 0600hours and
2200 hours daily.
vii) Maintenance of the Golf Course shall only be undertaken between 0500
hours to 2330 hours daily, with the exception of mowing of the 5th
fairway which shall only take place between 0800 hours and 2000 hours
daily and mowing of the 10th fairway which shall only take place between
the hours of 0600 to 2300 daily.
The Clubhouse
viii) The Clubhouse shall only be open to patrons between 0600 hours and
2300 hours daily, except during the staging of a golf tournament.
ix) Use of the rooftop terrace of the Clubhouse shall only take place between
the hours 0800 to 2200 at all times.
41) The noise rating level (LAeqT), as determined by the methodology given in
BS4142:2014 Methods for Rating and Assessing Industrial and Commercial
Sound, from all sources associated with the Golf Resort Development covered
under the scope of BS4142:2014, when operating simultaneously or
individually, shall not exceed the background sound levels (LA90) that are
specified in the Environmental Statement (May 2017), Chapter 13, Table
13.21 (daytime) and Table 13.22 (night time), when assessed 4metres from
the boundary of any noise sensitive receptor covered under the scope of
BS4142:2014.
42) The Academy hereby approved, shall not be brought into use until a 1.8
metre-high, close-boarded acoustic fence has been erected in the location
identified by drawing LUC-6628-LD-PLN- 230 Revision F. The fence shall be
retained thereafter and shall be erected in accordance with details which have
been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
43) Grass cutting of the Golf Academy site and at the 5th hole of the golf course
shall be restricted at all times to the use of lower powered grass-cutting
machinery with a sound level of 101dB or lower.
Ground Conditions (Coal Authority)- Golf Resort Only
44) The Golf Resort Development hereby approved, shall not be begun until the
following information in respect of the Golf Resort Development has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
i) a scheme of intrusive site investigations of the relevant land for the mine
entries and shallow coal workings, including gas monitoring;
ii) a report of findings of the intrusive site investigations undertaken
pursuant to (i) above;
iii) a scheme of treatment and/or mitigation measures/remedial works for
the mine entries and/or shallow coal workings, including a programme for
the implementation and maintenance of those works.
The Golf Resort Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
Sustainability-Golf Resort Only
45) The Golf Resort Development shall achieve the Golf Environmental
Organisation (GEO) Certified® Development ‘Sustainable Golf’ accreditation.
The Golf Resort Development shall not be begun until a GEO Certified® pre-
construction report setting out the means by which the Golf Resort
Development will be implemented in order to secure the accreditation shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
Within six months of the completion of the Golf Resort Development, a GEO
Certified® completion report identifying the extent to which the Golf Resort
Development has been undertaken in accordance with the approved pre-
construction report and certifying that the Golf Resort Development has
achieved the GEO Certified® Development ‘Sustainable Golf’ accreditation
shall be submitted to the local planning authority.
46) The Clubhouse, Academy building and Hotel complex within the Golf Resort
Development shall achieve a ‘very good’ Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating under BREEAM
Communities 2012. The Golf Resort Development shall not be begun until an
Interim Certification of the stipulated BREEAM rating of the Clubhouse,
Academy Building and Hotel complex has been submitted to the local planning
authority. Within six months of the completion of the Clubhouse, Academy
Building and Hotel complex, a Final Certificate certifying that that those
buildings have achieved the stipulated BREEAM rating shall be submitted to
the local planning authority.
Tournament Staging-Golf Resort Only
47) No temporary facilities associated with any golf tournament to be held at the
Golf Resort Development shall be erected or installed until details of their
scale, landscaping, access, appearance and layout, and details of any
associated works relating to their installation including the removal of such
facilities and restoration of the land upon which the temporary facilities are to
be erected, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The temporary facilities shall be erected and installed in
accordance with the approved details and in accordance with an approved
timetable which shall include a timetable for removal of all temporary
structures and facilities and any reinstatement provisions.
48) Prior to staging any golf tournament at the site, an Event and Travel
Management Plan (ETMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the local planning authority. The ETMP shall be prepared in accordance with
the principles set out in the Updated Interim Event and Travel Management
Plan (April 2019) and shall include:
i) measures relating to the management of impacts on ecology, which shall
include details concerning the protection of bluebells following the
completion of a bluebell survey to be undertaken in the month of May
preceding the relevant tournament and in line with the details provided in
Appendix B Bluebell Management Strategy of the Updated Interim
Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019); and
ii) a strategy for the installation of temporary external lighting, which shall
include details concerning a) the protection of features of importance for
bats as identified in Appendix H Bat Management Strategy of the Updated
Interim Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019), and b) a
programme for the removal of the temporary lighting after its installation.
No golf tournament shall be held otherwise than in accordance with the
approved ETMP.
Waste Management-Golf Resort Only
49) Prior to the Golf Resort Development first being brought into use, a scheme
which details the design, location and size of facilities to store refuse and
waste materials for the Clubhouse, Academy Building, maintenance building
and Hotel complex shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to
the first operation of the Golf Resort Development and permanently retained
thereafter.
C. Conditions relating to the Outline Planning Permission (i.e. the Residential
Development)
50) The Residential Development hereby approved shall be implemented in
accordance with the following approved plans:
• Parameters Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500 U);
• Demolition Plan (reference: 6628-LD-PLN-010 Issue E);
• Residential Design Code Character Area 5: Park End Farm (January
2018);
• Residential Design Code Character Area 6: Dearden's Park (January
2018);
• Proposed Residential Access to Dearden’s Farm Parcel from A6
Manchester Road (reference: ITM10187–SK–145 Rev D);
• Proposed First Phase Residential Access to Western Fields from A6
Manchester Road (reference: ITM10187–SK–146 Rev D);
• Proposed Residential Access from Broadway (reference: ITM10187–
SK–191 Rev C); and
• Proposed Residential Access from Woodlands Drive (reference:
ITM10187–SK–208 Rev A).
51) Prior to the commencement of each phase of the Residential Development,
details of the existing and proposed levels of the buildings, roads, footpaths
and other landscaped areas throughout the phase and finished floor levels of
all dwellings on that phase (defined relative to a datum or datum points the
location of which has previously been approved) shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Each phase of the
Residential Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details for that phase.
52) Reserved matters submission/s in relation to appearance for each phase of the
Residential Development shall include details of all boundary treatments to be
carried out on all the perimeter boundaries on that phase and details of any
boundary enclosures to be erected or grown within that phase. The approved
details of perimeter boundary treatment shall thereafter be carried out and
completed within each phase of development prior to any dwelling within that
phase being first occupied and the boundary treatment relating to individual
plots shall be carried out and completed on each respective plot prior to its
first occupation.
53) The reserved matters layout submission in relation to each phase of the
Residential Development shall include a scheme and programme for
implementation for the provision of the open space and children’s play
facilities within and/or for that phase which shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall specify
scale, type and design of the open space and children’s play facilities to be
provided within and/or for that phase. No dwelling within each phase of the
Residential Development shall be occupied until the open space and children's
play facilities have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme
for that phase.
54) Prior to the commencement of each phase of the Residential Development, a
detailed crime prevention scheme for that phase shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
prepared in broad accordance with the details and parameters provided in the
Crime Impact Statement (February 2017). Each phase of the Residential
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for
that phase.
Local Centre-Residential Development Only
55) The maximum floorspace of the Local Centre as defined on the Parameters
Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500 U) shall not exceed 1,382 square metres
(gross).
The Local Centre shall not comprise uses outside of the following Use Classes,
as defined by The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as
amended): A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and/or D1.
No individual unit for A1 uses within the Local Centre shall exceed 500 square
metres (gross).
Premises and units within the Local Centre shall only be open to customers
between the following hours: 0700 to midnight daily.
The Local Centre shall not be first occupied unless and until its associated car
parking has been constructed, drained, surfaced and is available for use in
accordance with details which shall be first submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and the car parking spaces shall
thereafter be retained for the purposes of car parking at all times in the
future.
Environmental Health-Residential Development Only
56) Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling within each phase of the
Residential Development, a scheme for the provision of electric vehicle
charging points within that phase shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be prepared in
accordance with Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) Guidance and
comprise the delivery of one charging point per dwelling, with dedicated
parking or one charging point per 10 car parking spaces where there is not
allocated parking. No dwelling shall be occupied until the charging point(s) to
serve that dwelling has/have been provided and commissioned in accordance
with the approved scheme for that phase. The charging points shall be
permanently retained and maintained in full working order thereafter.
57) The reserved matters details submitted in respect of each phase of the
Residential Development shall be accompanied by:
• A noise impact assessment for that phase. No dwellings within that
phase shall be occupied until any recommended noise attenuation
measures to be incorporated into that phase have been completed in
accordance with the approved details, which shall be retained
thereafter; and
• A detailed external lighting plan for that phase. The plan shall be
prepared in broad accordance with the details and parameters
provided in the Updated Lighting Impact Assessment (April 2019)
and illustrated on approved drawing 3023-(97)-EX-01 Rev P5. The
external lighting plan shall include details regarding the protection of
key features of importance for barn owls and bats as identified in
Appendix G Barn Own Management Strategy and Appendix H Bat
Management Strategy of the Updated Interim Landscape and Habitat
Management Plan (April 2019).
No dwelling within each phase of the Residential Development shall be
occupied until any recommended noise attenuation measures in the approved
noise impact assessment for that phase have been completed. Such measures
shall be retained permanently thereafter.
Each phase of the Residential Development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved lighting plan for that phase and there shall be no additional
external lighting on the public areas without the prior written consent of the
local planning authority.
58) Prior to commencement of construction of any residential properties that are
proposed to contain basements, the results of a further assessment of
groundwater assessment, including identification of any necessary measures
required to prevent the flooding of the basements of those residential
properties, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
Ground Conditions-Residential Development Only
59) Prior to the commencement of any phase of the Residential Development
hereby approved, the following information in respect of that phase of the
Residential Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the local planning authority:
i) A scheme of intrusive site investigations of the relevant land for mine
entries and shallow coal workings, including gas monitoring;
ii) A report of findings of the intrusive site investigations undertaken
pursuant to (i) above.
The reserved matters layout submission in relation to each phase of the
Residential Development shall include:
iii) A drawing which identifies appropriate zones of influence for the mine
entries on the relevant land and the definition of any necessary ‘no build’
zones;
iv) A scheme of treatment and/or mitigation measures/remedial works for
the mine entries and/or shallow coal workings, including a programme for
the implementation and maintenance of those works.
Each phase of the Residential Development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details for that phase.
Drainage-Residential Development Only
60) No demolition or constructions works shall take place within the Residential
Development until a scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority for the following:
i) the provision and management of a minimum 8 metres wide undeveloped
buffer zone along the whole length of Chanters Brook;
ii) the protection of all existing local wildlife sites running along river
corridors; and
iii) a 4-metre buffer along the unnamed western tributary.
The buffer zone scheme shall be free from all built development including
lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping. The scheme shall include:
• plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone along all
waterbodies bisecting the site;
• details showing how riparian local wildlife sites will be protected and
integrated in new scheme design;
• details of any new soft landscaping including a planting schedule based
on native species;
• details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during
development, and managed and maintained;
• details of new drainage scheme associated with the development within
the buffer zone and/or tying in with the retained stream corridor;
• details of any proposed footpaths, fencing and/or lighting within the
buffer zone; and
• details of any interlinking and/or retained ponds.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme.
Highways and Transport- Residential Development Only
61) Prior to the occupation of the 276th dwelling hereby approved, the
westernmost highway access to the area of the Residential Development
referred to on the Updated Design and Access Statement (July 2019) as
Western Fields shall be constructed and open to traffic in accordance with the
relevant details submitted and approved pursuant to Condition (4).
62) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling in each phase of the Residential
Development, a Travel Plan for that phase shall be submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority. The Travel Plan should be consistent
with the objectives, targets, governance arrangements and monitoring
schedule set out in the Updated Residential Travel Plan (April 2019). Each
phase of the Residential Development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved Travel Plan for that phase.
63) No dwelling shall be first occupied unless and until its associated car parking
has been constructed, drained, surfaced and is available for use in accordance
with details which shall be first submitted to, and approved in writing by, the
Local Planning Authority. The car parking spaces associated with each dwelling
shall thereafter be retained for the purposes of car parking at all times in the
future.
64) No development within the areas of the Residential Development referred to
on the approved drawings as “Dearden’s Farm” and “Park End Farm” shall be
occupied until a scheme for the provision of a Zebra or signalised Puffin /
Pelican crossing across Newbrook Road has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority and it has been implemented in
accordance with the approved details. The crossing shall be located on
Newbrook Road between the junctions of Low Green and Green Hall Close, and
it shall facilitate a pedestrian link between Public Rights of Way PFWES126a
and PF16.
Landscaping- Residential Development Only
65) The Residential Development hereby approved shall cumulatively provide new
landscape planting equivalent to:
• 2,600 no. specimen trees and 7,253sqm of woodland, in accordance
with the minimum requirements and specification set out in the
Arboricultural Impact Assessment (December 2017) and as shown
on the Parameters Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500 U); and
• 4,150m of hedgerows, in accordance with the minimum
requirements and detail illustrated on the drawing Hedges Created,
Lost and Retained (reference: G5136.069) and as shown on the
Parameters Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500 U).
A plan for the phased implementation of this new landscape planting across
the Residential Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority alongside the first reserved matters application
for the Residential Development. The landscape planting shall thereafter be
implemented in accordance with the approved phasing plan.
END OF CONDITIONS
Report to the Secretary of State for
Housing, Communities and Local
Government
by Karen L Ridge LLB (Hons) MTPl Solicitor
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date: 4 May 2020
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
Application by
Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Limited
Made to
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Inquiry Held on 1-3, 8-11, and 15-16 October 2019
Land at, and adjacent to, Hulton Park, Manchester Road, Over Hulton, Bolton BL5 1BH
File Ref: APP/N4205/V/18/3208426
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CONTENTS PAGE
1 Background and Procedural Matters 2
2 The Site and its Surroundings 6
3 The Proposal and Planning History 7
4 Planning Policy 9
5 Matters Agreed Between the Council and Applicant 10
6 Matters Agreed/Disputed Between the Applicant and HEART 13
7 The Case for the Applicant 14
8 The Case for the Council 3 8
9 The Case for HEART 51
10 Oral Representations 67
11 Written Representations 69
12 Planning Conditions 70
13 Planning Obligations 71
14 Inspector’s Conclusions 74
15 Recommendation 134
APPENDICES PAGE
Appendix A List of Appearances 135
Appendix B Core Documents 138
Appendix C Documents Submitted During the Inquiry 168
Appendix D Recommended Conditions Should Permission be Granted 170
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 2
ABBREVIATIONS
AP Allocations Plan
CD Core Document
CIL Community Infrastructure Levy
Cllr Councillor
CMP Conservation Management Plan
CS Core Strategy
CS-DPD Core Strategy- Development Plan Document
EA Environment Agency
EH English Heritage
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ES Environmental Statement
GDV Gross Development Value
GM Greater Manchester
GMCA Greater Manchester Combined Authorities
GMEU Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
GMMP Greater Manchester Minerals Plan
GMSF Greater Manchester Strategic Framework
GVA Gross Value Added
HE Historic England
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
HIF Housing Infrastructure Fund
HNA Housing Needs Assessment
HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment
IETMP Interim Event Transport Management Plan
ILHMP Interim Landscape and Habitat Management Plan
IMD Indices of Multiple Deprivation
LHMP Landscape and Habitat Management Plan
LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
OVU Optimum Viable Use
PPG Planning Practice Guidance
PRoW Public Right of Way
RPG Registered Park and Garden
SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment
SSBI Site of Special Biological Interest
SoCG Statement of Common Ground
SPD Supplementary Planning Document
TA Transport Assessment
5YHLS
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 3
File Ref: APP/N4205/V/18/3208426
Land at, and adjacent to, Hulton Park, Manchester Road, Over Hulton, Bolton
BL5 1BH
• The application was called in for decision by the Secretary of State by a direction, made
under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 31 July 2018.
• The application is made by Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Limited to Bolton
Metropolitan Borough Council.
• The application Ref. 00997/17 is dated 19 May 2017.
• The development proposed is a hybrid planning application comprising:
• PART A: a full planning application for restoration works to Hulton Park and
various existing structures and heritage assets within it, including the pleasure
grounds, dovecote, walled garden and lakes; and for the development of a golf resort,
including: an 18-hole championship-grade golf course and clubhouse; a golf academy
including driving range, practice course, adventure golf course and academy building
with sports and learning facilities, a golf shop and café; a hotel with adjoining spa and
conference facility; other ancillary buildings, structures and engineering and
landscape works, including a maintenance building, halfway house, highway accesses,
highway underpass, various bridges, boundary treatments, internal access roads,
external lighting, parking areas, and new and replacement landscaping; the
demolition of various existing buildings and structures; and, where applicable, the re-
routing, upgrading and extension of the Public Rights of Way network; and
• PART B: an outline application for the residential development of 56.03
hectares of land providing up to 1,036 dwellings, a local centre, and, where
applicable, the re-routing, upgrading and extension of the Public Rights of Way
network, with all matters reserved except for (in part) highways.
• Listed building consent application for the restoration of a Grade II Listed
Dovecote.
• The reason given for making the direction was that, having regard to policy relating to the
power to call-in planning applications, the Secretary of State concluded on the facts of this
case that it was appropriate to do so.
• On the information available at the time of making the direction, the following were the
matters on which the Secretary of State particularly wished to be informed for the
purpose of his consideration of the application: the consistency of the proposal with the
development plan; its consistency with policies in the National Planning Policy Framework,
in particular those relating to the protection of Green Belt land; the extent to which the
proposals are consistent with national planning policy for the delivery of a sufficient supply
of homes, including affordable housing; and any other matters the Inspector considers
relevant.
Summary of Recommendation: That planning permission for the
development is granted subject to the conditions outlined and with the
benefit of the obligations in the section 106 agreement.
`
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 1
Background and Procedural Matters
Throughout this Report, core documents (listed at Appendix B) are referred to
with the prefix ‘CD’ followed by the relevant number. Documents handed up
during the Inquiry (listed at Appendix C) are prefaced with ‘Inquiry Document’
followed by the relevant number.
1.1 A pre-inquiry meeting was held to discuss administrative and procedural
arrangements on the 11 June 2019. The Inquiry sat for 9 days, on 1-3, 8-11,
and 15-16 October 2019. To accommodate the high level of public interest, two
public sessions were held on 2 October 2019 and 10 October 2019. The Inquiry
was closed in writing on 13 November 2019 following receipt of the executed
section 106 agreement.
1.2 I undertook accompanied site visits on 30 September, 4 October and 5
November 2019. I also undertook a series of unaccompanied visits both during
and after the Inquiry, to walk the public rights of way network and to inspect
the site and its wider surroundings, as well as nearby settlements. I also drove
around the highway network at times suggested by third parties. In addition,
as requested by the Applicant, I undertook a site visit to the Celtic Manor golf
course on 18 November 2019.
1.3 The description of development in the box header on page 1 is taken from the
Application Form. This form refers to ‘Listed building consent application for the
restoration of a Grade II Listed Dovecote’. However, there is a separate
application1 for Listed Building Consent before the Council which is not subject
to the call-in procedure and which the Council intend to determine pending the
outcome of this application. I shall proceed on this basis and I shall use an
appropriately amended description of development, removing this reference.
1.4 The Council considered the proposal at a committee meeting on 22 March 2018.
In accordance with the recommendation of professional Officers2, the committee
resolved3 to approve the application subject to conditions and the completion of
a section 106 agreement and referral to the Secretary of State. Following
referral to the Secretary of State, under the Town and Country Planning
(Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the planning application was called in
for determination by the Secretary of State for the reasons set out in his letter
of 31 July 2018.
1.5 In light of its resolution to grant planning permission for the development,
Bolton Council appeared at the Inquiry in support of the Applicant. A local
action group, Hulton Estate Area Residents Together (referred to as ‘HEART’)
applied for, and was granted, Rule 6 party status4 and duly appeared at the
Inquiry. HEART is an unincorporated association5 formed to object to this
proposal. It has over 800 signed-up members, as well as some 2,000
subscribers/followers to its social media accounts6. The group fundraised
1 LPA Reference 00998/17- see Principal SoCG at CD 13.8
2 Report to Planning Committee at CD 03.1
3 CD 03.3
4 Rule 6(6) The Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure)(England) Rules 2000.
5 Its constitution is at Appendix 1 of the Proof of Evidence of Mr Paul Haworth
6 Mr Haworth PoE ¶2.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 2
monies to pay for two professional witnesses and legal representation at the
Inquiry.
1.6 HEART opposes the grant of planning permission on the grounds that it would
cause substantial harm to the Green Belt and thereby conflict with development
plan and national policies in relation to Green Belt, landscape, countryside,
agricultural land and the natural environment. HEART further contends that the
proposal would result in the substantial loss of the majority of the grade II listed
Registered Park and Garden (RPG) and harm to the woodland and trees within
it, as well as the total loss of large parts of the setting of the RPG7.
1.7 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement8 (ES) and an
Addendum9, which was added to, with further environmental information,
throughout the course of the application under the provisions of Regulation
22(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2011 (as amended)10.
1.8 The application determined by the Council was predicated on a bid for the Ryder
Cup in 2026. The call-in of the application has inevitably resulted in some delay
in the final determination of the application, with a consequential delay to the
anticipated timetable for delivery of the proposal. This in turn rendered it
unlikely that the relevant elements of the development could be delivered in
time to host the 2026 Ryder Cup, were the bid to have been successful. In the
intervening period Adare Manor in Ireland has been announced as the host
venue for the 2026 competition. In recognition of this the Applicant has been in
discussions to host the competition in either 2030 or 2034 and the application
now proceeds on the basis that these alternative dates are considered instead
of the 2026 Ryder Cup11.
1.9 The ES was assessed on the assumption of a 2026 Ryder Cup tournament.
Following the call-in, the Applicant updated the technical assessment work
underpinning the ES to cater for a proposal where the Ryder Cup is hosted in
2030 or 2034. This work is contained within the Supplemental ES12 which was
submitted to the Council on 8 May 2019 and was subject to public consultation
thereafter. It does not report any material changes to the likely significant
effects which have already been assessed in relation to the 2026 scenario.
1.10 On 16 May 2017, the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) came into force.
Regulation 76 includes transitional arrangements for qualifying applications and
appeals. Since the request for a scoping opinion was made, (and the scoping
opinion provided), prior to the commencement of the 2017 Regulations, this
application meets the requirements of the transitional arrangements and the
EIA Regulations 2011 continue to apply in this instance.
7 Statement of Case of HEART at CD 13.5
8 CD 05b
9 CD 06c
10 Addendum
11 ¶2.15 Proof of Evidence of Mr Stephen Bell
12 CD 07b
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 3
1.11 Having regard to all of the above I am satisfied that the ES, together with the
Addendum and Supplemental ES and all other additional information, complies
with the above Regulations. I further consider that sufficient information has
been provided to enable a proper assessment of the environmental impact of
the proposal. The revised scenarios do not represent material amendments
which would offend Wheatcroft principles, given that they are moving the same
quantum of development forward in time and the likely significant effects are
not materially different.
1.12 Troy Planning and Design, acting on behalf of the Over Hulton Neighbourhood
Forum, raised concerns about a lack of consultation by the Council on
amendments to the ES to cater for the 2030 and 2034 Ryder Cup scenarios. It
is evident that the Forum were fully aware of the application and have had
opportunity to comment on the application during the process. They have been
represented by professional advisors who have spoken at each of the two public
sessions. I am satisfied that third parties have not been disadvantaged in
terms of their ability to comment on the proposal.
1.13 Following the committee resolution, the plans before the Council and the Design
and Access Statement were discovered to contain an inconsistency in that the
height of the proposed hotel building is depicted as being 1.5 metres taller than
was proposed. The ES had used the erroneous measurements as the basis for
assessment. When the error became known the Applicant updated the plans
which were made publicly available on the Council’s website. The updated plans
were available at the Inquiry. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to substitute
the corrected plans, the amendments are not material and would make no
material difference to the ES assessment in any event. I shall proceed to
assess the proposal on the basis of these updated plans.
1.14 Several Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) were provided to the Inquiry.
These include the Principal SoCG13, Housing SoCG14, Historic Landscape SoCG15,
Ecology SoCG16, Highways and Transport SoCG17, SoCG on Viability18 and a final
supplementary SoCG on Housing Issues19. I shall return to these in sections [5]
and [6] of this Report.
1.15 A draft planning obligation20was submitted at the outset of the Inquiry and was
the subject of discussions. A further draft was submitted during the
Inquiry21and a final executed agreement was submitted, as agreed, shortly after
the end of the oral sessions. Thereafter the Inquiry was closed in writing.
1.16 The final executed agreement22 under section 106 of the Act (the s106
agreement) was made between the Applicant, the landowners and the Council.
13 CD 13.8
14 CD 13.9
15 CD 13.10
16 CD 13.11
17 CD 13.12
18 CD 13.15
19 CD 13.17
20 CD 13.13
21 CD 22 and CD23
22 CD 64
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 4
It contains a covenant not to undertake development unless there has been a
successful Ryder cup bid and the site is secured as a venue. There are
covenants to provide a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) for
each phase of development; covenants to either pay a highways’ works
contribution or to undertake highways works if the Council so elects.
1.17 The agreement also contains covenants to establish a Public Transport Steering
Group and submit a Public Transport Strategy; to pay a series of financial
contributions towards Primary School education and Secondary School
education provision upon each phase and in tranches as well as a promise to
transfer land to the Council for the purposes of a new primary school. There is
a covenant in relation to affordable housing, dependent on viability updates at
various points in the lifetime of the development; a covenant to submit a Local
Employment Framework for each phase of development; a covenant securing
open space provision in each phase and covenants to construct a Local Centre
and to use reasonable endeavours to provide a Health Centre. Finally,
covenants to secure the provision of off-site woodland planting and to provide
the Hulton Trail. I shall return to the s106 agreement later.
1.18 On the opening morning of the Inquiry I asked the Council to confirm that it had
provided proper notification of the Inquiry to all interested parties. The Council
confirmed that it had sent a first letter out to interested individuals on
3 September 2019. Upon realising that other interested individuals were not
included on the list, a second letter of notification was sent out to those
remaining individuals on 12 September 201923. I am satisfied that the
notification procedures were in accordance with the relevant regulations.24
1.19 At the Pre-Inquiry Meeting the question of which experts were to give oral
evidence was discussed. The parties gave an indication as to the witnesses
they wished to call. In addition, I indicated how I wanted the remaining
evidence to be tested. Following these discussions, and with the agreement of
all parties, roundtable sessions were held to ventilate the topics of viability and
highways matters. I led these sessions with questions and all parties were
invited to put their respective views. In addition, I facilitated questioning from
members of the public who had objected to the proposal. By agreement, the
Applicant’s witness, Mr Justin Marks, was not called and his written proof of
evidence, covering golf course design, was tendered into evidence.
1.20 The proposal has been called-in and is being supported by the Council. As is
usual in such cases the Inquiry was programmed such that the Applicant’s case
was heard first, the Council second and the objectors’ cases, including HEART,
followed. At the Pre-Inquiry Meeting, and on the opening of the Inquiry, I gave
a clear indication to the Applicant that because its case was being heard first, in
the eventuality that any new evidence or ‘surprises’ arose after its evidence had
been given, then I would look favourably upon any applications to recall
witnesses.
23 Inquiry Document 2.
24 Regulation 10(6) of The Town and Country Planning (Inquiries
Procedure) (England) Rules 2000.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 5
1.21 During his closing submissions25 the Applicant’s barrister made reference to the
introduction of new evidence by one of HEART’s witnesses being procedurally
unfair. Unusually I interrupted Counsel’s closing submissions to ask him to
clarify his remarks, remind him of my earlier guidance and inform him that,
even at that late stage, the Inquiry was not closed, and witnesses could still be
recalled. Counsel confirmed that he had chosen not to apply to recall witnesses
but to deal with the evidence in another way. I am entirely satisfied that the
Inquiry procedure was fair to all parties and there has been no procedural
impropriety.
The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site (the Site) is approximately 268 hectares in size and is
located in the Over Hulton and Westhoughton North and Chew Moor wards of
Bolton, approximately 4.5 km south-west of Bolton town centre and 8 km east
of Wigan town centre. It is situated between Over Hulton to the east, Atherton
to the south and Westhoughton some 500 metres to the west.
2.2 The A6 Manchester Road bisects the site, extending westwards where it forms
an existing five-way roundabout at Chequerbent (the junction with the A58) and
eastwards where it forms Four Lane Ends (the junction of St Helens Road,
Newbrook Road, Salford Road and Manchester Road).
2.3 Hulton Park comprises the single largest parcel of land which makes up the site
south of the A6. It is broadly square in shape and directly bounded by the A6
(Manchester Road) along its northern boundary, the A579 (Newbrook Road) and
residential housing on its eastern boundary, residential housing on its southern
boundary, and a disused railway line/public footpath along its western
boundary. A smaller parcel of the site lies to the north of the A6 and is broadly
triangular in shape.
2.4 A rail line is located approximately 300 metres south of the site, with two train
stations – Hag Fold and Atherton – approximately 500 metres to the southeast
and southwest of the Site respectively. These stops provide access to rail
services to destinations such as Southport, Chester, Wigan and Manchester.
2.5 The majority of the larger, southernmost parcel comprises Hulton Park, a Grade
II Listed Registered Park and Garden (RPG) of Special Historic Interest. Hulton
Park is formed of the landscaped estate which once surrounded Hulton Hall,
demolished in the 1950s. The RPG encompasses generally undulating land
rising to the north. It is laid to grass and contains substantial pockets of
woodland. Its features include:
• a principal entrance from the east off Newbrook Road, in the form of a
gated carriage entrance bounded by a lodge building with a single width
drive that approaches the location of the former Hall;
• a secondary entrance fronting the A6, again in the form of a gated
carriage entrance, with a residential property known as the Cottage (a
former residence of the Hulton family) lying adjacent;
25 Inquiry Document 63 ¶115
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 6
• a cluster of 19th and 20th century farm buildings and structures around
the site of the former Hulton Hall, known as Home Farm. Within this
cluster is a small Dovecote, a Grade II listed structure;
• the overgrown remains of pleasure grounds and a kitchen garden that
once served Hulton Hall;
• two large lakes, subject to silting and hence reduced in depth and size;
• a stream known as Mill Dam Stream which extends from the north-west
to the centre of the Site;
• three farm building clusters: Dearden’s Farm in the north-east, accessed
from the A6; Park End Farm in the south-east; and Wood End Farm in the
west;
• a memorial to the Pretoria Pit mining disaster in the south-eastern corner;
• large expanses of open ground, now largely grazing pasture, defined by
woodland plantations and individual specimen trees; and
• vehicular tracks and footways, one of which is a public right of way.
2.6 The Park is currently used for agricultural purposes, predominantly grazing, and
horse-related activities, some limited residential use and limited leisure use,
including a local archery club and angling club.
2.7 The site also includes land beyond the designated boundary of the RPG, namely
42.66ha of land immediately west of the boundary of Hulton Park, comprising
agricultural land interspersed by a network of public footpaths and blocks of
woodland. The land is bounded to the west by a disused railway line now in use
as an informal recreational footpath.
2.8 The 19.18ha parcel of land to the north of Hulton Park, and north of the A6
(Manchester Road), comprises agricultural land, blocks of woodland, and
agricultural buildings (Back Gates Farm), with residential properties lining
Manchester Road. Finally, there are two smaller parcels of land, one in the
south-eastern corner of the site adjoining Woodlands Drive and comprising
grassed areas, trees, and a farm track access to Park End Farm (also a public
right of way); with a second in the north-eastern corner, comprising farm
buildings and access to Dearden’s Farm.
The Proposal and Planning History
3.1 The Proposed Development is summarised in the Planning Statement26, the
Principal SoCG27 and the Design and Access Statement28. Reference should also
be made to the updated Design and Access Statement29 which includes a
summary of the changes made following submission of the application to the
Council. Appendix 5 of the Principal SoCG contains a summary table setting out
26 CD 05a.1
27 CD 13.8
28 CD 05a.2
29 CD 07a.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 7
an overview of the development. A summary of the changes to the application
documents is at core document 07a.0.
3.2 The application was also supported by the ES30 and its Addendum and the
Supplemental ES, an Economic Impact Report31, Social Value Assessment32,
Statement of Community Involvement33, Conservation Plan34, Viability
Assessment35 and Transport Assessment36, amongst others.
3.3 The Proposed Development is the subject of a single hybrid planning application
which seeks:
• detailed planning permission for the restoration works to various historic
structures within the Hulton Park RPG. Insofar as they constitute
development, full approval is sought for the works described in respect of
those features, as outlined by the Historic Structures: Condition/Repair
Issues37 ;
• detailed planning permission for a championship-grade golf resort –
including a golf course, clubhouse, academy, hotel complex and all
ancillary buildings, structures and works – and for the recreational route
known as the ‘Hulton Trail’;
• outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, except for access
(in part), for three areas of residential development, comprising 70.36ha
(gross) of development with an estimated yield of up to 1,036 dwellings.
3.4 The component parts of the proposal are indivisible. The Principal SoCG sets
contains a full exposition of the rationale underpinning the various elements of
the Golf Course complex and more particularly, the requirements which need to
be satisfied to render it a championship course worthy of hosting the Ryder
Cup. The requirements include the provision and design of an academy
building, driving range, golf course requirements and hotel complex.
3.5 The residential development is intended to provide essential cross-subsidy of
the restoration of the RPG and the listed dovecote and the delivery of the golf
resort. The Council and the Applicant are agreed that, without the residential
element, the restoration of the RPG by the creation of a Ryder Cup golf resort
and the significant social, environmental and economic benefits that would
arise, are not commercially deliverable38.
3.6 The detailed design and mix of houses would be determined at reserved matters
stage but the Council and Applicant envisage that it would include a variety of
high quality, mid-market family homes as depicted on the Illustrative
30 CD 05b
31 CD 05a.4
32 CD 05a.5
33 CD 05a.7
34 CD 05a.8
35 Cd 05a.10
36 CD 05a.11
37 CD 05a.9
38 CD 13.8 ¶6.58
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 8
Masterplan39. The revised Parameters Plan40 provides a framework for the
design and intended layout of the residential development, limiting the height of
development and its distribution along the western edge and in the two farms
on the north-eastern and south-eastern corners of the site. Two residential
Design Codes41 have been developed to inform the design of housing on Park
End Farm and Dearden’s Farm.
3.7 The Western Fields area of residential development includes the provision of a
Local Centre the location of which is a matter of detail. Existing Public Rights
of Way (PRoWs) passing through the site would be retained with some being re-
routed and a new recreational route, The Hulton Trail, would be provided.
Planning Policy
4.1 The development plan, for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, includes the Bolton Core Strategy Development
Plan Document42 (CS-DPD) which was adopted in March 2011; the Bolton
Allocations Plan Document43 (AP) adopted in 2014 and the Greater Manchester
Minerals and Waste Plan44 (GMMP) adopted in 2013.
4.2 The development plan policies which are most relevant include:
• AP policy CG7AP: confirms that the Council will not permit inappropriate
development in the Green Belt. The text confirms that the policy reflects
the National Planning Policy Framework, of 2012. The explanatory text
confirms that the Council will only permit development proposals which
fails to meet policy CG7AP in “very special circumstances”.
• AP Policy CG8AP: promotes decentralised, renewable and low carbon
energy development.
• AP Policy P8AP: seeks to protect the integrity of public rights of way.
• CS Policy SC1: sets out a need for the provision of 694 dwellings per
annum between 2008 and 2026 and contains an aspiration that 80% of
the provision will be on brownfield land. It sets out a further requirement
for 35% of new housing to be affordable on greenfield sites, with a split
as to 75% social rented housing and 25% for intermediate housing. The
requirement applies to developments of 15 or more dwellings.
• CS Policy OA4: is specifically directed at West Bolton and, amongst other
things, sets out a requirement to “conserve and enhance the character of
the existing physical environment, especially...the historic registered
Hulton Park”
• CS Policy CG3: promotes good design and, in particular, seeks to
conserve and enhance the heritage significance of heritage assets.
39 CD 06b.7 drawing ref: LUC_6628_LD_PLN_1001 Issue Q
40 CD 06b.8 (drawing ref: 15191 (Pl) 500 U
41 CD 06b.2.1 and 2.2
42 CD 11.2
43 CD 11.3
44 CD 11.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 9
• CS Policy H1: promotes the development of new health facilities in
accessible locations and seeks to ensure that new developments make
appropriate contributions towards such facilities
• CS Policy P5: seeks to ensure that developments are accessible by
different types of transport.
• CS Policy S1: provides that the design of new developments must take
into account the need to reduce crime.
• CS Policy CG1: seeks to safeguard and enhance rural areas and
biodiversity as well as reducing the risk of flooding and minimising energy
requirements.
• CS Policy CG2: promotes sustainable design and construction.
• CS Policy CG4: seeks to protect residential amenity.
• CS Policy IPC1: governs provision and financial contributions from new
development towards the cost of infrastructure.
• GMMP Policy 8: refers to prior extraction of mineral resources within
designated Mineral Safeguarding Areas in advance of construction.
4.3 Emerging policy appears in the form of the Greater Manchester Spatial
Framework45 (GMSF) which is being prepared by a collective of Greater
Manchester authorities46. The GMSF is at an early stage but it is intended to
allocate strategic development sites and set a revised housing requirement for
the borough. Policies STRAT8 sets out a vision for a Wigan-Bolton Growth
Corridor to deliver a regionally significant area of economic and residential
development.
4.4 The Revised Draft GMSF underwent consultation at the beginning of 2019. Due
to a large number of responses and, given the nature of those responses the
authority determined that further evidence work needs to be undertaken with a
further revised draft of the framework to be produced47. The Council and
Applicant are agreed that, given the current status of the emerging GMSF and
the existence of a number of objections to a large number of policies, only
limited weight can be afforded to the emerging GBSF. Consultation of the
‘Further Revised Draft of the Greater Manchester Plan for homes, Jobs and the
Environment’ was due to take place in the summer of 2020.
4.5 Relevant national policy is to be found in the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework) as well as national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG).
Matters Agreed Between the Council and the Applicant
5.1 A series of SoCG were agreed between the Council and Applicant and are
recorded in paragraph 1.12 above. Both parties agree that the development
would result in the beneficial restoration of the RPG and would result in a
substantial overall benefit in heritage terms. In this regard, both parties are
45 CD 11.13
46 The Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
47 GMCA – Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Updated dated 27 September 2019
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 10
satisfied that the proposal is compliant with development plan and national
policies aimed at conserving or enhancing heritage assets.
5.2 It is further agreed that the proposal would deliver significant economic benefits
over an extended period, leaving a lasting beneficial legacy and that the
development represents a ‘very significant’ opportunity for the prosperity of
Bolton borough. The parties are also agreed that the proposal would make an
important contribution towards meeting housing needs both qualitatively and
quantitively. They agree that the housing would provide essential cross-subsidy
for the Golf resort element and that the scale of the funding gap has effectively
informed the quantum of housing. The new homes would be delivered
alongside necessary additional infrastructure to support new communities.
5.3 The Council is further satisfied that the proposal in its current form cannot
support the provision of affordable housing in viability terms. However, given
the viability evidence, which was not contested, the Council accepts that the
current offer of affordable housing on site represents a benefit over and above
the position indicated by policy and accepted by the Council. In other words,
the current proposal cannot afford to make a contribution towards affordable
housing, and this is acceptable in terms of the relevant development plan
policy. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant has nevertheless agreed to
offer some 10% affordable housing. That is an additional benefit which both
parties refer to as a ‘policy plus’ position.
5.4 The whole site is in the Green Belt and the development is inappropriate. The
Green Belt harm as a whole would be substantial. The parties are agreed that it
is likely that, if permitted, the proposal would result in Green Belt boundaries
being redrawn as part of a local plan process so as to exclude the housing
element on the western fields, with the golf resort remaining in the Green Belt.
5.5 The development would require new transport infrastructure to mitigate the
effects of additional traffic generated by it. This includes a series of measures
secured in the section 106 agreement and by condition. These measures
include an additional access to the Chequerbent Roundabout associated with the
provision of a new link road to form part of a wider strategic link road. All of
the highway measures are agreed between the parties and with Highways
England in terms of the strategic road network. Local public transport
infrastructure improvements are proposed.
5.6 The Principal SoCG records that the Council and Applicant are agreed that, in
landscape terms, there would be a range of both beneficial and adverse impacts
with an overall neutral impact on landscape character. It is further agreed that
there would be a net gain in biodiversity and overall ecological enhancements
which are agreed with the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) and Natural
England. The parties agree that there would be no loss of ancient woodland or
live veteran trees and a longer term ‘very significant benefit’ to the treescape in
the Park48. The proposal accords with development plan policies in relation to
water management, archaeology, sustainable design, noise, air quality, ground
conditions, minerals, lighting, town centre impacts, utilities.
48 Principal SoCG ¶8.50
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 11
5.7 The Council and Applicant are agreed that the development constitutes
inappropriate development in Green Belt terms. The Applicant advances eight
positive effects which it says are material considerations, which, when weighed
together constitute very special circumstances. The effects are: the restoration
and enhancement of the RPG; the absence of an alternative location for the
development; the economic and legacy benefits arising from the development
and hosting the Ryder Cup; the social, cultural and tourism impacts of the
development; increased beneficial use of the Green Belt across the site;
contributions towards the Borough’s housing needs; reduction in congestion in
the local highway network and environmental enhancements.
5.8 Both the Council and Applicant agree that very special circumstances exist, so
as to justify the grant of planning permission. They further agree that such
circumstances would only exist if the Ryder Cup is held at the site.
Housing Matters
5.9 The Housing SoCG has been entered into by all three of the main parties49. The
SoCG records acceptance by all that the Council does not currently have a five-
year supply of housing land (5YHLS) for the period 2018-2023. The annualised
requirement figure was for at least 791 dwellings per annum and includes a
20% buffer. The identified supply was equivalent to 3.7 years as evidenced in
the 2017/18 Annual Monitoring Report. The Council and Applicant characterise
the shortfall as ‘substantial’ whereas HEART consider it to be ‘moderate’.
5.10 The Housing SoCG records that the Council and Applicant agree that housing
delivery from the proposal would make a meaningful contribution towards
meeting future housing needs over a sustained period in quantitative and
qualitative terms. Both agree that this contribution should be afforded weight
in the planning balance. HEART disagrees with both the Council and the
Applicant regarding the contribution which the proposal could make to the
immediate 5 YHLS given uncertainties regarding the commencement of
development.
5.11 The viability appraisal submitted with the application demonstrated to the
Council’s satisfaction that the application could not support the inclusion of
affordable housing. Since policy requirements allow for nil provision in the light
of viability considerations, the provision of no affordable housing would not
offend relevant policies. A reappraisal mechanism was agreed to check viability
at future dates and require provision if project viability improves.
5.12 A Viability SoCG50 agreed between the Council and Applicant sets out matters
agreed in light of an updated Financial Viability Assessment undertaken. Given
the advent of the revised provisions in the Framework and the expectation51 of
10% provision of affordable housing, the Applicant’s position moved on and it
committed to the provision of a minimum of 10% affordable homes, together
with a retained review mechanism.
49 The Council, the Applicant and HEART
50 CD1 13.15
51 Framework ¶64
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 12
5.13 All parties are agreed that there is a shortfall of affordable housing in the
Borough relative to identified needs. Figures quoted include a net annual need
for 496 affordable units and just 151 affordable starts on site in 2016/1752. The
SoCG records varying levels of disagreement between all three parties which I
shall return to as necessary.
5.14 The Supplementary SoCG: Housing Matters53 is agreed between the Council and
Applicant and is essentially an update in the face of the revised s106 agreement
and other matters.
5.15 The Ecology SoCG54 is made between GMEU as advisor to the Council and the
Applicant. It contains an agreed baseline description and ecological evaluation,
agreed design and management parameters and mitigation and an assessment
as to biodiversity net gain.
5.16 The Highways and Transport SoCG55 is entered into by the Council and
Applicant. It sets out fully existing transport conditions, forecast traffic
generation, accessibility credentials of the development site, impact on both the
local and strategic road network and agreed mitigation measures. HEART have
not entered into the SoCG. Whilst HEART raised no issues in relation to
highway matters, many third parties and local residents did raise concerns and
these matters are recorded later in section 10.
Matters Agreed and in Dispute Between the Applicant and HEART
6.1 The SoCG on Historic Landscape56was agreed between the Applicant and HEART
and sets out agreed matters relating to heritage. The park is a heritage asset
of value at a local and national scale; the park has suffered from a lack of
maintenance over many years and a number of structures/features have
deteriorated; many of the historic structures are derelict or in a state of
disrepair and the large waterbodies have silted up. Both parties agree that
intervention is necessary to secure a sustainable future for the RPG.
6.2 The SoCG further records agreements regarding land adjoining the RPG and
within the application site which is deemed to be within its’ setting. This is the
land known as the western fields, earmarked for housing and the smaller
agricultural parcel north of the A6, earmarked for the academy.
6.3 The Applicant and HEART are agreed on the following matters:
‒ A key aspect of the Park’s special interest comprises the landscape
design created by William Emes and Thomas Webb, in two phases
during the later 18th and early 19th centuries.
‒ Surviving features of interest from these periods include the water
features, the pleasure grounds, the walled kitchen garden and
associated woodlands.
52 Housing SoCG ¶3.4
53 D 13.17
54 CD13.11
55 CD 13.12
56 CD 13.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 13
‒ The demolition of the main house in the 1950s was harmful to
certain areas of the designed landscape.
‒ There are eight distinct character areas within the Park: the Park,
Pleasure Grounds and Woodland, Mill Dam Wood and Lake, North
Meadows, West of House, New Park Wood and Fields, Park End Farm
and Dearden’s Farm.
‒ Repair/reinstatement works to the following features would be
beneficial: main gateway, lodge, ha-ha, walled garden and entrance
to it; pleasure grounds.
‒ Repairs to the dovecote would be beneficial to it as would other
miscellaneous matters outlined57.
6.4 Matters of disagreement are also recorded, relating to the analysis of the
history and development of Hulton Park and the ascribing of significance levels
to character areas, landscape features and defined views. These matters were
explored fully during the Inquiry and form part of my assessment. HEART does
not agree with the resultant assessment of impact leading to the main point of
disagreement which is whether the development would give rise to an overall
beneficial effect to the significance of the RPG. The Applicant says a substantial
overall benefit would accrue, whereas HEART’s expert witness contends that
there would be substantial harm to the heritage assets.
The Case for the Applicant
7.1 This summary contains all material points in relation to the Applicant’s case and
it is substantially based upon the closing submissions of the Applicant. It is also
taken from the evidence given on behalf of the Applicant and from other
documents submitted to the Inquiry. The Secretary of State is also referred to
the Applicant’s closing submissions at Inquiry Document 63 which contain a full
exposition of the Applicant’s case.
7.2 “The Northern Powerhouse” is a nomenclature that deliberately and forcefully
reminds us of the area’s past, of the role the North and places like Bolton
played in the industrial revolution and in making the UK one of the world’s
richest and most advanced economies. Rarely can there have been a better fit
for the Northern Powerhouse policies than this application. The proposal has at
its heart the repair and regeneration of the historic Hulton Estate: an estate
which was at its heyday in, and after, the second phase of the industrial
revolution. It also provides a long-term and profitable future for the restored
Estate, and a large injection of investment and confidence in the north-west; an
area well-versed in making the very most of such opportunities.
7.3 The planning system exists to make decisions on the development and use of
land in the public interest. This application, by necessity, tests the policy
mechanisms which make up that planning system to their widest extent.
Objectors raise issues such as uncertainty and prematurity and they are right
that this application is not a conventional one.
57 Ibid ¶3.27 to ¶3.30
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 14
7.4 But in the end, for all the alleged complexity in the case, the choice for the
Secretary of State is a truly simple one. It is a choice between (i) taking up a
generational opportunity to show faith and confidence in one of the most
deprived areas58 in the Northern Powerhouse while providing a thriving long
term beneficial use for an asset of immense importance for the area and (ii)
turning that chance of a generation away and leaving the Hulton Estate to
decay and die on the vine.
The Development Plan and the Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development
7.5 The development plan policies of most importance are plainly out of date. In
addition, it is common ground that the policies of the plan have systematically
failed to provide a 5YLS. It is agreed that the provision lies well below four
years59. That is a serious and significant shortfall. As a result, the presumption
in favour of sustainable development60 applies in the determination of this case
unless, that is, any of the footnote policies61 properly applied clearly establish a
reason for refusal on their own terms.
7.6 One of the main duties for a local authority is the duty to provide sufficient
homes for its inhabitants. The provision of decent, appropriate housing at all
levels is a fundamental limb of the planning system. It is for this reason that
government policy rightly places very significant weight on the provision of at
least a 5YLS62 and why the consequences for the decision-making process of not
providing such a provision are also so profound.
7.7 In this case, two relevant Framework footnote “restrictive” policies are
engaged63. Both need to be dealt with as part of the correct decision-making
process. They are (1) the heritage provisions associated with impact on the
designated heritage assets and (2) the Green Belt policies. Because of the
nature of the tests raised by these policies, there is an inevitable interaction
between the two topics.
7.8 I propose to address the Green Belt issue first. I do so both for ease of
presentation and to recognise that the truth that the Green Belt balance
involves an inevitable consideration of almost all of the relevant benefits and
harms associated with the case.
Green Belt: the test and component parts of the development
7.9 The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development in the Green Belt
is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in
very special circumstances64. Such circumstances only exist where harm to the
Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and other harm resulting from the
proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Any harm to the Green
Belt should be given substantial weight.
58 English indices of deprivation 2019: mapping resources, Published 26 September 2019
59 Statement of Common Ground on Housing Issues, dated August 2019 (CD.13.9)
60 Paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019
61 Footnote 6 to National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019
62 Paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019
63 Footnote 6 to National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019
64 Para 143 of the National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 15
7.10 For the reasons set out below, rarely could the circumstances have been more
special than those which accompany this application. Self-evidently, the three
areas of housing proposed in the Green Belt are all inappropriate development.
The golf course by itself would not be inappropriate development and neither
would its smaller ancillary buildings. The club house, too, is limited in scale. But
the hotel, conference facilities and other buildings are all essential to the
operation of the facility in the round as a leisure resort. As such, and for the
avoidance of doubt the applicant has treated the Ryder Cup resort as a whole as
inappropriate development.
7.11 Notwithstanding this, the fact remains that outside of the housing areas, by far
the greatest element of the proposal, the golf course would, by itself, not be
inappropriate development and neither would it, in any meaningful way,
interfere with the openness of the land. These matters are very relevant to the
weight to be given to definitional harm across the site and to the existence and
weight to be given to harm to openness. Self-evidently the golf course would
continue to serve Green Belt purposes and would, on a proper understanding of
the term, remain open.
Assessment of Green Belt Harm
7.12 Overall the Applicant accepts that the harm to the Green Belt is substantial or
considerable. There would be definitional harm and, clearly, the proposed
residential development which would remove the sense of openness from the
areas of its development, would extend the extent of urban areas and encroach
into the countryside. The balance of the development also comprises
inappropriate development as a whole: though it is right that most of the site of
the resort would remain open, with isolated buildings breaking up the physical
sense of openness. The nature of the land-forming is not harmful by and of
itself to openness.
7.13 There would be a notable reduction in the separation between Westhoughton
and Atherton but that would not generate either an actual or perceptual
merging of those settlements.
7.14 There are subtle differences between the approach of the Applicant and that of
the local planning authority; but these are not sufficient to really make a
meaningful difference to the analysis as a whole. The analysis of Mr Bell and Ms
Lancaster establish clearly, and on slightly different bases that the function and
value of the Green Belt in this area and its overall integrity would not be
compromised. The experience and knowledge of local conditions which means
great weight should be given to the overall approach of the local Officers and Ms
Lancaster.
Identification of “Other harm”
7.15 The other harm identified by the evidence is a limited visual harm carefully
considered and defined by Ms Knight and a technical breach of the policy
protecting a limited area of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Both of
these elements of additional harm are dealt with in detail by Mr Bell and Ms
Knight in the evidence. They do not form a central part of any parties’
opposition to the proposal in the round.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 16
7.16 If, contrary to the Applicant’s case, there is a finding of less than substantial
harm on any designated heritage asset, then as explained below, there is a
potential for such harm also to be considered “other harm” caused by the
proposal (see below).
Green Belt Conclusions
7.17 It follows from the above analysis that for planning permission to be granted,
the harms associated with the proposal in Green Belt and in other terms fall to
be clearly outweighed by other considerations associated with the proposal so
as to demonstrate very special circumstances. I now turn to the very special
circumstances that exist in the circumstances of this case.
Identification of Very special Circumstances
7.18 For the reasons set out below, the Applicant and the Local Planning Authority
and the independent consultant instructed to audit that approach, all believe
that there is a unique coincidence of benefit here: a generational opportunity for
the area which should not be turned away. I set out the main elements of that
case here. The full suite of considerations is advanced by Mr Bell in Chapter 11
of his proof.
Hulton Park – Heritage Matters
7.19 Heritage matters are at the heart of this case in more ways than one. The
restoration of the park and its key elements of significance and the provision of
the park with a long term and secure use (in comparison to the alternative) are
huge benefits of the proposal in heritage terms. In addition, the park also
provides the perfect home for a well-designed Parkland golf course which would
bring one of the world’s biggest sporting mega-events and all of its socio-
economic impacts to Bolton65.
7.20 In addition, the heritage issue is by itself, one of the “footnote” issues which
falls to be determined as part of the assessment of whether the presumption in
favour of development should apply. This section identifies why the restoration
and provision of a long term future for the significance of the park provides by
itself (and in combination) a very special circumstance and why (in reaching this
conclusion) the heritage policies of the NPPF (properly applied) do not “provide
a clear reason for refusing the development proposed” thus allowing and
requiring the presumption in favour of development to be applied in this case.
The Heritage Assessment
7.21 There are only two designated assets at large in this case. The first is the park
itself. The second is the Listed Dovecote. Both are listed at Grade II66. Since the
Framework makes it clear that greater weight should be given to impacts upon
more important assets, it is right to note that Grade II is the lowest listing
achievable for a “designated” asset. That of course does not diminish the fact
that significant importance and weight to apply to the conservation of these
assets.
65 Set out in the Proof of Evidence of Andrew Tong
66 Historic England List Entry Number: 1001581
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 17
7.22 For the purposes of this application, the application of the NPPF67 approach
should be determinative of the heritage issue. There is nothing in the
development plan which suggests that an alternative approach is appropriate.
The Courts and policy makers have now definitively established the following:
• if a decision-maker follows the fasciculus of paragraphs contained in the
Framework, then that decision maker will have complied with all of the
relevant statutory tests applicable to designated heritage assets.
• Great weight should be given to the “conservation” of a designated
heritage asset. Conservation of the asset includes a consideration of
whether a proposal enhances the significance of such an asset.
• When considering the impact of a proposal as a whole on a designated
asset as a whole, the decision-maker is entitled to have regard to
elements of the proposal which enhance its significance as well as to any
harms in determining whether in the round the asset is conserved- the
“Palmer” test.
• Where a proposal leaves the asset unharmed in this net way or where
there is net benefit then the provisions of the Framework which deal with
harm are not engaged.
• Where there is “conservation” or net beneficial impact, for the reasons
given in above, such an impact must as a matter of law be given great
weight.
• Any net harm to the designated asset is also to be given great weight. It
falls to be justified in a clear and convincing way. The clear and
convincing justification for harm (if any) is provided in the fasciculus of
paragraphs dealing with harm in the Framework. It is not a separate or
freestanding test to be passed.
• Substantial harm and total loss of significance are dealt with together in
the Framework. They give rise to a very onerous test. For that reason,
substantial harm only occurs when most if not all of the significance of the
asset is drained away by the proposal. When the proposal leaves the
asset almost vitiated in terms of its designation.
• Less than substantial harm is justified when it is outweighed by public
benefits which can include the provision of an asset with its Optimum
Viable Use (OVU).
• Not all elements of a designated asset are of equal significance.
• It is long established that assets with a beneficial use are more likely to
have their conservation enhanced than those which do not.
• In constructing a plan for the use of an asset, a Conservation Plan
identifying the relative importance various parts of the asset should, as a
67 Paragraphs 11, 73, 189 to 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 18
matter of practice be drawn up and development should be guided to
areas most consistent with the conservation of the asset.
Elements of significance
7.23 This Park has been the subject of extensive research and study as a result of
this Inquiry. Thus, a consensus has arisen as to what is significant about the
asset. A SOCG68 captures this agreement. The work of Emes represents the
earliest and most authentic element of landscape design in the Park. It is clear
that Emes was something of a master of the water feature. His skill in this
regard is noted in contemporary literature and in the modern texts such as the
DNB. An entire chapter is reserved for this skill and feature in the academic
dissertation69 which is the only complete work of reference we have before the
Inquiry.
7.24 In addition, Emes was a talented creator of pleasure gardens and woodland
perambulations. Emes is also associated with the enhancement of existing
woodland and water features to create pleasant and sylvan walks. All of these
features on a proper analysis formed part of the Emes design at Hulton. Each
can be specifically identified without doubt in the evidence70.
7.25 Dr Stamper71 states “At Hulton there are three features of real interest to the
garden historian: the former Pleasure Garden with its lake behind the house
platform; the Kitchen Garden extending down to the gulley and the romantic
Woodland Walk by the stream with its cascades in Mill Dam Wood.”72 On any
fair analysis that conclusion is accurate. It represents an important (indeed
probably the most important) element of significance in the Park
7.26 All of these accepted elements of significance remain to a degree now.
However, all have been harmed by the absence of use and the significant
passage of time and all are in danger of being lost as unmanaged nature takes
hold. Thus, the signature scimitar lake is silted up (and overgrown with
knotweed) and its form is not fully revealed. The Walled Garden is in a parlous
state of disrepair: its significance would have lain in the nature of its planting,
and, in the manner in which it served the functional and recreational needs of
the family seat.
7.27 The remnants of the Pleasure Grounds are also capable of being made out on
the ground, although the precise nature of their planting is no longer typical of
Emes time. Indeed, the grounds are overgrown and populated by invasive
species. The romantic walk is but a shadow of its former self and of its
potential. It still is an element of significance, but large parts of the water
course are silted up and planted with self-seeded willows and other invasive
species73. The polite, genteel managed landscape with its park features has all
but disappeared. The romantic walk is now a more naturalistic trail unmanaged
68 Statement of Common Ground on Historic Landscape, dated September 2019 (CD:13:10)
69 Thesis on Emes provided at Appendix 12 to Proof of Evidence of Dr Chris Miele.
70 See proof of evidence and Rebuttal of Dr Chris Miele
71 To whom Mr Gallagher said he would bow due to his greater knowledge in this regard
72 Appendix 5 to Proof of Evidence of Chris Miele - Paul Stamper peer review reports –
"WILLIAM EMES (1729/30-1803) William Emes: a brief professional biography" page 6
73 See Proof of Evidence of Francis Hesketh
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 19
and overgrown. It is an attractive but overgrown walk but lacks the authenticity
and as a result, large elements of the significance it once had.
Impact of the proposal on features of significance
7.28 These key Emesian features of significance would all be retained and
significantly enhanced as a result of the proposal. All, at very substantial cost
would be restored and better revealed by the proposal74. These features
constitute the very heart of Hulton Park and its significance. They represent the
largest part of its authentic Emesian legacy. The other largest part of the
Emesian contribution, the creation of the Great Park has been largely
overwritten by the work of his successor Webb75. It too has significance and is
dealt with below.
7.29 All of the key Emesian features which are retained and enhanced would also be
available to be experienced by those visiting the restaurants and the hotel and
by the public on those many days when the venue is open to them and when
heritage tours take place76. In comparison to the existing position (much less
that which will arrive if no works of recovery are undertaken) this would be a
huge benefit and heritage enhancement. It follows from just this element of the
analysis that a large and most important part of the significance of the park
would remain and indeed be substantially enhanced as a result of the proposal.
7.30 Webb is the lesser of the two designers. He is not mentioned in the guidance to
those grading Registered Parks and Gardens77 and neither does he merit an
entry in the Oxford National Biography78. Webb was less innovative, less
authentic but probably more fashionable in the sense that he (and his clients)
were more followers of shorter-lived fashion. That does not mean that his work,
and what remains of it, is not significant; far from it. But the context is
important. He was responsible for the moving of the Emes carriageway and for
the more picturesque access route of the main drive to the house.
7.31 Webb was also responsible for much of the main parkland planting in the Great
Park area of the site and the area to the West of the House. This part of the site
has suffered as much as most areas of the park since its active management
ceased over 100 years ago. Most noticeable is the absence of the larger
standard parkland trees which used to populate the area. The site is notably
spartan now as one travels toward the location of the main house. Large areas
of grass take the place of the blocks of woodland which have perished.
7.32 More than two-thirds of such parkland trees are no longer apparent at all: they
have gone. 15% of those that remain are dead, dying, dangerous, moribund or
74 See Gleeds Report provided at Appendix 9 to the Proof of Evidence of Derek Nesbit
75 Mr John Webb (c 1754-1828)
76 Proposed to be secured by condition – providing for programme of public access events in
the Registered Park and Garden
77 Guidance on the listing of sports buildings is provided in Historic England’s selection guide
on Sports and Recreation Buildings - Referred to by Dr Stamper in Appendix 5 to Dr Chris
Miele's Proof of Evidence under the note entitled "What is Historic England’s current advice on
golf courses in historic/designed and especially registered landscapes?"
78 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 20
have a lifespan of less than five years. 52% of all of the trees are identified as
dead damaged moribund or otherwise having a short life (red or amber)79.
7.33 It is within this area of the park that the golf course is in part located. As Mr
Wikeley clearly explained, the course works with the grain of the existing
parkland and replicates the shape and essence of the long-lost parkland
planting. Most of the new parkland trees would be planted in as close a position
to the original as is consistent with OS mapping and the others would replicate
the style and essence of Webb’s planting.
7.34 The search for absolute accuracy in this context is meaningless. First, it wrongly
assumes the absolute accuracy of the OS mapping. Second, it ignores the fact
that much of the planting was irregular in nature and/or in fact opportunistic in
the sense that it was not planted for landscape reasons but to hide the outcome
of extraction of coal from the heart of the estate. Third, it overlooks the
objective of the planting which is to create an effect of dispersed Webbian
woodland pasture.
7.35 Overall, the impact of the proposal on the Webbian Great Park would be to
significantly restore the historic element of tree cover and parkland trees as
shown on the first edition OS plan.
7.36 There were originally over 360 Parkland trees on the site. At present about 90
continue to exist (4-5 have died in the process of this application). As indicated
above, of these, over half, are dead, dying, moribund or time limited on the
basis of the expert evidence. They would be replaced by significant new
parkland planting in either the exact location of trees lost or to reflect in the key
parts of the park as far as possible the essence of the more random scattering
of trees favoured by Webb. These are obvious enhancements over the existing
position.
7.37 HEART’s objection to the proposals on the basis of absence of authenticity are
simply perverse. The Kitchen Garden as a concept is already degraded in terms
of its significance. It would not take very much for its condition to further
deteriorate and to be lost completely. The conservation restoration proposed
would be undertaken following best practice: with the reuse of existing bricks
(carefully marked as to location) where possible and the careful recreation of
the garden as close to its pre-existing existence and with as much original fabric
as possible.
7.38 It further follows, that the allegation made by Mr Gallagher, that these
proposals would result in substantial harm to the park as a designated heritage
asset are simply not legally defensible. The concept of substantial harm for this
part of the Framework is not a simple relative term. It is a specific term of art
because it is linked to total loss and the deliberately tougher tests that apply to
such harm- the same test that applies to the total loss of significance of an
asset.
7.39 The difficulty for Mr Gallagher is that he was wholly unaware of the careful,
esoteric and somewhat nuanced guidance of the court in Bedford or of the
79 See Proof of Evidence of Francis Hesketh and Statement of Common Ground on Ecology
and Arboriculture (CD.13.11)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 21
guidance in the PPG to similar effect. Bedford and the PPG deliberately sets the
bar very high: they must be read to be consistent with each other. Mr Gallagher
candidly accepts that he was only aware of that advice when he read the proofs
of evidence in this case. His judgments before that could not have been guided
by this corpus of learning.
7.40 It is unreasonable and implausible to assert that the park post development
would be drained of “very much if not all of its significance.” On any view of the
evidence at least very large elements of significance would remain and be
enhanced. Mr Gallagher’s position is not supported. On a proper examination of
his own evidence he himself demonstrates that the proposals do not drain away
very much, if not all, of the significance of the park. He accepts that some of
the (very most significant) elements of the park would be retained and
enhanced.
7.41 The golf course would require some alteration to landform. All golf courses will
require this to a degree, as accepted by the English Heritage Guidance. Mr
McMurray was very clear that the total amount of land forming required to
create this course had been kept to its minimum and is in comparative terms
modest overall. He was careful in describing the landform shifting as modest
and limited. He was guided by Mr Wikeley, himself expert in the understanding
of the landscapes of Emes and Webb and the main author of the Historic
England guidance on Golf Course Design.
7.42 Where there is remodelling it is deliberately subtle and undertaken to match the
Parkland character which presently exists. That character is already gently
undulating and reflects the fact that the Park has been the subject in places of
coal extraction and regrading. The landform here is not one that has been finely
modelled as in Repton landscapes. Rather it reflects its previous use as
agriculture and deer park. It is largely flat with very gently undulating and
sloping north to south with “lumps and bumps” reflective of past use and
mining.
7.43 The landscape character of the Park consists of scattered trees in an open
setting surrounded by larger woodland elements. The actual form of the land or
its landform surface is nowhere identified as of particular importance. There is
no archaeological significance in the landform which the proposal would harm.
7.44 Mr Gallagher does not identify any particular landform concern, but instead
criticises the concept of reforming land at all. Two matters arise. First, there
was no attempt to contextualise that sum at all in relation to other golf courses
or other relevant park alterations. Second, there was no serious consideration of
where the cut and fill it represented would take place. Thus, more than half of it
occurs not on the golf course area at all, but on the very much less sensitive
housing areas including those beyond the park.
7.45 A useful test of the scale and impact of the regrading lies in the fact that out of
the greens proposed only 2 greens fall below the non-binding indicative figure of
1m contained in the relevant detailed golf guidance issued by English
Heritage80. Of those 2, the Applicant has indicated that it would be content for
one (the 8th) to be conditioned to no more than 1m if the Secretary of State
80 Provided in Appendix 1 to 3 to the Proof of Evidence of Dr Chris Miele
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 22
thought it appropriate. The other green was constrained by the need to avoid
the Aqueduct that runs across the site at that point.
7.46 When looked at in the round, the overwritten Emes/ Webb element of the
proposal would re-provide an enhanced, better treed landscape significantly in
keeping with the original design ethos of that part of the park. Compared to the
existing condition of the overwritten element of the Park, this would constitute a
significant benefit of the proposal. Rather than presenting as a substantially
under-treed landscape with wide stretches of unleavened grass, the proposal
would once again have the Parkland feel of the past. These substantial benefits
fall to be added to the enhancement of the Emesian benefits already identified
above.
HEART’s assessment of benefits
7.47 HEART’s assessment of the impacts of the proposal is unbalanced because the
significance of the benefits of the proposal was simply neither analysed as to
significance nor weighted at all in the overall balance undertaken81. Mr
Gallagher in his evidence in chief volunteered an exposition of why he believed
that such benefits were either non-existent or were of reduced value. Ms Copley
failed meaningfully to mention the benefits of the proposal at all in her evidence
and then volunteered that the £10s of millions of pounds of restoration
contained in this heritage led project constituted mere tinkering.
7.48 A large part of the concerns of HEART related to the construction of a golf
course in a Registered Park. However, we know, as a matter of clear evidence,
that many golf courses have been permitted (in accordance with the EH
Guidance) in much more sensitive parkland locations (without such extensive
heritage benefits).
Applicant’s overall conclusions on significance
7.49 There can be little realistic doubt that the main elements of significance of this
Park would be massively enhanced by the proposal. All of the key Emesian
features would be restored, repaired and better revealed. The overwritten
Parkland would be properly re-treed with appropriate species and its present
savannah-like appearance would be enhanced. Its long-term existence as such
would be retained and maintained.
7.50 Overall, the Park would once again appear as, and function as, an 18th Century
Parkland with its key features restored and made available to the public in large
degree. Such enhancements should be afforded great weight consistent with
the Framework. Especial weight should be afforded to these matters in the
absence of any reasonable meaningfully costed alternative.
7.51 Both national guidance and the specific golf guidance issued by Historic
England82 make it clear that not all areas of a registered park are likely to be of
equal value. Further, there is a recognition that generally an asset with a long-
term beneficial use is more likely to retain its significance. The aim of this
proposal from the outset has been to provide a long-term sustainable beneficial
use for the Park. The restoration of the key elements of the Park and the
81 See last paragraph of Mr Gallagher’s Proof of Evidence at section 9.
82 See Appendix 1 to 3 to the Proof of Evidence of Dr Chris Miele
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 23
provision of that long-term sustainable use come at a very significant (and
agreed) cost83.
7.52 Although the resort use would be highly profitable as a long-term going
concern, its development is not in any objective sense viable. The development
phase of the site produces a significant deficit. This reflects the huge costs of
the proposal. As a result, in order to cross-subsidise the development as a
whole, the application contains the outline permission areas of housing
development. These elements of the proposal represent the areas which in
planning and heritage terms reflect the maximum areas of housing which are
appropriately judged suitable and deliverable while representing the minimum
safety net for the developer.
7.53 Without the housing areas, put simply, there would be no development and
none of the related significant benefits. The housing areas were identified as the
areas which would produce least (or no) harm to the significance of the heritage
asset and which could also be defended in Green Belt and landscape terms. This
exercise was undertaken in very close consultation with the local planning
authority. Thus, the housing is located in those parts of the Registered Park
which clearly have least significance (if any) or in areas which fall outside the
Park.
7.54 The whole essence of the designation of a RPG is to protect the extent of the
historic garden, parkland and designed ornamental landscape which survives in
sufficiently good condition. Thus ordinarily “land which is laid out for purely
agricultural… purposes or other economic or utilitarian purposes is normally
omitted” from the protection of the designation. This explains what is likely to
be of most important and most sensitive to change in any RPG.
7.55 As to Dearden’s and Park Farms, Dr Miele’s assessment was that these parcels
of land were always laid out to agriculture not parkland or ornamental garden.
In addition, neither farm ever formally formed part of the designed park itself
and had no true significance for the landscaped park itself, beyond perhaps the
limited fact of historical ownership. Importantly, that judgment is shared by Dr
Paul Stamper. The evidence does not support an assertion that these parcels of
land were integral to the significance of the Park as an historic landscape
properly understood.
7.56 Thus, in cartographical terms it is very clear that each of these farms was in full
agricultural use. Whenever the extent of the Park was marked on the official
OS plans, none of the “housing sites” were ever included within its boundaries.
Those boundaries were the best evidence of the extent of the park or
ornamental gardens. They were not seen or understood as part of the park by
the surveyor: they were clearly physically and functionally distinct for mapping
purposes. There is no evidence that the surveyor was inaccurate at all.
7.57 There is no evidence whatsoever of an historic, functional relationship between
the farms and the RPG in any meaningful historic context. Despite a very
comprehensive Hulton Archive: no documentary evidence of any such
relationship has been produced. Neither physically is there evidence of a
meaningful historic relationship in terms of the significance of the park.
83 As set out in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Derek Nesbit
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 24
7.58 The suggestion that there were important views to the relevant areas is simply
not borne out by the evidence. Views of the relevant farms, as a matter of
topography, landform and trees, could never have formed part of the Park’s
design intent. There is no physical evidence of substantial linkage in relation to
the relevant farms. The OS maps do not disclose extensive or any meaningful
farm tracks to suggest interdependence in an agricultural or other functional
way.
7.59 Both Mr Stamper and Dr Miele are clear that, in significance terms, and for the
reasons set out above, these parcels add little if anything to the true
significance of the RPG properly understood. In any event, wherever the debate
as to the relationship with the two farms within the site ends up: there can be
very little doubt that these areas of the designated asset are of much less
significance than the core areas and the areas of the site which would be
significantly enhanced as a result of these proposals. As a result, the harmful
impact of the proposal on the housing character areas outside the historic park
but inside the RPG boundary is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the
proposal to significance overall identified above.
7.60 The same analysis applies a fortiori in relation to the Western Fields. The fields
lie outside of the Park and have always been in pure agricultural or mineworking
use. There is no evidence of the creation of borrowed views or of any truly
functional relationship with the designed ornamental park.
7.61 The Landscape Character Appraisal of Bolton is an accurate description of the
true landscape character of the area. It is identified as being “low grade
agricultural land with ponds and flash areas and “fragmented landscape with
scattered settlements and dissecting transport links”. It is said to have “a lack
of historic continuity and variety in landscape quality”. Ms Knight explains why
the land has, and had, no functional or meaningful visual connection with the
park as a whole.
7.62 The heritage (Palmer) balance is truly not a close one. Every appropriately
qualified professional analyst other than Mr Gallagher has also come to this
conclusion. Those analyses are consistent over time and as to judgment. All
identify net beneficial impact84. Great weight and importance should and must
be afforded to this benefit.
7.63 It follows from the analysis set out above, that it simply cannot be lawfully
contended that the proposal drains the RPG of most if not all of its significance.
The only alternative judgments are therefore that the proposal on balance
leaves the designated heritage asset unharmed or that on balance, the
proposed asset is harmed but less than substantially.
7.64 In the event that the proposal leaves the asset unharmed: then for the
purposes of the Framework and the footnote, there would be no strong reason
to refuse the permission. Indeed, even absent positive net enhancement: great
weight as a matter of policy should be given to the assets conservation.
84 the Historic Impact Assessment undertaken by Mr de Figueredo (Dip Arch MA (Urban
Design) RIBA IHBC more than 20 years employment with HE) is truly a tour de force of
detailed and balanced analysis
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 25
7.65 If the proposal overall causes less than substantial harm, then in the terms of
the Framework85 such development can be permitted in the event that the
public benefits of the proposal which can include securing its OVU, outweigh the
less than substantial harm.
7.66 The purpose of this provision and in particular the OVU is of particular relevance
to the circumstances of this case where the potential future of the Park in the
absence of meaningful intervention is bleak on any reasonable assessment. The
concept of an ‘optimum viable use’, reflects the settled policy position that
ordinarily a designated asset’s significance is secured and safeguarded by
having a beneficial use.
7.67 In the present case, the use of the RPG as a family seat and Park has long
ceased. In the 100 years since it has ceased, the park has suffered
considerable loss of significance even though its core features of significance are
still discernible. No party to the inquiry is suggesting that this landed estate
use remains available to the asset. Planning policy has long recognised that
certain original uses of land such as stately homes and their parks, workhouses,
large mental health institutions are simply not appropriate to provide those
original assets with a continued use.
7.68 In such circumstances, alternative uses are encouraged. Such uses even if they
cause less than substantial harm are, in policy terms, to be preferred to no use
and continued dereliction. This is particularly the case if the uses promoted
constitute the OVU of the asset. Such a use optimises the use of the site in a
way which limits the nature of the harm but at the same time is viable in the
sense that it provides a long-term sustainable use for the asset concerned. If
there is no alternative use to that which is proposed than that proposed
constitutes the optimum use. In the present case, the only analysis of whether
the proposed development constitutes the OVU for the site has been undertaken
by Dr Miele86. He was not challenged on it.
7.69 Dr Miele is very clear that, in order to protect the best and most important
elements of significance of the Park, and to enhance them to the degree
proposed, then a viable use is required. That approach is consistent with the
Framework87 and with the advice in the PPG. Dr Miele identifies the golf
course/resort use as an appropriate use and also the fact that there is no
alternative use: hence his conclusion that the proposal is the only realistic use
and also the optimum use.
7.70 The evidence of Mr Nesbitt establishes that the resort when built, would be
highly profitable looking forward, even on the most modest of assumptions.
There is no challenge to the evidence that the alternative use would be in a
position to finance the maintenance and onward safeguarding of the asset.
7.71 In the absence of an alternative use for this asset it has a sorry future. There is
no sustainable evidence whatsoever that an alternative use would be able to
stop the irresistible decline of the Park. We know that the restoration work for
the key Emes/Webb features will run to tens of millions of pounds without
85 Paragraph 196 of the National Planning policy Framework, February 2019
86 See paragraphs 4.30 to 4.36 of the Proof of Evidence of Dr Chris Miele
87 ¶193
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 26
onward investment in maintenance. None of the objectors raise a realistic
potential alternative use for the site which would do anything other than
accelerate or perpetuate the present demise of the asset.
7.72 Further and importantly, the relevant planning authorities have had to consider
the condition and future of the heritage asset as part of its development
planning duties. The strategic authority (supported by Bolton Council) has as
part of the exercise of such duty considered what realistic options were
available for the site. These authorities have not identified any alternative uses
for the site which in planning terms might be appropriate or might provide a
long-term future for the site. Indeed, the emerging plan has contained a formal
allocation supporting the provision of a Ryder Cup Course and heritage
regeneration. Support for such a development still appears in the plan albeit
that the plan is at a very early stage.
7.73 It therefore follows that if there is a finding of less than substantial harm to the
asset from the proposal, then there should also be a finding that the proposal
nonetheless secures its OVU, the only use which on the evidence realistically
results in the securing the future of the asset in comparison to the alternative of
a do nothing option. In these circumstances, the proposal would constitute the
best use for the site in heritage terms going forward. As such any less than
substantial harm would be outweighed by securing the OVU for the asset alone.
7.74 In addition to these matters, if there remains less than substantial harm to the
significance of the Park, then the other public benefits which flow fall to be
added to the balance. For the reasons set out below, these benefits
substantially outweigh any conceivable less than substantial harm to the asset
when seen as a whole as part of the heritage footnote assessment.
7.75 The way in which a finding of less than substantial harm, if any, fits into the
Green Belt analysis is interesting. There are two ways of thinking about the
matter. If it is identified that the proposal constitutes the asset’s OVU, then, if
that OVU is better for the asset as a heritage asset than leaving the asset
without a viable use, then, even if the finding is that that there is less than
substantial harm from the development, the fact that such harm is its OVU and
is better for the asset than no use is, in fact on proper analysis, a heritage
benefit of the proposal and is properly counted as such by the Green Belt
assessment. Both Mr Bell and Ms Lancaster advanced this position albeit without
prejudice to their clear position that overall, net benefit is clearly demonstrated.
7.76 If, in the alternative, less than substantial harm, is taken into account in the
overall Green Belt analysis as “another harm”, then the existence of the OVU
and all of the other public benefits associated with the proposal would also fall
to be weighed (along with all of the other public benefits) also as part of the
overall balance. This would mean that “all harm” would be judged against “all
benefits”. This overall balance is dealt with below.
The Dovecote
7.77 The Dovecote is a Grade II Listed Building which is in a poor state of repair and
has a poor existing setting made up of modern ugly buildings and containers.
Most of the significance of the asset clearly lies in its physical fabric as a listed
building. That significance would be significantly enhanced by the repair and
restoration of the dovecote which would be the subject of a condition.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 27
7.78 The ugly modern and uncharacteristic setting of the Georgian dovecote would
be altered. The relationship of the dovecote to the other heritage building of
value (the non-listed barn) would be enhanced. The Georgian Dovecote
predates the founding of Home Farm, or indeed, any farm at this location88. It
follows that the dovecote was always likely to be associated with the main
house, its stables, its pleasure garden and the environs of the core of the Park.
This is confirmed by the archaeological analysis.
7.79 The proposal would not only enhance the listed building and its fabric
significantly, it would also place the dovecote in a better and more appropriate
setting than present.
Applicant’s Overall Conclusions on Heritage Matters
7.80 The heritage footnote is engaged by this proposal. There is a consistency of
approach and judgment among all professionals with the exception of the
HEART professional witnesses. Dr Meile identifies harm, adds to and alters the
assessment of significance across the park proposed by Mr Wikeley and fully
justifies his analysis by evidence that he presents in his proof.
7.81 There is, in this case, a history of assessments which recognise that there are
very considerable benefits of the proposal to the most sensitive and important
part of the RPG and the securing of a valuable longer-term use while also
identifying harms and less acceptable impacts in the less sensitive parts of the
park. There is a clear consensus of opinion that the balance necessary in such a
case falls conclusively and clearly in favour of heritage benefit. As a result, the
heritage assessment element of the footnote is met and there would not be a
clear reason identified in heritage terms for the refusal of planning permission89.
7.82 Further, the significant enhancement of this important heritage asset is, by
itself, sufficient to outweigh the Green Belt and any other harm identified as a
result of the proposals. Of course, because the heritage benefit only arises as a
result of the provision of the Ryder Cup Golf course, then this intellectual
exercise of using heritage as a very special circumstance by itself does not arise
in fact.
Applicant’s Position on Economic Benefits of the Proposal
7.83 The scale of economic and social benefits apparent in this case has by itself
often been sufficient for the Secretary of State to find very special
circumstances90. Ms Copley, on behalf of HEART, conceded that the socio-
economic and cultural benefits of the proposal identified by Mr Tong, if
delivered, ought to be given very significant weight. That concession was very
appropriate as the evidence establishes.
7.84 Using the best evidence and the appropriate methodology, Mr Tong assessed
that the total monetised socio-economic impact of the development is estimated
to total £1.2 bn between 2021 and 2040 at 2019 prices. The vast majority of
88 See e.g. OS Plan 184531 and the archaeological desk study
89 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF
90 See Mcllaren in Tong Chapter 9.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 28
that impact91 will be felt in the North West and at least half in Greater
Manchester.
7.85 The intangible benefits of the proposal cannot accurately be monetised in the
same way but are likely to be very significant. These benefits are in line with
government policy designed to heighten the visibility and status of the Northern
Powerhouse and in particular to harness the ability of Greater Manchester to
make the most of sporting events and their legacy. Enhancements in the profile
of the area and the demonstration of confidence in terms of investment is likely
to be just as important in terms of meeting policy objectives as is the monetised
contribution of the investment itself.
7.86 In terms of the current baseline, at present, the site makes a very minor
contribution to the economy of the area. It has lain in an unviable state as an
entire estate probably since the family left the estate and main house in 1918.
The state of disrepair of the main features of interest identified above are
testament to that.
7.87 Greater Manchester is the second most deprived local authority area in England.
Its levels of multiple social deprivation92 are among the worst in the country
across various measures. Bolton and Wigan fare better, but not much. The
cities of Salford and Manchester have had most of the investment that has
taken place in the North-West.
7.88 The impact of inward investment to the area, as a whole, would be
disproportionately beneficial. The impact of the Ryder Cup event itself has been
modelled carefully and robustly. The location of the Ryder Cup would be in an
urban area, with good public transport links to large parts of the UK, as well as
the very sophisticated and developed golf community. All of this mean that the
forecasts for the Ryder Cup itself are, in overall GVA terms, higher than for
other UK venues, but slightly lower for the region of the south-east than other
regional estimates.
7.89 The split of the regional distribution of the 4-day tournament GDV reflects the
different scales of the local economies to the regional and national ones. But
even on this analysis over the 4-day period of the tournament Bolton and Wigan
stand to benefit to the tune of £3M and the north-west by £35M. This analysis
pays no attention to the media coverage and the impact that would have on the
longer-term brand status of Bolton. Bolton already successfully hosts and will
host part of the Rugby League World Cup in 2021 and Iron Men competitions.
7.90 As Mr Tong identifies, the holding of the Ryder Cup at Newport/ Celtic Manor is
universally accepted to have put it on the map to such a degree that it
successfully made itself a candidate for a NATO summit. The opening of the
brand-new Wales convention centre is due at the very same Ryder Cup site93.
7.91 All of the anticipated, monetisable benefits of the proposal are set out in Mr
Tong’s proof94. As in all forecasting, there is no absolute certainty as to their
91 See figure 9.11 of the Proof of Evidence of Mr Andrew Tong
92 English indices of deprivation 2019: mapping resources, Published 26 September 2019
93 See paragraphs 7.37 to 7.56 of the Proof of Evidence of Andrew Tong
94 Section 9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 29
delivery. But the forecasting uses the appropriate and up-to date methodology
and requires a robust approach to be adopted by the assessor. The
methodology has in in-built conservatism to it already and forecasts may be
sensitive in either direction. This is particularly the case when no alternative
figures as to socio-economic impact are before the inquiry and no suggestion is
made that any of the analysis is materially inaccurate. The suggestion that the
Ryder Cup anywhere else in the UK or the NW would produce similar economic
impacts is nothing to the point.
7.92 There is no realistic suggestion of an alternative venue for the Ryder Cup.
Suggestions that Heaton Park or Royal Lytham and St Anne’s might be better
candidates are not supported by evidence. None of these courses would come
close to meeting the requirements of the Ryder Cup Committee.
7.93 There is no guarantee that another venue in the UK would be found which could
win the Ryder Cup. As such there is no sustainable evidence to suggest that the
benefits which would flow from this Ryder Cup should be in any way reduced on
the basis that the event and its out-turns “would have taken place anyway”.
7.94 For all of these reasons, the socio-economic benefits of the proposal should be
given very great weight. Alone, these benefits would be sufficient to constitute
very special circumstances. But again, the benefits form part of the overall
coincidence of benefit that flows from the very nature of the development itself.
Applicant’s Position on Enhancements to Biodiversity
7.95 The GMEU provides specialist advice to, and on behalf of, the ten district
councils that make up Greater Manchester on biodiversity, nature conservation
and wildlife issues. The detailed work which led the GMEU from an initial
potential stance of objection to one where there is a complete agreement should
not be underestimated95. That agreement identifies a very significant (but
conservative) 15.32% overall enhancement in the biodiversity metric of the site
which represents an extraordinary benefit of the proposal.
7.96 Many of the objectors raised the destruction of the ecology of the site among
their concerns. They were clearly unaware of the nature of the changes within
the site which allow the GMEU to accept this enhancement as a proper “impact”
of the proposal.
7.97 The existing park is currently unmanaged in ecological terms. Mr Hesketh is
clear that its ecological value is on the decline and that the site’s ecological
diversity will decline in the absence of intervention. 52% of the Parkland trees
are either dead, dying, moribund or have a limited life (red or amber).
7.98 The proposal through careful ecological management would result in all of the
Sites of Special Biological Interest (SSBI) being enhanced as a result of the
proposal. A number of those sites would achieve a step change in value
upwards as a result of the nature and scale of the enhancements proposed. The
habitats of bats, newts and toads would be significantly enhanced. There is no
indication from Natural England that there is any likelihood of any licencing
provisions being refused.
95 Statement of Common Ground on Ecology and Arboriculture, dated July 2019 (CD.13.11)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 30
7.99 An extensive and expensive programme of habitat enhancement and
management of the woodlands and Pleasure Gardens and other areas would be
implemented and secured by the ILHMP. There would be 3,226 additional
specimen trees. An increase in woodland of 1ha on site and the provision of
5.36ha woodland offsite at an identified location in Gorse wood.
7.100 To substantiate the findings of the ecological assessment, an objective
biodiversity assessment was undertaken by the independent market leaders in
the field. That work was overseen by the GMEU. It established a net biodiversity
gain of “an incredibly high degree” according to Ms Copley.
7.101 Two observations were made by HEART in relation to ecology. The first, was
that if you altered the inputs, then the outputs of the model altered too. But
since there was no evidence, or even suggestion, that the inputs were
incorrectly identified, this position goes nowhere. Indeed, Mr Hesketh's evidence
on this direct point was that the relevant inputs were not likely to alter in terms
of the classification of grasslands or woodland. The second was that there was
some element of harm in the very short-term occasioned by the construction
phase of the proposal. Any such impact would be limited, and it would be
overwhelmingly swallowed up in any balance by the significant enhancement of
the proposal.
7.102 The semi-ancient woodland on and about the site would be enhanced by
proper management and the reduction of trespass and accidental harm. No
veteran trees would be lost or harmed by the proposal. Rather their significance
as ecological assets would grow. This represents a very clear public benefit of
the proposal. Failure to weigh it in the balance in significant favour of the
proposal would lead to error in the balancing exercise. On behalf of HEART, Ms
Copley accepted that none of the benefit of the proposal in this respect had
been taken into account as part of the overall balancing exercise.
7.103 When added to the heritage led regeneration and the socio-economic benefits
of the proposal, the very special circumstances case.
The Applicant’s Position on Transport and Environmental Matters
7.104 Local residents are concerned about congestion in the area generally and in
the Chequerbent roundabout area. Concerns that the proposal would make the
situation worse are understandable but not supported by the evidence.
7.105 A range of highway works are proposed to mitigate the likely effect of the
proposed development, principally consisting of the construction of a new link
road between Chequerbent Roundabout and Platt lane96. The new road is agreed
by the highway authorities, including Highways England to result in significantly
less congestion and reduced driver delays. The full benefit of the link road
enhancement should flow to the development since without its provision, or a
contribution to its provision via the HIF97, it simply would not be provided, nor
would the enhancements mentioned above materialise. Thus, the Link Road is
96 See Paragraph 4.5 of the Poof of Evidence of Steven Eggleston
97 The Government's Housing Infrastructure Fund ("HIF"). The £5.5 billion Housing
Infrastructure Fund is available to local authorities for infrastructure to unlock housing. It will
help to unlock up to 650,000 new homes by helping to fund much needed infrastructure in
areas of greatest housing need
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 31
necessary for the proposal to take place in the sense that, without it, traffic
conditions would be likely to worsen. But the provision of the necessary Link
Road brings additional benefits to the area as a whole98.
7.106 Suggestions that the provision by the HIF, in the absence of contribution from
the site, might be possible or, should have been sought, go nowhere. The HIF is
a fund to ensure that sites which are marginal can be delivered. The HIF
funding for the Link Road is not guaranteed at all, even if applied for at its
present level. There is no evidence at all that an even greater HIF bid would
even pass the stage 1 element99 of the process achieved thus far or even that
the making of such a bid would be possible.
7.107 The only evidence before the Inquiry as a matter of fact is that the proposal
would finance and deliver the Link Road by itself or via a necessary contribution
to any successful Housing Infrastructure Fund bid, which by itself would be £3M
short. Either way, the benefits only accrue if the proposal is granted planning
permission. In these circumstances, full weight should be given to the
enhancement of the local network as part of the overall proposals. It is a benefit
which accrues only as a result of the proposal.
7.108 Given the real and obvious concerns which have been expressed about the
existing position during the Inquiry, this clear benefit of the proposal which is a
necessary requirement of the highway authorities but goes further than just
addressing its own highway impacts, has probably been undervalued by both
the Applicant and the Council. The enhancement of the highway network, the
reduction of congestion and waiting times and the freeing up of one of the key
junctions in the area particularly in peak hours is a very powerful and weighty
public benefit of the proposal100.
Housing Needs
7.109 The housing element of the proposal provides essential cross funding for the
proposal. It represents both a minimum safety net for the Applicant and the
maximum level of cross-subsidy that the Applicant’s advisers and the Council
felt appropriate having regard to the constraints of the site. However, the
provision of homes would also convey other significant benefits. It is common
ground with the Local Planning Authority that the housing provided would make
a meaningful contribution to meeting the needs of the local housing market
both in the short-term and in the longer-term101. There is a national imperative
to significantly boost the supply of new homes. Against the context of a national
housing crisis, Bolton has an even deeper and very urgent need for new
housing.
7.110 The Council does not have close to a 5YLS. Past provision in Bolton is poor
with a shortfall of well over 2,000 dwellings in Bolton over the last 11 years102.
98 See Paragraph 4.6 of the Poof of Evidence of Steven Eggleston which deals with Impacts of
the Link Road
99 Stage one: 'Expressions of interest' as set out in the Housing Infrastructure Fund
Supporting Document for Forward Funding, published July 2017
100 See Paragraph 4.6 of the Poof of Evidence of Steven Eggleston
101 See Housing SOCG
102 See paragraph 10.4 of the proof of evidence of Stephen Bell
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 32
Housing delivery has fallen well short of the minimum CS requirement in every
single year without exception in that period.
7.111 The absence of even a 5YLS is not simply a matter of dry statistics or tables.
The symptoms of a broken housing market experienced by the people of this
area, include: house prices in the area have been rising by in excess of 10.6%;
3,261 households in Bolton are on the Council’s housing waiting list in a
reasonable preference category; 43,477 households cannot access the housing
market at all103. These consequences are socially divisive and unsustainable in
economic and in transport terms. A step change in housing provision is needed.
7.112 Both the Council and the Applicant agree that the development would help to
address the absence of a 5YLS. On either the Council or the Applicant's figures
(c 200 units) that contribution is a significant one: and one to be given
substantial weight in the overall planning balance. Even if the commencement
of development is delayed by a year, then the contribution which the site makes
is a meaningful one104. The site would also make a meaningful contribution to
the longer-term housing provision in the Borough, helping to address the
shortfall of land at a sustainable location against Bolton’s identified needs105.
7.113 The qualitative aspect of the proposed housing mix at the site would also help
to attract ‘footloose’ working age households who are better able to drive
economic growth in the area106. The quality of the housing is further secured by
the design parameters and the housing would be of high quality. All of these
housing delivery matters add to the overall case establishing very special
circumstances in the context of this case.
7.114 It is settled ground that the proposal is located in a sustainable location and in
overall transport terms would give rise to more sustainable patterns of transport
and travel.
Affordable Housing
7.115 The application, at the time of its determination by the local planning
authority, did not contain affordable housing. It was common ground that given
the viability analysis presented to the Inquiry107, the development could not
viably provide any affordable housing. Policy SC1 of the CS50 provides that
35% of housing on greenfield developments should be affordable, but only if
financially viable. If financial viability did not support that level of provision,
then lower levels of provision or different tenure mixes to the 75/25 tenure split
could be acceptable. The absence of affordable housing on the particular
evidence of this case is not contrary to the provisions of the development plan
in that sense.
7.116 Following the call-in of the application by the Secretary of State, the Applicant
had regard to other decisions of the Secretary of State and also to paragraph 64
103 Paragraph 10.5 of the proof of evidence of Stephen Bell
104 See paragraph 2.15 of the Statement of Common Ground on Housing Issues, dated August
2019 (CD.13.9)
105 Bell section 10 and in particular paragraph 10.25
106 See paragraph 10.30 of the Proof of Evidence of Stephen Bell
107 See Proof of Evidence of Derek Nesbit and Statement of Common Ground on Viability,
dated 14 August 2019 (CD.3.15)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 33
of the revised Framework. It is important to emphasise that paragraph 64 does
not in any way undermine the premise that affordable housing should not be
sought from developments which, when objectively assessed, are not viable as
judged by the approach set out in the PPG. In other words, it does not create a
collar of 10% below which no housing site should fall. Rather it requires that
where affordable housing is justified on larger sites, 10% of that provision
should be provided in the form of affordable home ownership.
7.117 Nonetheless, the underlying thrust of the policy and the content of a number
of decisions by the Secretary of State placing significant weight on the provision
of affordable housing has led to the Applicant offering a minimum 10%
affordable housing each of which have to be owned by an eligible person (in the
precise terms of the s 106 agreement). Such a provision is not required by the
CS policy and is therefore “policy plus” in the terms employed in the Inquiry in
respect of the CS and the Framework. The Applicant is entitled to provide such
affordable housing on site as part of the mix of development and such a
material consideration must be taken into account as a benefit of the proposal.
7.118 It is common ground that there is a pressing need for affordable housing in the
area. Annually in Bolton alone the SHMA108 identifies a need for 496 affordable
housing units (net).109 The contribution towards affordable housing is accepted
by the Council as a benefit to be added to the very special circumstances which
it had already found given the other considerations that clearly outweigh the
Green Belt and other harms of the proposal.
7.119 The Secretary of State might well have a view on the makeup and tenure split
of the housing provision and the impact that has on the overall weight to be
given to the additional benefit. Consequently, the section 106 agreement has
been amended to allow the Secretary of State to influence the precise nature of
the provision and mix on the development as a whole. This allows the Secretary
of State to amend the tenure mix and to enhance the weight attributable to the
benefit.
7.120 HEART maintained that the affordable housing provision was in fact a harm.
The Applicant contends that clearly the addition of affordable housing, where
previously there was none, is a benefit of the proposal.
7.121 The Applicant submits that the offer of affordable housing was more than
required by the policies. It was tested very fully by the analysis required by the
Inspector. A comprehensive assessment of the potential scenarios and
alternative parameters was provided to the Inquiry. All such analyses
established that, at present day values, and applying objective and anonymised
viability techniques required by the PPG and by the new RICS guidance, the
scope for a policy requirement for affordable housing simply does not exist. The
Council’s experts agreed110.
7.122 However, as part of that analysis, there are circumstances where housing
values increase to reflect the association with the Ryder Cup and a new golf-led
resort. In these circumstances the value of the commercial asset (at present
108 Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Final Report, dated 2008
109 See para 10.35 of the Proof of Evidence of Stephen Bell
110 That agreement is set out in the SOCG on Housing Issues, dated August 2019 (CD.13.9)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 34
constrained by a red book valuation which can give little “trophy” value to the
asset) rises significantly111. Hence the need for a comprehensive set of review
mechanisms to establish that, if as anticipated, the values associated with both
elements of the proposal rise, further public benefit in the form of additional
affordable housing would be provided.
7.123 The mechanisms now provided in the s106 agreement ensure that the
provision of affordable housing provided pursuant to any cap is optimised, both
as to timing and quantum of delivery and location, with a view to maximising
the potential weight to be given to this additional affordable housing secured on
review.
7.124 By these means, the proposal now provides more than the reasonable
maximum provision of affordable housing. At all material times going forward,
the proposal would at least provide the reasonable maximum provision by way
of the review mechanisms. The detail of the mechanisms including appropriate
indexation has been agreed with the local planning authority and is commended
to the Secretary of State112. Significant weight should be given to the affordable
housing provisions, in addition to the housing considerations outline above.
They are weighty additional matters to add to the very special circumstances
case already set out above.
Housing Deliverability
7.125 Viability which is an objective test against a set of anonymised benchmarks is
a very different creature from the evidence of deliverability which can and
should be judged on the evidence in each case. Many developments which on
the face of the balance sheet and objective sector wide benchmarks are
unviable in a policy sense are built because that type of viability is but one
factor in the decision to proceed with a development.
7.126 Mr Knight explained, that different developers have different models and in
fact different ambitions. The objectivised viability of the project in the short
term is not one which the Applicant has ever really treated as determinative in
managing its portfolio. He gave the examples of the Trafford Centre and of John
Lennon Airport as projects promoted by the Applicant which proceeded and
have succeeded notwithstanding negative viability appraisals. The ability of the
Applicant to hold land for long periods of time and to use their very significant
asset base to play the “long game” was explained carefully and compellingly.
7.127 As Mr Knight explained, the need for a wider view of business success has
driven all of the most recent Ryder Cup successes in Europe: they have all been
underwritten by successful individuals, local corporations and/or national
governments113. There is nothing to suggest that the Applicant is other than
totally and completely committed to what it sees as one of its Legacy
Developments in the region. The bringing of the Ryder Cup to the North West
has long been high on its corporate agenda. It has already spent millions of
111 See Proof of Evidence of Derek Nesbit
112 The Viability Review Mechanism being contained within the S.106 Agreement.
113 See statement of Richard Knight provided at Appendix 1 to the Proof of Evidence of Mr
Stephen Bell
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 35
pounds in seeking to achieve this ambition. It has a remarkable track record of
delivering when it says it will.
7.128 More importantly this permission could only be implemented if the Ryder Cup
is awarded to the UK at Hulton Park and a binding contract as to delivery is
secured. The award of the Ryder Cup would only be made if the Ryder Cup
Committee is entirely satisfied of the complete and comprehensive support of
the host nation government. In all recent cases, that has involved the
Government and local stakeholders actively becoming involved in the delivery
process. Here the local and national stakeholders are all fully supportive and
engaged ready to support114.
The Appropriateness of the s106 Mechanism
7.129 At all material times the Applicant has been prepared to abide by a restriction
that the planning permission ought not to be capable of being implemented
unless and until the Ryder Cup has been secured and conditions securing its
delivery have been evidenced. Counsel (consistent with the preliminary views
expressed by the Inspector) took the view that because of the connection
between the heritage benefits of the proposal, the economic and other benefits
and the hosting of the Ryder Cup, such a provision ought to be embedded in the
proposal in a way which could not be removed by operation of ss73 or 78.
7.130 Leading Counsel advised the Council that a s 106 was the appropriate way to
achieve this end. He did so in gist for the reasons now set out in the note on the
matter presented to the inquiry in answer to questions raised by the Inspector.
They remain valid and are not challenged by any party.
7.131 Given the centrality of the provision of the Ryder Cup to all aspects of the case
presented to the Inquiry, the Applicant is very clear that the imposition of such
a requirement in the s 106 meets all of the relevant legal and policy tests115.
No party to the Inquiry is suggesting that the imposition of a s 106 covenant to
deal with this matter is unlawful in principle. It is to be noted that CPRE, in
particular, has fundamentally shifted its position in relation to this matter. In an
earlier representation it took the position that a s106 was not lawfully
appropriate. Now it takes the view that it is essential. We agree.
7.132 There is nothing unusual either about the principle of a Grampian condition or
a Grampian style covenant restricting the use of land unless and until a certain
event took place. The present policy on Grampian conditions (and by implication
Grampian clauses) is that they should only be avoided where “there is no
prospect at all” of the relevant condition being fulfilled116.
7.133 The purpose of altering the guidance on this issue was to introduce flexibility
and ensure that planning permissions could be granted subject to the provision
of infrastructure or some other development in the widest sense. In other
114 See CD.9.4. Support from GMCA, GMLEP, Bolton Council, Wigan Council, Marketing
Manchester, MIDA, CBI, University of Bolton, England Golf and Sport England.
115 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and
that it is: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly
related to the development; or (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development,
116 As set out in PPG: Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 21a-009-20140306
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 36
words, the courts and guidance make clear that where planning permission can
be seen in the public interest in the event of a future event happening, then it is
entirely appropriate both to judge the acceptability of the development in the
context of that event happening and to grant permission dependant on that
event happening unless there “is no prospect at all” of that event occurring
during the lifetime of the permission. In the circumstances of this case, that test
is easily met.
7.134 The award of the Ryder Cup is not certain, and it would be wrong to expect the
Ryder Cup Committee to pre-judge or to pre-announce its preference or choice.
However, a requirement for certainty is simply not the appropriate test. The
planning system can fully and properly judge whether the situation in the light
of the conditionality is met would be an appropriate one. If it is then planning
permission should follow (along with the relevant restriction).
The Overall Green Belt Balance
7.135 It is agreed between all of the parties that the overall Green Belt balance is a
very comprehensive one. Thus, the Green Belt harms, definitional and all other
harms associated with the proposal fall to be considered against the existence
of a set of other considerations which are required to clearly outweigh that
harm in order to demonstrate the existence of very special circumstances.
7.136 The Applicant’s position on the various elements in the balance are set out
above. The Applicant accepts that there is considerable harm to the Green Belt
in this case. It accepts that such harm must be given substantial weight. The
circumstances of this case represent a generational opportunity to stall and
reverse the decline of the Hulton Estate, to re-purpose it for the 21st Century
while at the same time to show confidence in, and to attract world attention to,
this part of the world by allowing it to host and reap the long-term benefits of
the Ryder Cup and the resort created.
7.137 The Applicant contends that for all of these reasons and having regard to the
other package of benefits set out above, the Green Belt footnote test is met.
7.138 When the balance undertaken by HEART’s professional advisers is considered,
it can be seen to be deficient by comparison. The finding of substantial harm is
legally implausible on the facts of this case. That is hugely important because it
goes not only to weight to be given to heritage factors in the overall balance,
but it engages a wholly and fundamentally different test. The “substantial harm
(or total loss of significance)” test is a wholly and very deliberately different and
stiffer test involving requirements of necessity or other detailed parameters to
be met.
7.139 Within the framework of what the Applicant says is the wrong test, Ms Copley
applied hardly any weight at all to the tens of millions of pounds of restoration
works and enhancements to the landscape. The inability of the Applicant’s team
to properly to comment on these assessments limits the weight which can fairly
be afforded to these claims.
7.140 Within the framework of what the Applicant says is the wrong test, Ms Copley
accepted that she had given no weight to the ecological benefit of the proposals
despite the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that the ecological
benefits were in any way illusory or overblown. No appropriate weight has been
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 37
given to the highway benefits and on examination, there is no real challenge to
the quantum of the economic benefits which would flow from the decision to
grant permission if the Ryder Cup were to be secured. In addition, the
affordable housing was given adverse weight in the overall balance. These
matters point to a flawed overall assessment and a flawed conclusion.
Application of the ‘footnote’ policies
7.141 In the event that the Secretary of State accepts the conclusions of the Council
on its resolution to grant planning permission and the conclusions of both the
Council and the Applicant at this Inquiry that both the heritage and the Green
Belt tests are met, then it is clear from the new wording of the Framework that
the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged.
7.142 This means that planning permission should be granted applying a tilted
balance which requires decision makers to approve permissions unless the
consequences of so doing would clearly and demonstrably be outweighed by the
harms. Since the comprehensive nature and extent of the Green Belt test will
in these circumstances have been met, there is little logical likelihood of the
tilted balance indicating anything other than a grant of permission.
7.143 The very fact that the presumption in favour of development is engaged is,
and of itself, an important material consideration for the Inspector and the
Secretary of State. It is a positive requirement of the planning system to
address a deficiency in the development plan process if, and when, the
presumption is engaged. The correct decision-making in the light of the
wording of the NPPF and relevant caselaw is agreed by all parties117. If the
footnote policies show no clear reason for refusal, then the presumption must
apply.
7.144 The Applicant contends that this application represents a unique opportunity to
make a difference. They come along rarely in a career or in a series of
Governments. This opportunity should be taken.
The Case for the Council
8.1 This summary contains all material points in relation to the Council’s case. It is
taken substantially from the Council’s closing submissions but also from
evidence given on behalf of the Council and from other documents submitted to
the Inquiry. The Secretary of State is also referred to the Council’s closing
submissions at Inquiry Document 62 which sets out the Council’s position.
8.2 It is the Council’s case that planning permission should be granted for the
Proposed Development subject to the Applicant entering into a planning
obligation as set out in the draft section 106 agreement and the imposition of
suitable conditions as contained within the draft schedule.
8.3 The consequences of the Applicant executing the section 106 agreement and of
the Secretary of State imposing those conditions have been discussed. The
Council places great reliance on securing what it refers to as ‘the Ryder Cup
Restriction’. Put simply, both when resolving to grant planning permission and
in presenting their case to this Inquiry, it has been the Council’s view that
117 Counsels’ note handed into the Inquiry on 9 October 2019, document 29
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 38
benefits sufficient to justify the grant of planning permission for this
Development in this location can only be achieved if the Ryder Cup is awarded
and secured for Hulton Park.
8.4 This does not mean that the very special benefits on which the case depends
only relate to those which would accrue during the four days of the Ryder Cup
itself. They are important in their own right, but they are only the tip of the
iceberg. Like other “mega-events” the Ryder Cup brings with it an international
profile which offers the chance for transformational benefits in the local and
regional economies.
8.5 That benefit is not free-floating. It would be underpinned by a Ryder Cup
Commitment aimed at capitalising on the opportunities for business
development, increased employment and participation in sport amongst other
things. It would also drive and enable the delivery of a world-class golf resort
which is critical to realising an uplift in development value that can make the
scheme viable as whole (potentially giving rise to an additional affordable
housing contribution) and provide a long-term active use for the RPG which will
be viable on an ongoing basis118.
8.6 This has led the Council to require a restriction to be built into the s106
agreement which has the effect of preventing any form of development being
carried out on the site pursuant to the planning permission until the Ryder Cup
has been awarded to Hulton Park; and a legally binding agreement has been put
in place; and satisfactory written evidence of the same has been provided to the
Council.
8.7 As now drafted, the ‘Ryder Cup Restriction’ operates by way of a ‘Grampian’
obligation: the owner of the site covenants that the development shall not be
begun or initiated within the meaning of s.56 of the 1990 Act until the
conditions contained within the definition of “Unconditional Date” have occurred.
This form of obligation has been held to be within the scope of s.106 of the
1990 Act119 and is something which the Council believes it can (and intends to)
enforce as necessary.
8.8 The proposed restriction is necessary in terms of regulation 122120 because the
development would not be acceptable without the Ryder Cup; it directly relates
to the development of the site, and it is of a reasonable scope given the impact
which the development as a whole would have on the Green Belt and Hulton
Park. It is appropriate for it to be imposed by way of planning obligation rather
than a condition given the central importance of the Ryder Cup award to the
benefits case and the additional security which an obligation offers (including
immunity from s.73 applications).
8.9 The former Circular 11/95 on the Use of Conditions in Planning Permission
(revoked by the Framework) advised that although it might be reasonable to
118 As set out in the evidence of Mr Nesbitt, put to Ms Copley in XX by RHQC and not
questioned
119 See R. v Canterbury City Council Ex parte Spring Image Ltd (1994) 68 P. & C.R. 171 at
184
120 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 39
impose a negative covenant which prohibits development until a specified action
had been taken by a third party:
“It is the policy of the Secretaries of State that such a condition should only be imposed on a
planning permission if there are at least reasonable prospects of the action in question being
performed within the time-limit imposed by the permission ...”
8.10 However, following the decision in Merritt v Secretary of State [2000] 3 P.L.R.
125 this was amended by ODPM to read (emphasis added):
“It is the policy of the Secretary of State that such a condition may be imposed on a planning
permission. However, when there are no prospects at all of the action in question being performed
within the time-limit imposed by the permission, negative conditions should not be imposed. In other
words, when the interested third party has said that they have no intention of carrying out the
action or allowing it to be carried out, conditions prohibiting development until this specified action
has been taken by the third party should not be imposed."
8.11 This guidance is now contained in the PPG121 which states: “Such conditions should
not be used where there are no prospects at all of the action in question being performed within the
time-limit imposed by the permission”.
8.12 The Council considers that the balance of the evidence, and in particular that
put forward by Mr Bell and Mr Knight, shows that there is a good prospect of the
Ryder Cup being awarded to Hulton Park. There is certainly nothing to show a
positive intention by the European Tour not to select Hulton Park. For these
reasons, the Council considers that the Proposed Restriction is an appropriate
and lawful response to the circumstances of this Application.
Consistency with the Development Plan
8.13 The evidence of the main parties to the Inquiry primarily approaches the
decision-making framework by reference to the policy tests found in the
Framework itself. It is submitted that this is appropriate as the considerations
which apply to the central question of whether the very special circumstances
test is met will largely be the same as those that inform any conclusion on
degree of conflict with the development plan.
8.14 It is also relevant that the CS for the Borough predates the 2012 Framework
and the weight to be given to its policies should be assessed by reference to
their degree of consistency with the Framework as it now stands. Additionally,
policy aspirations for the supply of housing, such as SC1, and the first bullet
point of OA4 are out-of-date as result of the operation of footnote 7 to the
Framework and should be given limited weight122.
8.15 On this basis, Ms Lancaster and the Council’s Officers before her, identified
conflict with the following development plan policies: CG1 (in relation to BMV
and landscape character); OA4 (in relation to green belt boundaries and urban
boundaries); and CGAP7 (insofar as it is not read as incorporating the very
special circumstances test). This has led the Council to conclude that, taken as
a whole, the Proposed Development is not in accordance with the development
plan.
121 Reference ID: 21a-009-20140306
122 Agreed with JC in XX by MDH
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 40
Consistency with National Policy relating to Green Belt
8.16 Green Belt attracts the highest levels of protection in national and local policy
terms and very special circumstances are required to be shown before
permission can be granted. That “very special circumstances” test is set out in
the Framework123 and it requires the decision-maker to weigh harm to Green
Belt along with all other forms of harm against the benefits arising from the
development.
8.17 The balance which Green Belt policy presents in a case like this is neither neat
nor arithmetic, but asymmetric and complex. The Council is acutely aware of
the value and importance which the Green Belt has not only in national policy
terms but also in the hearts and minds of the residents of Bolton. However, it is
just as conscious of the pressing needs faced by the communities it serves and
of the all too rare opportunities which exist for combatting the structural
inequalities that serve to slow down Bolton, the GMA and the wider North-West
in their battles for economic opportunity and prosperity.
Green Belt Harm
8.18 The Framework124 provides that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is
harmful by definition. All three planning witnesses gave substantial weight to
that definitional harm as well as identifying that there would be significant
“actual” harm when measured against openness and the purposes of Green Belt
as set out in paragraph 134.
8.19 There is some disagreement around aspects of the analysis and although these
are not likely to make a significant difference to the overall assessment of the
application it is submitted that Ms Lancaster’s evidence is to be preferred.
8.20 On the second GB purpose, Mr Bell identified no harm in terms of coalescence
despite an undeniable narrowing of the gap between Westhoughton and
Atherton/Over Hulton. Ms Copley appeared to suggest125 that there would be
actual functional coalescence, despite the retention of that same gap at
113m126. The Council considers that the better view lies somewhere in between.
As explained by Ms Lancaster, there would be a notable reduction in the gap
between the two built up areas but this is mitigated to a significant degree by
the retention of a functional separation between existing development on
Everest Road and the southern end of the Western Fields parcel and the extent
to which those southern reaches would be screened from likely receptors
travelling along public routes to the west and on the Hulton Trail.
8.21 On the fourth Green Belt purpose, Ms Copley maintained that there would be
harm, despite accepting that there was no evidence that Westhoughton and
Over Hulton were “historic” and that she had not presented any evidence to the
inquiry in terms of them having either a “special character” or “setting”. Despite
this, all of the harm which Ms Copley appeared to rely on would properly fall to
be considered against the second Green Belt purpose.
123 ¶144
124 ¶143
125 JC proof at 4.28, maintained in XX by MDH
126 See SB’s Figure 11.2 at page 86 of his Proof.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 41
8.22 On openness, the only matter in dispute is whether harm also arises from the
golf course parts of the development. Ms Lancaster, on behalf of the Council,
explained that the proposed earthworks would give rise to some harm due to
their visual impacts but resisted the idea that there would necessarily be an
impact on openness in spatial terms as the golf course would continue to read
as an open space. However, like the other planning witnesses she concluded
that the impact on openness from the Development as a whole would be
significant.
Other Harm
8.23 The Officer’s Committee Report, and Ms Lancaster, both identify other harm in
terms of landscape and loss of best and most versatile agricultural land but
categorise it as having limited weight. On agricultural impact, Ms Copley
accepted that national policy127 only indicates that best and most versatile land
should be protected and that due to the limited extent of loss as set out in the
application128, and the fact that it is not currently in arable use, it was a minor
point in the overall balance129.
8.24 On landscape, no party challenges the fundamentals of the landscape evidence
put forward in the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and by Ms Knight
beyond some specific criticisms which Mr Gallagher made of the heritage
viewpoints and visualisations. The Council accepts that although there would be
some overall harm in landscape character terms, the nature of the site and the
design of relevant boundary treatments, is such that any residual harm can only
be given moderate weight.
Economic, Social and Cultural Benefits
8.25 The core of the Council’s case relates to the economic, social and cultural
benefits which would flow from the development. As agreed by Ms Copley, the
Framework130 requires that significant weight be given to the contribution which
development proposals can make to supporting economic growth, taking into
account opportunities for development.
8.26 This chimes with the local and regional policy context which recognises the
levels of deprivation faced by the Borough131; the need to take advantage of
economic opportunity132; and the particular role which sport plays in the driving
the economy of the GMA133. There is also clear evidence in the form of the
most recent English IMD data134 that not only do Bolton and Wigan lie within the
bottom third of English local authority areas but the four most deprived areas
are all found within the North West region and include the City of Manchester
itself.
127 Paragraph 170(b) of the NPPF
128 Ms Lancaster identifies that the total Grade 3a(good) land within the Site is 2.8ha.
129 JC in XX from MDH
130 Paragraph 80
131 See CS para 2.21 [CD11.2]
132 See CS Strategic Objective 5
133 See CD11.52 page 83
134 See ID58
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 42
8.27 As Ms Copley fairly accepted, this provides an important context to the
assessment of the weight to be given to benefits which accrue to Bolton &
Wigan, the GMA and the North-West region respectively. She accepted that, if
the economic impacts which Mr Tong presents at Figure 9.11 of his Proof were
to arise, this would amount to a “very significant benefit” of the scheme135.
8.28 That evidence from Mr Tong builds on the detailed economic impact report
prepared by Ekosgen136. The earlier version of this report was given detailed
consideration by the Council prior to the Committee’s resolution to grant
planning permission. Its technical assessment was independently validated by
New Economy, the GMCA research team who wrote the guidance on the
relevant methodologies, and who advised that the technical work was sound137.
8.29 Other consultees included Bolton’s Economic Development Team138 and
Marketing Manchester139 who drew on research at Sheffield Hallam into the
2014 Gleneagles Ryder Cup. Together, these consultees set out a suggested
framework for ensuring the maximisation of economic benefit to Bolton.
8.30 It also secures the events, activities and programmes which are to form the
‘Ryder Cup Commitment’ and which led the Council’s Head of Economic
Development to identify the Proposed Development as “a very significant
opportunity for the economic prosperity of Bolton Borough”. This opportunity is
primarily evidenced by the modelling but there are also more intangible issues
such as brand and place recognition which arise from international sporting
events. These are not monetised in Mr Tong’s analysis but remain “pertinent”140
issue to consider.
8.31 Given this level of scrutiny it is probably not surprising that no party seeks to
contest the methodology by which Mr Tong and Ekosgen have assessed the
level of economic benefits. Although Ms Copley in her oral evidence suggested
that some of the inputs to Ekosgen’s modelling might have been imperfect, she
accepted that she had not presented any evidence to demonstrate that the
modelling was not based on best practice or to support her contention that a
lower median wage figure should have been used.
8.32 Ms Copley also recognised141 that although various points relating to ‘sensitivity’
had been put to Mr Tong, the nature of such sensitivities is that they go both
ways: if the Development goes ahead it could just as well give rise to more
benefits as less. Although she had referred to a few examples of sports events
that had not resulted in a successful economic result, she conceded142 that she
was not aware of any modern Ryder Cup which had had a negative impact on
the area in which it was held.
8.33 Firstly, as the IMD evidence makes clear, and the policy context confirms, the
need for economic growth and development is just as strong in the wider North-
135 Accepted by JC in XX by MDH
136 CD05.6.61
137 CD 3.1 at §152
138 See CD3.1 §157
139 See CD9.1 from page 180
140 Evidence in Chief
141 JC XX by RHQC
142 JC XX by RHQC
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 43
West and GMA as it is in Bolton. Although the Council naturally puts particular
weight on the extra spending and jobs which would arise in the Borough and
Wigan, there is a compelling case for securing additional growth in the North-
West. The analysis shows that c.65% of the total cumulative GVA143 would
arise in this region.
8.34 The reality is that all of the economic impacts144 are relevant to the question of
whether very special circumstances arise. The Ryder Cup should not just be
seen as a four-day event but as the driver of the Development and the Ryder
Cup Commitment legacy programme which would come with it. Whilst it is right
that the Ryder Cup Commitment element remains to be fixed, the Council has
its own experience of being involved in major cultural and sporting events and
is confident that any future Ryder Cup would deliver benefits in the same range.
8.35 The suggestion by Ms Copley145 that the projected economic impacts were “not
significant” because they would only amount to a low percentage of the total
economic activity associated with tourism in Greater Manchester is simply
bizarre and seemingly at odds with Ms Copley’s acceptance that those same
impacts should be given very significant weight. Single applications should not
be compared with sectors146 which are themselves the product of many different
proposals across a long period of time.
8.36 Finally, the Council submits that the economic impacts as projected are
substantial and should be given very significant weight as part of the very
special circumstances balance.
Social and Cultural
8.37 Broader social and cultural benefits also flow from the development and should
be given significant weight. The golf resort itself would amount to a high-quality
addition to Bolton and the GMA’s sporting offer. It would support the objective
of enabling healthy lifestyles whilst providing a platform through the academy
for increased local participation and a broader range of facilities for golfers at
every level147.
8.38 The Ryder Cup legacy programmes would look to encourage enhanced
participation through the Ryder Cup Commitment, as well as a package of
cultural and community focussed events, activities and spaces. Travel plans
would maximise opportunities for sustainable travel and could be secured by
relevant conditions148. These benefits should be given significant weight.
Heritage
8.39 The Council contends that significant weight should be given to the heritage
benefits of the development. The Council’s view has been that the proposed
development involves some aspects that cause harm to the significance of the
143 £729.1 million over 20 years
144 Presented by Mr Tong in his Figure 9.11
145 In re-examination
146 Although it is noted that Mr Tong’s overall GVA figure for the GMA (£637 million over 20
years) is hardly insignificant even when compared to the total value of the GM tourism sector.
147 Emma Lancaster Proof at 7.24 and following.
148 See draft conditions 33 and 60
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 44
RPG and Dovecote and many which give rise to benefits. Officers were clear149
that the Committee should consider that the benefits of the scheme in heritage
terms on their own, were capable of outweighing heritage harms. This led them
to advise that the net heritage benefits to the RPG and Dovecote should be
given substantial weight150 as part of the overall balance.
8.40 In coming to that view, the Council place particular weight on the Park’s
experience of decline and degradation, the unlikelihood that current use of the
site would provide for conservation or enhancement of the Park in the medium
or long-term and the aim of the proposal to provide a long-term viable use151.
Ms Lancaster advises that the approach should take into account the overall net
effect of the Proposed Development, the threats that exist to its future condition
and the overall outcomes in terms of future viable use which can be achieved.
8.41 The Council contend that the proposed development would bring about a
significant heritage benefit. In particular, the Council ascribes weight to the
works which would be done to ‘restore’152 the core features at the centre of the
designed landscape; and on the creation of an active viable use. The Council
refers to the PPG guidance on the identification of the optimum viable use for an
asset. It is difficult to imagine any truly viable alternative use for the site which
would enable the wholescale restoration of the Park and the Dovecote.
8.42 Ms Lancaster’s assessment accepts that there may be a range of reasonable
positions to be taken in relation to the net heritage position (applying the
Palmer153 balance). As a result, she also confirms her position in relation to any
finding that there is net less than substantial harm and confirms that such harm
would be clearly outweighed by the public benefits. She was clear that it does
not seem tenable that the proposals could be said to result in substantial harm
which is said to arise where an asset is drained “of most if not all of its
significance”; when its significance is vitiated.
8.43 Given the importance of the distinction between ‘substantial’ and ‘less than
substantial’ harm, Mr Gallagher’s ignorance of either the Bedford judgment or
the PPG was concerning and must go to the weight to be given to his expert
view in the round. It is very hard to see how the significance of the RPG as a
whole could truly be vitiated if key elements of the original Emes created
design154 still exist; they continue to contribute to the significance of the RPG
and would be subject to the extensive heritage enhancements proposed155. Ms
Copley’s characterisation of the heritage restoration works as “tinkering” is also
hard to reconcile with the sheer scale and cost of them156.
149 §430 of the Committee Report
150 CD 3.1 at §517
151 See CD 3.1 at §512
152 Whether or not this is truly a “restoration” in the sense which Mr Gallagher contends for,
the Council is happy that the works proposed and which will be permitted pursuant to the
relevant conditions are in line with best practice and will lead to the “conservation” of the
assets in the terms of NPPF.
153 See CD12.82 at §29
154 Such as the Serpentine Lake, Pleasure and Kitchen Gardens and Woodland Walk
155 See in particular the contents and recommendations of the Historic Structures:
Condition/Repair Issues, the recommendations of which are secured by condition 23.
156 As revealed by the Gleeds’ Costs Plan appended to Mr Nesbitt’s proof
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 45
8.44 This is before one even reaches issues of heritage judgment such of the
contribution to significance which is made by those areas of the site on which
housing is to be built. That is an issue primarily for the Applicant and HEART but
the Council’s advisers have previously accepted that the Dearden’s Farm and
Park End Farm areas are of lesser significance than other areas of the RPG157.
8.45 The Council contends that the application offers a unique chance to reverse the
Park’s decline and secure an appropriate long-term viable use. There are no
other options on the table which would deliver restoration works of the scale
that the application proposes, nor indeed any restoration works at all. Although
it is recognised that there would be aspects of the development which would
impair particular aspects of the Park’s significance, the Council agrees that a
heritage-led approach has been taken, incorporating the guidance provided by
English Heritage, and that intervention has been designed to prioritise the
protection of the Park whilst balancing this against the need to secure that long-
term future.
Housing
8.46 The Proposed Development would provide a significant number of homes in a
sustainable location and make a contribution towards affordable housing. These
are material benefits of the scheme to which the Council now gives significant
weight (when assessed cumulatively), whilst noting a number of factors which
temper those benefits in the particular context of the Application.
8.47 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land158.
Although the exact level of supply is disputed by both HEART and the Applicant,
it is submitted that the precise level supply does not need to be determined by
the Inquiry – it is sufficient to note that there is a shortfall in 5YHLS such that
paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged, which is a material consideration
in favour of the grant of permission.
Market housing
8.48 On behalf of the Council, Ms Lancaster attributed moderate weight to the
contribution which the Development would make to both short-term (five-year
supply) need and long-term need. This is despite the obvious fact that the
Development would deliver a significant number of homes in a sustainable
location – factors which would normally carry significant weight in the planning
balance.
8.49 In relation to short-term supply, the Council does not accept that the
development – which is complex and dependent on the Ryder Cup being
awarded – is likely to provide the level of housing within the five-year period
which the Applicant anticipates. However, the Council does accept that there
would be some meaningful contribution159.
8.50 In the longer term, it is accepted that the sheer quantum of new homes is of
value and that they would provide for increased choice and supply in the
157 CD9.1 at page 194
158 As agreed at §2.6 of the Housing SoCG [CD13.9] and confirmed by the Housing Delivery
Test Action Plan (August 2019) [CD12.84]
159 See Supplemental Housing SoCG [CD13.17]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 46
context of broad support given to the supply of homes in the Framework.
However, the Council recognises that housing need on its own is rarely likely to
justify the release of green belt land and that there is currently considerable
uncertainty about the scale of the Borough’s housing need over the GMSF plan
period.
8.51 On behalf of HEART, Ms Copley argues that the grant of planning permission
would in fact cause harm to the local housing market because there would be a
period of uncertainty between the grant of planning permission and a decision
on the awarding of the Ryder Cup during which time it would not be known if
the Development was going to proceed. In the Council’s view this “chilling
effect” does not bear much scrutiny. There is no detailed evidence to support
this contention and there has been no objection from other housebuilders
operating in the market.
8.52 In any event, the effect of the proposed conditions is that the Golf Course has
to be begun within three years so that (even if Mr Knight is wrong that a
decision in relation to the 2030 and 2034 Ryder Cups can be expected in the
nearer future) the period of uncertainty is tightly bounded.
Affordable Housing
8.53 The Council welcomes the Applicant’s commitment to provide 10% affordable
housing on the site and gives this moderate weight as an additional benefit of
the Proposed Development. Although Policy SC1 seeks the provision of 35% of
new housing on greenfield sites to be affordable, the policy allows for flexibility
to reflect viability considerations. On the basis of advice from Arcadis/Trebbi160
the Council accepts that the Proposed Development is not currently viable on
the basis of an updated FVA which has been prepared in accordance with
relevant RICS guidance161.
8.54 The Council’s Planning Committee resolved to grant permission on the basis of
no contribution to affordable housing, but subject to a viability review
mechanism which would seek to ensure that affordable housing could be
secured in the event that viability improves during the lifetime of the
Development. These provisions have been subject to further scrutiny by the
Council both in the run-up to the Inquiry and following comments from the
Inspector. As a result, the Council is now confident that the revised mechanism
offers a workable and effective tool to capture any future affordable contribution
which can be secured and – as importantly – ensure that any additional units
can be delivered on-site.
8.55 The Council therefore agrees with the Applicant that the Proposed Development
is “policy plus” and disagrees with HEART that the level of affordable housing
gives rise to an additional harm to be weighed in the planning balance.
8.56 The Council has considered the mix of affordable housing proposed. Its current
assessment of borough-wide needs is contained in the Housing Needs
160 The viability of the scheme before the resolution to grant was considered by the District
Valuer Service who concluded that (i) the FVA was reasonable and (ii) demonstrated that the
Proposed Development was not viable on the basis of a 35% affordable housing contribution.
161 CD13.15 para 1.14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 47
Assessment and identifies a target tenure split of c.65% social/affordable rented
and 35% intermediate tenure162. Ms Lancaster went on to explain that the
Council would view provision in line with that split as carrying more weight in
the planning balance. The definition of “Affordable Housing Units” within the
S106 has now been drafted to give effect to any recommendation which the
Secretary of State makes in this respect.
Highways and Congestion
8.57 Highways concerns have formed a significant part of the evidence heard from
third party objectors; many of whom emphasised the level of congestion
currently experienced. As explained by Mr Johnson at the round-table session
and laid out in the Highways SoCG163, it is recognised that there is significant
congestion on the local highway network.
8.58 The Council accepts the technical advice provided by AECOM, that the agreed
highways works would lead to a material positive impact on the capacity of
Chequerbent roundabout and Park Road/Platt Lane junction, reducing both
queues and delays. The reduction in delays at Chequerbent in the PM peak
would be particularly substantial, and other impacts would be adequately
mitigated such that the cumulative residual position would not be severe. It is
agreed that there is no unacceptable impact on highways safety and the
proposals have been subject to road safety audit164. The Council therefore views
this aspect of the Proposed Development as one of moderate benefit.
Access to the Green Belt
8.59 In terms of improved access and beneficial use of the Green Belt there would be
an increased use of the site, including through a public access programme
which can be secured165. This would involve at least 50 events throughout the
year which would support the goal of increased beneficial use of the Green Belt
and also enable the wider public to engage with and enjoy the heritage
significance of the RPG and Dovecote. There would also be an intensification of
beneficial use through the creation of the golf course and academy. The new
route along the Hulton Trail would allow for increased accessibility and give rise
to a net increase in PROW across the Site166. The new Pretoria Park would
provide a valuable public open space anchoring the scheme in the heritage and
social consciousness of the local community.
8.60 On that basis, the Council asks the Secretary of State to give moderate weight
to this aspect of the Proposed Development.
Ecology and Arboriculture Considerations
8.61 The Council relies upon the Ecology SoCG167 between the Council and Applicant.
This concludes that the Proposed Development has the potential to give rise to
a net beneficial effect on biodiversity through the implementation of the ILHMP
162 See EL Proof at 8.67-8.73
163 CD13.12
164 See Appendix H28 to CD13.12
165 by draft condition 25
166 See OCR §84 at CD3.1
167 CD13.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 48
and delivery of off-site woodland and pond creation, as well as a significant net
increase in tree and hedgerow planting at the site. Taken together, these are
an important additional benefit of the Development and suitable conditions and
obligations have been agreed with the Applicant for the purpose of securing the
necessary programmes.
8.62 The headline figure relied upon by the Applicant is of a projected 15.32% net
gain in biodiversity across the whole site. This is clearly an impressive figure
and has been derived by independent consultants Environment Bank using the
biodiversity impact assessment methodology developed by DEFRA. The
Council’s ecological adviser (GMEU) has not validated that figure but has
reviewed the methodology underlying it and is happy that it has been prepared
in accordance with updated guidance in the PPG and DEFRA’s published metric
guidelines168. The Council gives these benefits moderate weight in the very
special circumstances balance.
8.63 The Council is content that there is no loss of veteran trees or ancient woodland
and that there are good prospects that the tests for the grant of European
Protected Species licences would be met.
Reduced flood risk
8.64 A final, but perhaps more minor, point is that that effects of the development in
terms of surface water, river morphology, flood risk and drainage have been
considered by the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency. On
the basis of advice received, the Council concluded that the proposed drainage
strategy was appropriate. It further concluded that, through the reinstatement
of lakes and the provision of additional storage capacity on site, the
development would reduce flooding downstream.
Overall balance
8.65 The above benefits are considered by the Council to amount to very special
circumstances justifying the grant of planning permission despite the substantial
level of harm to the Green Belt and other factors. Those benefits cannot be
achieved now or at the point when permission is granted but can only be
delivered following the award of the Ryder Cup to Hulton Park. The same
principle applies to any harms occasioned by the proposal.
8.66 The Council is confident that if the Ryder Cup is awarded, then the Proposed
Development, as a whole, would be delivered. Whilst it is clear from that
evidence that the Development is not currently viable on the basis of a “red
book” valuation there are a number of factors which suggest that the Applicant
may, in reality, be able to increase revenues and reduce costs – reducing the
funding gap.
8.67 Further, the bigger picture is that the Ryder Cup itself would only be awarded if
the event has the financial support of the UK Government and the deliverability
of the event would necessarily be a key consideration in any discussions leading
to that support being secured. The Council also places weight on the track
record of the Applicant in delivering major schemes, along with the support for
168 Ibid at paragraph 7.6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 49
the scheme which has been expressed by the key future partners of a future
Ryder Cup169.
8.68 Additionally, the s106 agreement and conditions have been drafted to ensure
that the heritage restoration and golf course elements come forward at the
earliest possible stage. In the light of these points, it is submitted that the
Secretary of State can also have considerable confidence in the deliverability of
the Proposed Development in the event that either the 2030 or 2034 Ryder Cup
is awarded.
Conclusions
8.69 The Council concludes that the benefits of the Proposal clearly amount to very
special circumstances on the facts of this case and that the economic and
heritage cases, in particular, are more than “special” but are, in fact, “unique”.
Whether this is enough to outweigh harm of the scale identified requires the
Secretary of State to decide between competing priorities. In doing so he is
asked to have particular regard to the economic challenges faced by the
Borough, the GMA and the wider North-West and the reality that there is no
current prospect of any alternative which would secure the long term
conservation of the significance of the Hulton Park RPG and Dovecote.
8.70 For all of the above reasons, the Council concludes that, although the proposed
development does not fully comply with the development plan;
• the policies which are most important for determining the application are
out of date because the Proposed Development entails a substantial
quantity of housing and the LPA cannot show five years of housing land
supply;
• there is no clear reason pursuant to the policies listed in footnote 6 of the
Framework why permission should be refused because:
(i) the very special circumstances of the Ryder Cup opportunity and the economic,
heritage and other benefits which it will bring means that the benefits of the
Proposed Development clearly outweigh the harms even accounting for the
substantial level of harm which the Development will cause to the Green Belt; and
(ii) even if there were found to be less than substantial harm to the designated heritage
assets it would be significantly outweighed by the public benefits of the Proposal
including securing the optimum viable use;
• the application of the tilted balance in §11(d)(ii) demonstrates that the
adverse impacts of granting permission would not come close to
outweighing its benefits.
8.71 Accordingly, the Secretary of State is asked to grant planning permission for the
Proposed Development pursuant to s.38(6) of the 2004 Act.
169 See CD9.4 and Strat-8 of the draft GMSF at CD11.13 page 60
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 50
The Case for HEART
9.1 This summary contains all material points in relation to HEART’s case. It is
substantially taken from the closing submissions as well as the evidence given
on behalf of HEART and from other documents submitted to the Inquiry. The
Secretary of State is also referred to the closing submissions of HEART at
Inquiry Document 61 which contain a full exposition of HEART’s case.
Introduction
9.2 A detailed description of the proposed development is provided in the Principal
Statement of Common Ground170. By any standards it is a major project. The
site occupies some 269.2 hectares171 all of which would be affected to some
extent by the proposals. The scheme relies for access on off-site highways
proposals, either in the form of a project-specific new link road (between the
site and the Chequerbent roundabout) or the public scheme for a Westhoughton
bypass. This bypass has been designed (at least in a preliminary fashion)
taking into account the proposed development and is, in part, reliant upon a
financial contribution from the proposed development172. At present there is no
planning permission and, indeed, no planning application, for either highway
scheme173.
9.3 The whole of the application site is designated Green Belt174 and there are no
proposals in any existing or emerging development plan document for that
status to change in the absence of the development. However, such is the scale
and character of the development that, if planning permission is granted, the
Applicant and the Council agree that it is likely that the Green Belt boundaries
would have to be altered to exclude those parts of the site that are proposed for
housing (the ‘Western Fields’, ‘Dearden’s Farm’ and ‘Park End Farm’)175.
9.4 The majority of the application site is also a designated heritage asset, being
comprised of a Grade II Registered Park and Garden (‘RPG’). The significance
of those parts of the designated heritage asset which, under the scheme, would
be developed as housing would be lost entirely as a result of the
development176. This begs the question as to whether the boundaries of the
RPG would also have to be redrawn in the future.
9.5 The parts of the application site that are not within the RPG form parts of its
setting177. Their contribution to the significance of the RPG would also be
substantially harmed as a result of large-scale housing development on one (the
Western Fields) and a golf academy on the other (‘the Northern Fields’)178.
170 CD13.8/6.5, 6.6 and Appendix 5
171 CD13.8/4.2
172 CD13.12/4.2.5ff
173 Ibid and roundtable session
174 Bolton Core Strategy Policies e.g. RA2, RA3, OA4 ‘maintain current GB boundaries’
175 CD13.8/8.22 Bell xx; Lancaster xx
176 Gallagher 9.50; Miele xx; CD3.1/404
177 The function of the Northern Fields as setting is disputed by the applicant and Council
178 Gallagher 9.51; CD3.1/420 -existing setting replaced by ‘new setting’; CD 9.1/277
Gardens Trust ‘extremely detrimental and negative effect’ on setting and significance
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 51
9.6 A measure of the sheer scale of the development is that it would take 20 years
to complete.
9.7 A measure of the change that it would bring about is not simply that the
existing planning designations would require review because of the change in
the function, character179 and condition of the land but that, when complete, it
would result in a completely new community of up to 1,036 dwellings with
potentially its own local centre, health centre and primary school180.
9.8 The membership and supporters of Hulton Estate Area Residents Together
(‘HEART’) are drawn from the existing communities in the vicinity of the site. It
is these communities which would most directly experience these changes to
land which according to the development plan is to be kept permanently open
and free from inappropriate development and where such development as may
be permitted is expected to conserve and enhance the physical environment181.
9.9 It is not surprising that to propose such a development in such a setting has
proved controversial. This is particularly so when the developer and the Council
are agreed that it would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt and that
planning permission should only be granted if the Secretary of State finds that
there would be very special circumstances (‘VSC’) sufficient to justify doing
so182.
9.10 However, HEART’s approach to the planning issues in the case is not ‘one-eyed’
as asserted by the Applicant in opening. HEART recognises that some elements
of the proposal would be beneficial and attract some support in policy as a
result. However, HEART’s starting point is the presumption that the land should
remain free from inappropriate development, together with the imperative that
the RPG should be conserved in a manner appropriate to its significance with
the need for a clear and convincing justification for any harm or loss of
significance, noting that substantial harm to a Grade II RPG should be
exceptional183.
9.11 As a consequence, the balance is tilted heavily against the proposed
development at the outset. The balance can only be shifted in favour of the
development if there are sufficient and sufficiently weighty other considerations
to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other planning harm, such as net
harm to the RPG which, if substantial, would itself require planning permission
to be refused in the absence of countervailing public benefits184.
Decision-Making Framework
9.12 It is common ground that the policies in the development plan for the provision
of housing are out-of-date for the purposes of the advice in paragraph 11 of the
Framework185. It is also common ground that the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph
179 Ms Knight in xx agreed that the landscape character assessment might no longer be valid
once the development was completed
180 Section 106 Agreement, Schedules 6, 7 and 13
181 Bolton Core Strategy Policy OA4.
182 CD13.8/8.84
183 NPPF 143,184,194
184 NPPF 195
185 CD 13.9/2.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 52
11 is not engaged unless the application is held to comply with the policies in
Framework in respect of Green Belt and heritage186. The tilted balance is not
engaged in this case because the benefits of the development do not outweigh
the harm it would cause. The issues can be conveniently addressed within the
framework of the balancing exercise in paragraph 144 of Framework187.
Harm to Green Belt
Inappropriateness
9.13 The proposal as a whole is inappropriate development for Green Belt purposes,
whether or not there are elements which, on their own and considered
separately from the rest of the development, might be not inappropriate188. In
fact, in this case even the ‘open’ elements of the golf course conflict with the
purposes of the Green Belt because of their scale and form, the associated
structures and paraphernalia, such as bridges and the ‘half-way house’189 and
the attendant activity. As such they are thereby inappropriate development190.
Openness
9.14 The development would harm to openness, particularly through the amount and
extent of the new housing areas on the Western Fields, Dearden’s Farm and
Park End Farm. The buildings of the golf resort and golf academy, together with
the parking and servicing facilities, would similarly significantly affect openness
both directly and through their effects upon perceived openness. The hotel has
quite deliberately been designed to be more visible in the landscape than the
original hall and stables and would step well outside its original building
envelopes, breaking the tree line when viewed from the carriage drive191.
Purposes
9.15 There would be a substantial encroachment of inappropriate development into
the countryside. It would contribute to the coalescence of settlements for
which, at present, the application site serves the important Green Belt function
of providing a setting which also allows their separate identities to be retained.
Such a substantial development in the Green Belt, not arising from a
development plan allocation (but likely to result in a retrospective change in
Green Belt boundaries), and implemented in phases over 20 years, would also,
by its nature, conflict with the purpose of Green Belt policy to promote urban
186 The Applicant and Council have submitted a joint note asserting that the tilted balance is
engaged because very special circumstances and substantial public benefits have been
demonstrated. HEART agrees in terms of approach (i.e. that the tilted balance would be
engaged in such circumstances) but does not agree that public benefits to outweigh
substantial heritage harm or other considerations to outweigh GB harm have been
demonstrated or exist.
187 That is not to overlook the separate balancing exercises required in respect of the heritage
and Green Belt effects of the development respectively. In principle ‘public benefits’ might be
sufficient to outweigh harm to heritage but not sufficient to outweigh harm to Green Belt. In
this case they are neither.
188 Confirmed by Bell and Lancaster in xx.
189 Copley/4.6
190 NPPF/146
191 Miele Appendix 11 animated view.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 53
regeneration. It would do so by diverting demand which might otherwise have
been channelled into bringing brownfield sites back into productive use, to sites
in the countryside intended by the development plan and national planning
policy to fulfil quite a different planning purpose192.
9.16 In terms of overall Green Belt harm, the development would cause substantial
harm to the Green Belt to which, as a matter of policy, the decision-maker must
give substantial weight193.
Other Planning Harm
Grade II Registered Park and Garden
9.17 The whole of the application site is either a designated heritage asset or part of
its setting194. In order to assess the heritage effects the starting point is to
assess the significance of the asset and the contribution of the setting195. That
is particularly so where one of the stated objectives of the scheme is not merely
to avoid harm but actually to restore the asset to some or all of its previous
condition and interest.
9.18 Although the register entry only acknowledges the contribution of John Webb by
name, more detailed research in connection with the application (and with this
Inquiry) has established that his work developed out of a scheme carried out by
William Emes during the latter part of the 18th Century when features such as
the Pleasure Grounds were first laid out.
9.19 It is in the Webb landscape (or more accurately the Emes landscape as
developed by Webb) that the greatest interest (and therefore the greatest
contribution to significance) lies and the proposed development aims not simply
to retain as much of that interest (and significance) as possible but to enhance
it by restoring structures and features (e.g. the Pleasure Grounds, the Walled
Garden, Mill Dam), undertaking replacement planting (e.g. of parkland trees
and woodland) and implementing sympathetic land and woodland management
practices.
9.20 The success of the proposal is to be judged by assessing the effects on
significance applying the so-called ‘Palmer principle’ (i.e. considering the effects
both positive and negative in the round to determine the overall ‘net’ effect).
9.21 Plainly the success of the assessment depends on the efficacy of the underlying
assessment of significance. In this case, whilst there is considerable agreement
between the respective experts about many of the landscape qualities and
features that give the RPG significance there are important disagreements
which largely account for the very different conclusions which they reach about
the effects of the development in heritage terms.
192 Copley/4.29 and Lancaster/10.19
193 NPPF/144
194 There is a disagreement between experts about the extent to which the Northern Fields is
part of the setting of the RPG. In the case of the Western Fields it is agreed that they are part
of the setting but a disagreement about the contribution to significance.
195 Paragraph 189 of the NPPF
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 54
9.22 The most important, perhaps, lies in the assertion made on behalf of the
Applicant that Webb’s design embodied the use of woodland plantations,
woodland belts and woodland clumps to contain a ‘core’ parkland area from the
surrounding landscape, thereby confining the greatest interest and significance
to that ‘core’ area. This leaves the other parts of the site inside the RPG
considerably less sensitive to development and those parts outside (e.g. the
Western Fields) with little or no interest as setting and affording little or no
contribution to the significance of the RPG as a result196. Because the Webb
‘plan’ was to contain the core area within perimeter woodland plantations, belts
and clumps, it is said, any inter-visibility between the ‘core’ and the surrounding
landscape is accidental and not part of the landscape design so that its loss
cannot harm the interest or significance of the RPG.
9.23 The thesis supports a series of key features of the masterplan that is embodied
in the application. First, each of the housing areas within the RPG is said to
have little or no effect upon its significance because they are outside the ‘core’
and contained to a greater or lesser extent by woodland resulting in only limited
inter-visibility.
9.24 Next the housing within the Western Fields is said to have little or no effect
upon the significance of the RPG because although as a matter of fact there are
views between the Western Fields and the RPG and both public and private
ways connecting them, the views from ‘core’ are limited. Furthermore, because
the parts of the RPG outside the ‘core’ are by definition less interesting (and
contribute less to significance) than those within the ‘core’ they are able
inherently to withstand more substantial change (e.g. in landform, golf
infrastructure, etc) without commensurate effects on significance.
9.25 The thesis relies upon the so-called ‘Presentation Plan’197 which shows a
planting layout similar to that which is recorded in Ordnance Survey maps from
around 1890 onwards and excludes many of the parts of the RPG outside the
‘core’ area198. That is the layout which the master plan aspires to on the
grounds that it is supposedly the Webb design when mature199.
9.26 There are difficulties with the proposition that the Presentation Plan is anything
to do with Webb. The first is that there is nothing to connect it to him.
Although it has colouring, it has none of the other features of a true
presentation plan (e.g. no cartouche, no title block, no other ornamentation or
decoration). It excludes features which are acknowledged to be important to
the significance of the RPG and part of the designed landscape (e.g. Mill Dam
Lake, the Mill Dam Wood footpath, etc). It includes features which did not
come into existence until long after Webb’s death (e.g. the house in Crow Yard
which carries the date 1848; the woodland at Park Pits Wood).
9.27 Whilst Dr Miele attributes the plan to c1808200 (and Dr Stamper to c1824)201 it is
therefore more likely that the plan was prepared much later and that it
196 Wikeley Figure 5 provides a visual representation
197 CD 12.33.3
198 CD12.35a
199 Mr Wikeley in cross-examination
200 The so-called ‘Great Plan of c1808’
201 Miele R/Appendix 2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 55
incorporates elements that were not by Webb or in accordance with Webb’s
thinking: Webb died in 1828.
9.28 The Ordnance Survey maps from c1840202 show a subtly different layout more
reflective of the picturesque ‘style’ associated with Webb including not simply
woodland plantations, belts and clumps but, crucially, gaps between them
permitting views through the landscape between the so-called ‘core’ and the
land outside it, both within the RPG and beyond (where the surrounding
agricultural landscape formed the setting). Two important examples are the
views from the carriage drive towards Dearden’s Farm and from the carriage
drive to the north entrance and Hulton Cottage. Such views are ‘designed’
because they are a function of the design although not a set piece or ‘vista’.
9.29 Such connectivity between the parts of the RPG itself and the surrounding
landscape is an integral element in the Webb designed landscape and is also
evident in the relationship between the RPG and the Western Fields. The
western boundary of the RPG has always remained open, allowing extensive
views to and from the Western Fields to be retained. Whilst the Applicant
asserts that it would have been considered desirable during the RPG’s heyday to
take the opportunity to close off the views and consistent with Webb’s plan to
have done so, the fact that it was never done is the best evidence that it was
never intended nor part of the landscape design.
9.30 There was, in any case, a functional relationship between the two, with both
public and private ways connecting them. Furthermore, views to and from the
Western Fields were possible over much of the length of the Emes’ footpath
between the Pleasure Grounds and Mill Dam Lake and which, as originally laid
out, ran along the southern/south-western boundaries of the Walled Gardens
and of Mill Dam Wood (not within the wood as at present). The Western Fields
would have formed a part of the view for anyone returning along the path from
the Lake and provided the setting for the designed landscape by connecting it
with the countryside surrounding it203.
9.31 Park End Farm is towards the edge of the RPG, but it is enclosed within the RPG
by woodland planting on the boundary (e.g. Kearsley Plantation). There are
footpaths connecting the farm complex itself with Emes’ footpath at Mill Dam
Lake. There are visual and functional connections between the farm complex
(and the land around it) and with New Park and Mill Dam Wood. According to
the best evidence that there is of how Webb left the landscape of Hulton Park,204
Park End Farm is plainly part of the coherent landscape design executed by
Webb.
9.32 Hulton Hall itself was an important component of the designed landscape.
Webb was the architect and the building may be assumed to have been
designed for the landscape it was set within (and vice versa). It is common
ground that the landscape was crafted to reveal the Hall to those approaching it
along the carriage drive in a way calculated to convey an impression of the
wealth and attainment of its occupants. But the revelation was
202 CG Appendix A Fig 17; CD05b.6.12 Fig 11.3
203 Wikeley in XX
204 Namely the OS maps of the 1840s.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 56
characteristically picturesque, subtle and restrained, reflecting the subtleties
and character of the wider RPG.
9.33 The demolition of the hall has harmed the significance of the RPG. Reinstating a
building of a similar character and scale to the original hall would contribute
positively to the significance of the RPG205.
9.34 Associated with the loss of the Hall is the deterioration of the related Pleasure
Grounds and Walled Garden, the ‘serpentine’ or scimitar lake and Mill Dam
Lake. Other features, such as entrance gates, as well as the Dovecote (a
designated heritage asset in its own right), are in need of repair and
maintenance. However, not only is the spatial arrangement of the designed
landscape largely intact but crucially also much of the interest in the parkland
landscape itself.
9.35 The Bolton Landscape Character Appraisal describes the park itself as “almost
untouched” with many features “in an excellent state of preservation.”206 The
Council’s Greenspace Management Officer describes the park as a “…landscape
that has a true sense of history and time embedded in it. It has character built
up over the centuries. There is no other landscape like it in the Borough…”207
9.36 As the Historic England Guidance on Golf in Historic Landscapes observes
“Historic parks are far less vulnerable to destruction from lack of maintenance
than buildings, at least in the short term. It is also possible, unlike a building, to
recover a historic park which has not been maintained.”208 That is the case
here. Indeed, as far as the woodland plantations, belts and clumps are
concerned, the Arboricultural Impact Report advises that “woodland areas are
not under existential threat” and that “minimal management would probably
lead to a stable or slightly increased canopy cover.”209 Whilst there is a need for
some action to be taken, reports of the RPG’s imminent demise are clearly
somewhat exaggerated.
9.37 The proposal is for a large-scale intervention affecting every part of the RPG
and large parts of the setting. It would involve new buildings, including the
hotel/events complex and the golf clubhouse; repairs to and the reinstatement
of landscape features (the Walled Garden, Mill Dam, the lakes, the Pleasure
Grounds, the Dovecot); new landform (affecting all of the open parkland); tree
and woodland removal; tree and woodland planting; and the implementation of
new land and woodland management arrangements. Some would be beneficial
and contribute positively to the significance of the RPG. Much would not.
9.38 The hotel has been designed to make a visual statement210 with the size of the
proposed building determined by commercial considerations211: it is an example
of where the imperatives of golf have won over those of landscape
conservation, with the result that the unapologetic structure would harm the
205 CD13.10/3.29
206 CD12.28/17
207 CD9.1/126
208 CD11.15/5
209 CD05b/6.18 Table 4
210 Marks/26
211 Mr Wikeley in xx
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 57
significance of the RPG by being totally out of scale with it.212 The clubhouse
and associated golf infrastructure within the North Meadows would be similarly
out of character with the designed landscape and harmful to its significance.213
9.39 Changes to landform would affect all of the open land within the RPG.214 The
amounts of cut and fill would be substantial, as would the amounts of material
imported to, and exported from, the site.215 The fabric, use and appearance of
the historic landscape would be substantially changed, not simply as a result of
remodelling the terrain but also by the introduction of features associated with
the new use as a golf resort such as tees, greens, buggy paths, staging
‘platforms’ (for spectator, media and hospitality facilities) and access routes to
the staging areas, all of which would be accompanied by the implementation of
a new grassland management regime.
9.40 The purpose of the grassland management regime would be to mimic the
appearance of parkland with the manicured tees, fairways and greens
camouflaged by belts of ‘Far Rough’ planted with a wildflower mix that would be
allowed to grow without frequent mowing.216 It is this which enables much of
the biodiversity net gain assessed by Environment Bank, since the ‘Far Rough’
grassland would be a more species rich habitat than the existing parkland
pasture grazed by livestock.
9.41 The expected appearance produced by these arrangements is illustrated in the
visualisations that accompany the LVIA. They are winter views, said to be
based on photographs of the existing landscape taken in November. What is
clear is that the new landscape would look very different from the existing
agricultural landscape, which is a product of a grassland management regime
that has existed since the park’s inception and is based on the use of
agricultural land for agricultural purposes by livestock.
9.42 The Council’s Greenspace Management Officer suggests that the new landscape
would amount to 18 micro-landscapes, one for each new hole.217 In so saying,
the Officer reflected the analysis in the Historic England guidelines for golf in
historic landscapes (written by Mr Wikeley) that “Building a golf course always
involves earth-moving to create level tees and greens, to form bunkers and in
some sites, to create suitable ground form for the fairways. This will always
have an impact on a historic park as it will destroy the landform.”218
9.43 That is the case here, made worse by the extent of tree removal, since new
trees are not like-for-like replacements for existing, historic trees and
woodland.219 One of the main reasons for the amount of replacement planting
proposed is that new trees offer significantly less benefit at the outset than the
212 Mr Gallagher at 9.10
213 Miele at 7.117 disagreeing with the HIA, identifies ‘less than substantial harm’. Gallagher
9.12 ‘substantial harm’.
214 Wikeley Figure 29; McMurray xx; Wikeley xx.
215 CD 6c.4.2
216 Indeed, mowing might be as little as one or twice a year.
217 CD 9.1/127
218 CD 11.37/3
219 As Mr Wikeley acknowledged in cross examination.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 58
mature trees they are intended to replace. The quality factor adopted in the
planting proposals is between 1:1 and 4:1.220
9.44 Simply planting trees is not an advantage in itself in historic landscape terms,
unless the new trees are in locations that reflect the inherent qualities of the
designed landscape and enhance (or at the very least do not harm) significance.
In this case, the reinstatement of parkland trees is hampered by the
requirements of the championship golf course, with the result that they are kept
away from the fairways and concentrated on their margins, resulting in an
artificial, unnatural and certainly not picturesque arrangement which would be
out of character with the designed landscape and harmful to its significance.221
A new woodland block close to hole 13 is described as in keeping with the Webb
design, but is simply pastiche.222
9.45 The housing areas within the RPG at Dearden’s Farm and Park End Farm would
involve the total loss of the significance of those parts of the RPG.223
9.46 The housing areas within the setting of the RPG would involve the total loss of
the contribution made by the Western Fields to the significance of the RPG.224
9.47 Against the harm, the scheme incorporates a series of the proposals described
as ‘restoration’ by which some features of the designed landscape would be
reinstated (e.g. the Pleasure Grounds, paths and Walled Garden) and others
would be repaired (e.g. the lakes, the entrance gates, the Dovecot). In
addition, there would be the introduction of a new woodland management
regime and the grassland management regime referred to above.
9.48 The Applicant assesses all of the elements in the preceding paragraph as
beneficial and to such an extent as to outweigh any harm that the proposal
would cause in heritage terms. Dr Miele allows for the possibility that the
Secretary of State will disagree, but suggests that, if so, any “residual harm”
would be less than substantial leading to the balancing exercise in paragraph
196 of NPPF to be engaged.225
9.49 Both Dr Miele and Mr Bell strongly maintained that even if it was not accepted
that the ‘restoration’ proposals resulted in a ‘net gain’, the elements of the
‘restoration’ plan, together with the implementation of the grassland and
woodland management proposals affecting the whole of golf course area, and
the fact that the scheme would leave the spatial layout of the RPG substantially
intact precluded a finding of substantial harm in ‘Bedford’ terms.
9.50 Mr Gallagher is equally clear that his assessment scale is calibrated on the same
basis as that advocated by the court in ‘Bedford’ and that his finding of
substantial harm is properly justified by the degree of change that the scheme
would impose upon the designed landscape that would deprive the RPG of
virtually all of its significance. Measures which the Applicant identifies as
beneficial, such as the new grassland management regime and parkland tree
220 Hesketh/6.82
221 See Wikeley Figure 26
222 Miele/6.9 “characteristic of Webb’s work on the site”
223 n.8
224 n.9
225 Miele/10.26
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 59
planting proposals, would adversely affect the character of the parkland by
substantially changing its appearance in ways that would be at odds with the
intrinsic parkland characteristics of the designed landscape.
9.51 The changes associated with the land-forming operations required to create a
championship standard golf course, together with all of the associated golf
infrastructure, would affect all of the open parts of the parkland depriving the
great majority of the RPG of its existing fabric and form. The parts developed as
housing would lose their significance altogether. The harm would be substantial.
The significance of the RPG would be drained away.
Planning and Delivery of Housing
9.52 The scheme proposes a large amount of housing in a location where such
development would normally be precluded for a combination of Green Belt and
historic landscape reasons. The scheme would account for 7.5% of Bolton’s
housing requirement for the period 2018 to 2037226, delivered over an
overlapping 20-year period. This would only occur if, but only if, the authorities
responsible for European golf decide to award a Ryder Cup hosting agreement
to the golf resort. Therefore, the decision on whether the scheme ever comes
forward (and if it does, from when) would not be in the hands of the developer
or the planning decision-maker and would not be taken on planning grounds: it
would be incidental to the decision on where to hold the Ryder Cup in either
2030 or 2034.
9.53 That would be an odd outcome of a planning system which is plan-led, but this
proposal is the antithesis of a plan-led development.227 It is not provided for in
any existing or emerging development plan. Nor could it be given the attendant
uncertainties as to whether or when it would be implemented. It would lead to
the associated Green Belt boundaries being modified to exclude the housing
sites retrospectively. It would create a housing commitment with absolutely no
certainty that it would ever come forward.228
9.54 Significant uncertainty would therefore be imposed upon the planning and
delivery of housing in Bolton for as long as it takes for the European golf
authorities to come to their decision. The position is different from an ordinary
residential planning permission where the factors affecting delivery are related
to the scheme itself. The scale is substantial in the Bolton context, with
implications for the development plan process and the local marketplace where
the Secretary of State is already concerned about its capacity to absorb an
increased pace of housing delivery by virtue of the ‘HIF’ scheme.229
9.55 The size of the contribution that the development would make to housing supply
in the current five-year period is sensitive to when development could start
following a decision by the golf authorities. If the decision is delayed beyond
2020 the already small contribution would be correspondingly diminished.230
226 Bell/12.58
227 Ms Copley in evidence in chief
228 Ibid
229 CD12.64/6.5.7
230 Mr Bell conceded this in cross-examination
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 60
The impacts of uncertainty on the planning process and housing market would
more than outweigh such contribution.
9.56 The contribution would not include the full amount of affordable housing sought
by policy, but would provide some at the outset, with a review mechanism to
enable later phases to provide more subject to viability considerations. This is
described as ‘policy plus’, on the basis that there is no requirement to provide
any affordable housing at all where it is demonstrably not viable for a scheme to
do so.
9.57 It is for the decision-maker to decide what weight to give to any viability
assessment. What is clear in this case is that the only reason why the
development can be shown not to be viable (so as to provide the full amount of
affordable housing) is that the residential elements of the scheme have been
packaged with the golf resort as a single project under a single planning
application. There is an enabling relationship between the two (if not a
traditional one231) but beyond the provision of funding for the golf development
the synergy between the two is not obvious.
9.58 There is no functional relationship, the golf resort is contained within a secure
perimeter with access restricted to its patrons except on special occasions.232
The resort would not be dependant for its success on a walk-in catchment
area.233 Whilst a ‘super-legacy’ effect might lead to increased sale prices for
some of the dwellings, that is an incidental rather than fundamental
consequence of the relationship between the resort and the housing areas.
9.59 The failure to make full affordable housing provision is the result of a deliberate
choice to give preference to golf and to items such as education contributions. It
is another negative impact of the scheme.
Other Development Management Issues
9.60 The proposal raises other development management issues, many of which are
addressed in planning conditions which are necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms. An example are the conditions to regulate the
hours of operation of the golf academy, including the driving range where it is
proposed to allow ball collection until 1.00am. Such activities, in what is
currently countryside, can only be acceptable in amenity terms if adequately
controlled, both in terms of hours and suitable limits on noise from plant and
equipment such as automated ball collectors.
Other Considerations
The Ryder Cup (the Event and the Legacy)
9.61 When the Applicant acquired the Hulton Estate in 2010 it was an opportunistic
purchase: there was no plan to develop the land at that stage. It was only
when the company’s proposals for a golf resort development at what is now the
embryonic RHS Bridgwater Garden came to nothing that attention switched to
Hulton Park as a location to fulfil the chairman’s ambition to bring the Ryder
231 Mr Bell in cross-examination
232 E.g. Access Plan condition
233 Mr Bell in cross-examination
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 61
Cup to Greater Manchester. Since then, all of the Applicant’s attention has been
focussed on the golf resort proposal to exclusion of any alternative long-term
plan. As a result, a land management regime has been implemented with only
short-term objectives: patching the roof, not replacing it.234
9.62 Whilst the project has been described as conservation-led, it is plain that the
concept of a championship golf resort, funded in part by large-scale housing
development, was conceived before the present team was assembled. Its
conception was certainly before Mr Wikeley was commissioned to prepare a
conservation management plan235, even though that is identified by Historic
England as the necessary first step in devising golf course proposals in a historic
landscape.236
9.63 The justification for a golf resort is that it would secure the optimum viable use
for the RPG. However, the project is not viable on a standalone basis and it is
clear that the Applicant’s commitment to bridging the funding gap to deliver the
project depends upon securing the prize of a Ryder Cup hosting agreement for
either the 2030 or 2034 event.237
9.64 According to the Principal Statement of Common Ground ‘very special
circumstances’ would only exist as and when a hosting agreement is secured.
Both the Applicant and the Council contend that the benefits of hosting the
Ryder Cup (principally economic but also social and cultural) would be sufficient
in themselves to outweigh the Green Belt, historic landscape and planning harm
that the development would cause. The Applicant is equivocal about whether
the other benefits of the development (such as the restoration scheme) would
also be sufficient in themselves, on the basis that in practice there is no
intention to deliver them absent the Ryder Cup.238
9.65 A covenant to prevent any development from taking place without a binding
legal agreement to host the Ryder Cup is part of the s106 agreement and is
certified as necessary in planning terms for the purposes of the CIL Regulations.
9.66 The economic benefits of the Ryder Cup have been estimated by reference to
analysis of previous tournaments in the United Kingdom, Ireland and mainland
Europe. They divide broadly between those associated with constructing the
venue; those associated with the four days of the event itself; and those
associated with what is termed ‘legacy’ - meaning a programme of golf
tournaments before and after the main event and a series of programmes
designed to capitalise on the main event by promoting apprenticeships and
business development initiatives.
9.67 By far the largest benefit, whether in terms of net new jobs or gross value
added (‘GVA’) is associated with ‘legacy’ which, because it is long-term in
234 Mr Knight in cross-examination
235 Mr Wikeley in cross-examination
236 CD11.36/3
237 The s106 obligation refers to 2030 and/or 2034 but in practice only one agreement is
contemplated.
238 Mr Bell in cross-examination
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 62
nature and dependent upon the participation of third party ‘partners’ is
acknowledged to be more uncertain than the other elements.239
9.68 The first and perhaps most important observation, is that the calculated benefits
would, to a large extent, arise wherever the tournament is hosted in the United
Kingdom. It is the distribution, rather than the magnitude, that is most affected
by whichever location is chosen. Although it is hinted that Hulton Park is
regarded by the domestic golf authorities as particularly suitable to be England’s
candidate location, there is no hard evidence that is the case. Mr Knight’s
choice of language was notably careful in that respect.
9.69 There is, apparently, a feasibility assessment underway and those conducting it
are aware of the Hulton Park proposal.240 That is different from being the front
runner, or even in the race. Certainly, it is not contended with any conviction
that there is no other UK candidate or that, without Hulton Park, the
tournament would inevitably go elsewhere (Ireland or mainland Europe).
9.70 That being the case, the relevant issue in a development management decision
on a site-specific proposal is not what economic benefits would arise from
hosting the Ryder Cup somewhere in the UK (since those will arise in any event)
but what distinctive economic benefits would arise from hosting the Ryder Cup
at this site? That is a matter to be judged according to the Greater Manchester
context241 within which the benefits specifically for the immediately surrounding
Bolton and Wigan areas are of greatest interest to the Council.242
9.71 Much of the Applicant’s evidence was therefore directed to demonstrating the
degree of economic disadvantage suffered by Bolton, Wigan and Greater
Manchester and their residents. The proposed development is said to offer
specific benefits in that context. This is because of the types of employment
and apprenticeship opportunities that would arise and the business development
opportunities that would arise, particularly in the tourism and hospitality sectors
– aligning with the Greater Manchester Industrial Strategy243 and the ambitions
of the Marketing Manchester organisation.244
9.72 The difficulty facing the Applicant is, however, that the benefits of the Ryder
Cup, as an international event, are skewed heavily in favour of locations outside
Bolton, Wigan and Greater Manchester. The GVA for Bolton and Wigan from the
event itself would be just £3m: in the case of Greater Manchester it would be
£15.1m.245 Even the benefits of the volunteer programme (a non-monetised
benefit) would accrue to a large extent to locations outside Bolton, Wigan and
the rest of Greater Manchester rather than the local area.246
9.73 The legacy provided as part of the ‘Ryder Cup Commitment’ would be
potentially both greater and more long-lasting. The ‘Apprenticeship
Programme’ is forecast to provide 73 new apprenticeship opportunities per
239 Mr Tong in cross-examination
240 Bell Appendix 2/4.26
241 Bell/11.50
242 Ms Lancaster in cross-examination
243 CD11.52
244 CD9.4/4
245 Mr Tong table 9.11
246 Tong xx & CD05a.4/40-41
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 63
annum in Greater Manchester.247 However, compared with some 30,000
apprenticeship starts each year in Greater Manchester already248, the number is
hardly ‘transformational.’ The great majority of the apprenticeship
opportunities are expected to be provided by third party partners who have yet
to be identified. It is apparently far too early to take such steps. The forecasts
must therefore be treated with a degree of caution, indicating an ambition but
not by any means a certainty.
9.74 The impacts of the ‘Tournament Programme’ (comprising generally smaller golf
tournaments involving far fewer spectators than the Ryder Cup) would be
marginally bigger than those of the Ryder Cup in Bolton and Wigan (around
£3.25m in each ‘event year’) apparently because the impacts would be more
locally focused but rather less for Greater Manchester as a whole (around
£11.1m).249 Again, hardly transformational.
9.75 That leaves the ‘Business Development Programme’ which is, like the
Apprenticeship Programme, heavily dependent on third parties to establish, lead
and sustain it. Mr Tong anticipates involvement and, perhaps, leadership from
bodies such as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Bolton Council,
as well as public money to help it to succeed. Again, it is too early to predict
the precise shape of the arrangements.250 Letters from various bodies are cited
as evidence of support and the likely success of the venture.251
9.76 In fact, what the letters show is that bodies such as the Greater Manchester
Combined Authority have to-date been notably circumspect about lending their
support to the scheme. Their letter noting alignment between a successful bid
and certain local strategies was said to amount to ‘fulsome support’ whereas it
merely asked to be kept informed about the scheme’s progress.252
9.77 A letter from Marketing Manchester is more instructive, citing the existing value
of the tourism economy to Greater Manchester as over £7.9 billion and growing
at 5% per annum. That puts into context the entire 20 years’ worth of Business
Development Programme benefits identified by Mr Tong which would be
negligible by comparison.
9.78 That is not to say that the benefits deserve no weight or should play no part in
the overall balancing exercise. They are plainly advantages which weigh in
favour of the scheme. However, it is important not to be distracted by headline
figures, without interrogating them to understand what they represent. If the
issue is whether to grant planning permission for a specific proposal on a
specific site it is necessary to consider not simply what benefits any Ryder Cup
would provide for the UK, but what benefits the particular proposal would bring
to the location in question. Considered in that way, the benefits of the Ryder
Cup for Bolton, Wigan and Greater Manchester would not be transformational.
They would be, surprisingly perhaps, very modest when compared with the
247 Tong Table 9.10
248 CD11.22/29
249 Tong during cross-examination re Tong Table 9.11, divided between 12 tournaments in all.
250 Mr Tong in cross-examination
251 Mr Bell/1.11 7 EIC
252 CD 9.4/1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 64
costs of the scheme both financially and in terms of the Green Belt, historic
landscape and planning harm that would be caused.
Not Footloose/No Alternative Location
9.79 Many of the same considerations apply to the Applicant’s contention that the
project is not footloose because it can only be carried out on the application
site. What is really being said is that a scheme sharing all of the characteristics
of the application proposals is not footloose, rather than that a championship
golf resort capable of hosting the Ryder Cup could not be developed (or does
not already exist) elsewhere. The argument that the project is site-specific
deserves little weight in the planning balance.
Access to the Green Belt
9.80 It is said that the development would secure increased access to the Green Belt
in three ways: the use of the golf resort itself; an access programme secured by
condition and enhancements in the public rights of way network, particularly
through the Hulton Trail.
9.81 The golf resort, as a whole, is inappropriate development particularly because of
the buildings of the hotel and events complex and the golf academy and driving
range. The use of such facilities does not amount to enhanced access to the
Green Belt, although it might facilitate access to parts of the RPG that are not
currently accessible to the public, albeit that the patrons of the resort are
expected to be an exclusive group. Mr Bell did not urge great weight to be
given to the use by patrons of the spa in this regard.
9.82 An access programme not requiring golf resort patronage is to be welcomed,
but few details are known and as Mr Bell conceded, the programme would be
built around the commercial imperatives of the resort.
9.83 The planned enhancements of the PRoW network are primarily to enable
inclusive use (for instance by those whose mobility is impaired) rather than
wholly new routes. Since the ‘Hulton Trail’ would run for much of its length
between the new housing estate on the Western Fields and the planned
Westhoughton Bypass it is questionable whether it offers any benefits in terms
of amenity compared with the existing footpath network that would be
swallowed up in the new housing area. Since the housing area is likely to be
removed from the Green Belt if the development proceeds, that part of the
Hulton Trail would not afford access to the Green Belt in any event.253
9.84 The benefits should be seen for what they are and given only limited weight
accordingly.
Biodiversity Net Gain
9.85 The scheme is assessed as achieving a biodiversity net gain in the long term,
i.e. following the successful implementation of the various habitat creation and
management proposals summarised in the Ecology Statement of Common
Ground.254
253 Mr Bell in cross-examination
254 CD13.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 65
9.86 A degree of uncertainty attaches to the gain because it is predictive and over
the long term, as Mr Hesketh conceded (although he expressed confidence that
the position could turn out to be more favourable in the right circumstances). It
is notable, however, that a significant proportion of the gain is attributable to
the proposed grassland management regime and, in particular, the ‘Far Rough’
component, which would be so harmful in historic landscape terms, a factor
which needs to be taken into account alongside the biodiversity benefits in the
overall planning balance.
Congestion and ‘HIF’
9.87 The Council has contrived to submit a bid for government funds to implement a
series of highways improvements, including a Westhoughton Bypass, that is
dependent upon a developer contribution from the Hulton Park scheme (the
‘HIF’ bid). If planning permission is refused the HIF scheme is thrown into
doubt because it relies on the contribution to bridge a funding gap. It is said to
be an advantage of the development that it would enable the HIF project to
proceed, but that is only because the Council has put itself in a position where
an important public project depends on a private development proposal which
does not have planning permission and which has been called in by the
Secretary of State because of the important planning policy issues which it
raises.
9.88 Worse still, the HIF funds are time limited until 2023, yet the Council agrees
that even if planning permission is granted (now at the earliest in the first half
of 2020) it should not be implemented unless and until a hosting agreement is
secured with no guarantee as to whether or when that might happen.
9.89 The Council’s strategy is built upon uncertainty. It is not an advantage of the
scheme that it might rescue the Council from the consequences of its actions.
It is an advantage of the scheme that it would provide some additional capacity
within the Chequerbent roundabout, which deserves some weight in the overall
planning balance.
Housing/Affordable Housing
9.90 HEART’s position on housing and affordable housing issues has already been
outlined.
The Overall Balance
9.91 The proposal would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt. It would cause
substantial harm to the RPG. It would create planning uncertainty and
adversely affect housing delivery. It would fail to provide the amount of
affordable housing required under the development plan for reasons based
squarely upon golf not housing viability.
9.92 There are other considerations that weigh in favour of the development,
including the economic and social benefits that would accrue to the local area
and, more widely, to Greater Manchester as well as features of the development
such as the Hulton Trail. However, they would not be sufficient to outweigh the
harm that the development would cause, much of it irreversibly.
9.93 Therefore, whilst the scheme is not without benefits, when the balancing
exercise in paragraph 144 of the Framework is carried out, it is clear that
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 66
planning permission ought to be refused. That being the case, the tilted
balance in paragraph 11 of the Framework is not engaged.
Conclusion
9.94 HEART therefore invites the Inspector to conclude that the harm to the Green
Belt together with the other harm that the development would cause is not
outweighed by other considerations. The matter is not even finely balanced:
very special circumstances do not exist and would not exist if a hosting
agreement was ever secured and therefore that the opportunity presented by
the scheme should be rejected.
Other Oral Representations
10.1 This case was characterised by high levels of public interest both in terms of
organised groups and in terms of individuals wishing to take part in the
proceedings. To that end two public sessions were organised at the Inquiry to
facilitate members of the public engaging with the process and making their
views known.
10.2 Two local MPs spoke at the public sessions. Mr Chris Green MP was concerned
about protection of the Green Belt pointing to a nearby development at Horwich
Local Works which was supported by the local community in contrast to the
current proposal. Ms Yasmin Qureshi MP spoke about strength of opposition to
the proposal and concerns regarding existing infrastructure, particularly
highways, struggling to cope with demand.
10.3 Several ward and Borough Councillors attended the Inquiry and spoke against
the proposal. Councillors Bullock and Hewitt were concerned about protecting
the Green Belt and the loss of parkland and habitat and pointed to the land
being unallocated within the existing local plan or the emerging GMSF255.
Councillor Parkinson spoke about the necessity to safeguard the countryside
from encroachment and to safeguard the setting of historic towns256. Councillor
Christine Wild spoke about the changes which have occurred since the proposal
was originally considered by the Council with all greenfield sites in Bolton being
removed from the revised GMSF257.
10.4 Concerns regarding the amount of congestion and air pollution were echoed by
Mr Brian Jones258 and other local residents including Mr Barrington Upton and
Mr Dean259. Former Councillor Mr Chadwick also spoke about the effect on the
local highways network and infrastructure260. Mr White reiterated the concerns
of other about the permanent harm to Hulton Park261. Miss Fewtrell spoke
about the deer on the site and the installation of stock-proof fencing262. Ms
255 Inquiry Documents 14 and 15
256 Inquiry Document 16
257 Inquiry Document 33
258 Inquiry Document 31
259 Inquiry Document 41 and Inquiry Document 47
260 Inquiry Document 42
261 Inquiry Document 32
262 Inquiry Document 34
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 67
Elaine Taylor263 is a garden historian who spoke against the proposal describing
the park as a “sleeping Cinderella”. She said the Georgian landscape park is
rare and exceptional in South Lancashire. Other residents, including Mr Pimlett
and Mr Lee264, gave evidence about the history of Hulton Park and the scouting
activities which took place there.
10.5 Mr Michael Partington and/or members of his family attended each day of the
Inquiry and Mr Partington spoke about his family’s long-standing connection
with Dearden’s Farm and the successes they had had in diversification with a
very successful artisan ice cream business on site. He has lived and worked on
this farm for around 50 years and is rightly proud of his family’s achievements.
Mr Partington left me in no doubt as to the upheaval and sadness it would cause
his family if the proposal were to be successful and they had to leave the
farm265.
10.6 Ms Dorothy Syddall also expressed concerns for the tenant farmers who would
lose their homes and livelihoods as a result of the proposal and spoke about her
parents’ experience as tenant farmers266. Ms Buffey267 spoke about the
difficulties in re-homing some 60 horses and ponies currently resident on the
site.
10.7 Dr Richardson268 spoke on behalf of Leigh Ornithological Society and raised
concerns about damage to the natural environment and the protection of
wildlife. The ornithological society had recorded 46 bird species, 9 of which are
on the RSPB red list and contends that Hulton Park is part of a wildlife corridor.
His concerns were echoed by Mr Peter German and Mr Hurst who each spoke
about habitat loss and biodiversity considerations269.
10.8 Others, including Mr Stephen Taylor270, were concerned about the housing crisis
and the importance of the provision of affordable housing and the need to
prioritise development on brownfield sites. Mr Hamlett produced experience
about housing developments on Green Belt land in the vicinity of the site271.
They pointed out that the application site does not feature as an allocation in
the new GMSF. A local resident, Mrs Hesketh, was concerned about coal mining
activities on the site and the loss of tranquillity272. Mr Roberts expressed a note
of caution about the winning of the Ryder Cup273.
10.9 Dr Des Brennan formerly of CPRE made observations about the s106 agreement
but during the course of the Inquiry came to the view that the s106 agreement
was robust enough to ensure that in the event that the Ryder Cup was not
awarded, the development would not proceed274. Miss Nykola Taylor made
263 Inquiry Documents 11 and 43
264 Inquiry Document 35
265 Inquiry Document 38
266 Inquiry Document 36
267 Inquiry Document 45
268 Inquiry Document 10
269 Inquiry Document 40 and Inquiry Document 48
270 Inquiry Document 44
271 Inquiry Document 37
272 Inquiry Document 13
273 Inquiry Document 17
274 Inquiry Document 39 and Inquiry Document 59
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 68
representations as a local resident and on behalf of the Over Hulton
Neighbourhood Forum275. A local resident and chartered engineer, Mr Phil
Wood, made representations276 about viability and timing of construction
operations.
10.10 A north-west businessman and former CEO of Manchester City Football Club,
Mr Garry Cook, attended the second public session and spoke in favour of the
development. He was an independent consultant contacted by the Applicant but
not paid by them. Mr Cook spoke of the need to have a vision and of Hulton
Park presenting a unique opportunity to deliver a renowned golf tournament in
the north-west.
Written Representations
11.1 There have been many other written representations objecting to the proposal
at both application stage and subsequent to call in. Copies of all of the written
representations which were sent to the Council at the application stage are
contained within four blue folders marked ‘Interested Party Reps at Application
Stage’. There were 388 individual objection letters and 698 circular style
objection letters, 1 letter in support and 27 letters providing comments. Copies
of all written representations sent to the Planning Inspectorate are to be found
inside the red folder. Many of the letters of objection repeat the concerns set
out above by others and support HEART’s case.
11.2 The two local MPs sent letters of objection setting out their concerns which are
recorded at paragraph 10.2 above. Westhoughton Town Council objected on
the basis of the loss of the historic park; loss of green space and wildlife; impact
on health provision and school places; demolition of Hulton Cottage/ Dearden’s
Farm; impact on the surrounding highway network; an existing oversupply of
housing and sufficient brownfield sites in Bolton to cater for housing.
11.3 I do not propose to repeat objections which I heard orally, and which I have
already set out above, in any further detail. Many of the letters contain the
same objections which were raised during the public sessions at the Inquiry.
They relate to highways, social facilities being inadequate, local infrastructure
being inadequate, the loss of two milk producing farms run by families who
have lived on the sites for many years, lack of a need for another golf course
and many objections relating to the loss of Green Belt land and harm to the
RPG.
11.4 Other objections raised concerns about harm to wildlife, loss of mature trees
and hedgerows and the destruction of woodland habitat. Some objectors raised
the lack of public access to the golf course and the diversion of existing PRoWs.
Some said that there would be an increase in noise and air pollution with no real
benefits to the local community. Others contended that the real need was for
affordable housing and the proposal only catered for 4/5 bedroomed houses. A
few local residents raised questions about mine workings on the application site
and the suitability of the site for development. Concerns were also raised by
flooding of Carr Brook stream and harm to the living conditions of existing
residents by virtue of overlooking.
275 Inquiry document 46
276 Inquiry document 8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 69
Planning Conditions
12.1 A list of suggested conditions was included in the Principal SoCG277 agreed
between the Council and Applicant and it was the subject of a roundtable
session towards the end of the Inquiry. Other amended conditions and
additional conditions were suggested, discussed and submitted as the Inquiry
progressed. An updated conditions schedule278 was placed into evidence on 11
October 2019 and the roundtable discussions centred upon this document. The
conditions were discussed on a without prejudice basis and were considered in
light of the tests set out at paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.
12.2 Following the roundtable session, I requested that the Applicant consider
various amendments and a revised, final conditions schedule279 was submitted
on 23 October 2019 as requested.
12.3 I shall comment upon the conditions. Some conditions have been amended or
amalgamated for clarity, precision, elimination of duplication and having taken
account of advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have also re-ordered the
conditions and the numbers in brackets now refer to the conditions as re-
ordered in the schedule to this decision. Unless otherwise stated the conditions
referred to below were agreed and are not controversial.
12.4 Conditions applying to the whole development: Conditions (1) to (4) set out
requirements in relation to phasing and the commencement of development.
Condition (5) limits the number of houses on the site. Conditions (6) to (8)
secure the provision of the Hulton Trail and works to existing PRoWs as well as
their details, materials and timing. Conditions (9) to (12) comprehensively
regulate construction and demolition activities across the site. Conditions (13)
and (14) secure the approval of appropriate drainage measures throughout the
site. Condition (15) contains all requirements necessary to manage ground
conditions.
12.5 Condition (16) secures completion of the off-site highway works necessary for
the development prior to occupation of any phase. Condition (17) controls the
provision of internal access roads within each phase of the development.
Conditions (18) and (19) are the standard landscaping conditions for each
phase. Conditions (20) and (21) ensure that the heritage and archaeological
value of the site is assessed and recorded appropriately.
12.6 The Golf Resort: Conditions (22) to (49) inclusive relate to the golf resort only.
Condition (22) is the standard plans condition; (23) is a pre-commencement
conditions requiring further details and (24) controls the provision of the 9-hole
adventure course. Condition (25) is essential in that it controls restoration of
the historic features within the RPG and condition (26) makes provision for the
de-silting of the ornamental lakes. Condition (27) refers to the provision of a
programme of public access events. Conditions (28) and (29) control signage
within the RPG and secure the relocation of the blue heritage plaque currently
on Hulton Cottage.
277 CD 13.8
278 Inquiry document 65
279 Inquiry document 66
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 70
12.7 Conditions (30) to (33) control the provision of bat hotels, protection of barn
owls and landscaping works on the golf resort. Condition (34) controls the
operation of the historic driveway to the hotel complex and condition (35)
requires a Travel Plan. Conditions (36), (37) and (38) are necessary to protect
the living amenities of local residents and to contribute to sustainability
principles by the provision of electric vehicle charging points. Condition (39)
controls the provision of external lighting. I have amended the agreed condition
so as to allow temporary external lighting installed for golf tournaments to be
installed subject to approval by the Council.
12.8 Condition (40) was controversial and were the subject of debate at the
roundtable session. HEART requested that use of the Clubhouse be limited to
opening to patrons between 0600hours and 2300 hours. Notwithstanding the
presence of the A6, there are a number of residential properties on the opposite
side of the A6 to the proposed Clubhouse location. Even with a 2300hours
closing, there would still be a period of time when patrons were getting into
their vehicles and driving out of the site. Similarly opening at 0500 could cause
disturbance to local residents with patrons getting out of their cars, banging
doors and getting golf equipment out. I therefore agree with HEART’s
suggested operational times for the Clubhouse. Further protections from noise
are contained within conditions (41), (42) and (43).
12.9 Condition (44) secures approval of investigations and any appropriate
arrangements in relation to past coal workings and conditions (45) and (46)
stipulate the requirements in relation to sustainability objectives. Conditions
(47) and (48) control the mechanics of temporary facilities for tournaments and
condition (49) makes provision for refuse storage.
12.10 Conditions relating to the residential development only: conditions (50) to (65)
relate to the outline residential development only. Condition (50) is the
standard plans condition. Conditions (51) to (54) control details in relation to
finished levels, boundary treatments, the provision of open space and play
facilities and crime prevention. Condition (55) sets out the details required in
relation to provision of the local centre. Conditions (56) and (57) makes
provision for electric charging points for vehicles and the submission of noise
assessments as well as controlling external lighting.
12.11 Conditions (58) and (59) secures necessary provisions to control ground
conditions and condition (60) contains stipulations in relation to drainage buffer
zones and the protection of wildlife river corridors. Highways conditions (61) to
(64) ensure that accesses, travel plans and pedestrian crossings are provided at
appropriate junctures. Condition (65) ensures a minimum provision of new
landscape planting secured as part of the phasing of the residential
development.
12.12 I am satisfied that all of the conditions set out in Annex B hereto are
reasonable and necessary and I would recommend their imposition in the event
that the Secretary of State grants planning permission.
Planning Obligations
13.1 The executed agreement (the s106 agreement) made in accordance with
section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 secures financial
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 71
contributions in relation to: off-site highway works280; cycle improvements281;
primary and secondary education contributions to be calculated in accordance
with the Council’s formulae and a Health Centre Contribution282.
13.2 Prior to the Inquiry the Council submitted a ‘Statement of Compliance with CIL
Regulations’ setting out its justification for each of the contributions sought in
accordance with the policy tests set out in the Framework283 and the statutory
test in regulations 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations
2010. The contributions support policy objectives in CS policies H1 and IPC1.
CS policy H1 seeks to ensure that new development proposals contribute
through planning contributions to meet the health needs generated. CS policy
IPC1 seeks reasonable contributions towards the cost of infrastructure needed
to mitigate the effects of the development. This is supported by supplementary
planning documents (SPD) in the form of the Infrastructure Planning
Contributions SPD, the Transport and Road Safety SPD and the Affordable
Housing SPD284.
13.3 If the Secretary of State is minded to grant planning permission for the
development I am satisfied that the financial contributions requested are
necessary to render the development acceptable in planning terms and they are
directly related to the development. Having regard to the costings set out in
the justification statement I am also satisfied that they are fairly and reasonably
related in scale and kind to the development proposed.
13.4 The s106 agreement also contains other restrictions and promises which include
the Ryder Cup Clause, which prevents the proposed development taking place
unless the Ryder Cup bid has been successful, and the site is selected to host
the Ryder Cup. Given that the whole development is predicated upon the Ryder
Cup being successful and the assessment has proceeded on this basis, I am
satisfied that the restriction is reasonable and necessary and satisfies the
relevant policy tests.
13.5 In addition, the agreement contains promises to submit a Landscape and
Habitats Management Plan for each phase of development; to transfer the
Primary School Land to the Council and to provide off-site woodland planting
which I have previously considered. All of these measures are necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms, they are directly related to
the proposed scheme and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
13.6 The agreement contains a promise to make provision in relation to affordable
housing. In the first instance the agreement commits to a provision of 10% of
the units being affordable housing in the format of discounted sale units,
discounted by 20% against market value or such other type of affordable
housing which the Secretary of State (or the Council) elects subject to a cap285.
280 £4,920,000
281 £15,000
282 £725,200 towards the expansion and/or improvements of existing health practices
283 ¶56 tests: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly
related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development.
284 CD 11.7 and CD 11.10
285 The cap being the same cost as the provision of 10% discounted sale units
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 72
This provision is agreed by the parties to be above and beyond policy
requirements. As such it is not necessary to make the development acceptable
in terms of the policy tests, but the Applicant wishes it to be taken into
consideration as a positive benefit in terms of material considerations. The
remainder of the provisions in relation to affordable housing relate to the review
mechanisms and promises to make affordable housing contributions when the
project becomes more profitable and viability improves. In terms of these
obligations, they are necessary to make the development acceptable given that
they meet policy requirements.
13.7 The review mechanisms within the s106 agreement was discussed at length at
the Inquiry and is agreed by all parties. The reviews would occur at three
points in the lifetime of the development and would afford an opportunity to re-
assess viability and secure affordable housing. The s106 agreement also
controls the provision of affordable housing coming forward, ensuring that it is
distributed evenly across the scheme. I am satisfied that all of these review
mechanisms and distribution provisions meet the policy tests.
13.8 The agreement sets out promises by the developer in terms of the
implementation of a Local Employment Framework in relation to each phase of
development to optimise the recruitment of local people and provide
opportunities for local communities. These provisions are supported by adopted
development plan and national policies and pass the Framework policy tests. A
further covenant in the agreement relates to the provision of Open Space Land
within each phase of development to ensure that such space comes forward as
an integral part of the design of that phase. There is also a commitment to
provide a local centre and health centre which are necessary given the quantum
of housing proposed and would service the needs of the new residents making
these provisions necessary, directly related and proportionate.
13.9 Finally, the agreement secures improvement works to the Hulton Trail which is
necessary to meet the recreational needs of prospective occupiers of the
development.
13.10 Overall, I conclude that, with the exception of the initial 10% affordable
housing provision, the obligations in the s106 agreement meet the tests in CIL
regulation 122 and the same policy tests in the Framework and I would
recommend that they be taken into account in assessing the application.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 73
Inspector’s Conclusions
In this section the numbers in [subscript] refer to preceding paragraphs
14.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that, in
dealing with proposals for planning permission, regard must be had to the
provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to
any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that “If regard is to be had to the
development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
14.2 The development plan comprises the CS adopted in 2011, the AP adopted in
2014 and the GMMP adopted in 2013. I shall proceed to test the proposal
[4.1-4.7]
against the relevant development plan policies identified and having regard to
all other relevant material considerations.
14.3 The Framework is a material consideration of significant weight. Paragraph 11
of the Framework sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable
development and contains a decision-making framework in relation to
development proposals. The Framework also seeks to boost significantly the
supply of housing and requires local authorities to identify a supply of specific
deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing (the 5YHLS).
14.4 Footnote 7 to paragraph 11 confirms that housing applications should be
considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable
development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be
considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a
5YHLS. In this case all three main parties are agreed that the Council does not
have a 5YHLS and that policies for the supply of housing are out of date.
[7.5, 9.12]
14.5 Where policies are out of date, paragraph 11 directs that planning permission
should be granted unless: either the application of the protective policies set
out in footnote 6 provide a clear reason for refusing development, or any
adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits.
14.6 By common consensus the footnote 6 policies engaged in this case are those
which relate to designated heritage assets and to Green Belt polices. Separate
balancing exercises have to be undertaken in relation to each of these
restrictive policies and I shall undertake those tests within my analysis.
14.7 There are certain matters which are common to both tests, namely the
assessment of public benefits, in the case of heritage matters, or other positive
material considerations, in the case of a Green Belt balance. In addition, there
are objections from third parties alleging other harms (such as highway
congestion) and they need to be assessed as well. I therefore propose to look
at the claimed benefits/positive factors and any alleged harms, as well as
viability considerations and I shall make findings on those matters first. I shall
thereafter examine the footnote 6 policies, completing a heritage assessment
and balance before conducting my Green Belt analysis and balance. Finally, the
whole development is predicated upon a successful Ryder Cup bid and I shall
examine that matter of principle before anything else.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 74
The Ryder Cup-contextual matters
14.8 The Ryder Cup is a biennial golf event which takes place over 3 days, with
teams competing from the United States and Europe. It is the third largest
global sports event and is recognised as one of the sporting mega events due to
global media interest and an increased international profile. The benefits of the
Ryder Cup arise from three categories: the build up to the event, the event
itself and the post-event legacy. All Ryder Cups are underpinned by ‘Ryder Cup
Commitments’ which establish a series of programmes aimed at securing
increased training, inward investment, supply chain development work and a
series of tournaments before the main Ryder Cup event. The key commitment
programmes are the Apprenticeship Programme, a Business Development
Programme and a Tournament Programme.
14.9 The championship golf course and associated facilities which make up part of
the development proposal meet the Ryder Cup specification which includes
minimum requirements in terms of the length of the course, the layout, and
provision of: a halfway house; a Clubhouse; an Academy with practice facilities;
and the hotel complex to provide on-site accommodation and facilities.
The Ryder Cup as a precondition to Development
14.10 Selection as a Ryder Cup venue results after a competitive bidding process,
the processes and timescales of which are governed by the PGA European
Tour286. The decision-makers would only award the Ryder Cup to a specific
venue if planning permission has already been granted. The parties are agreed
upon this. In this case the proposal is predicated upon a successful Ryder Cup
bid in either of the years 2030 or 2034. All parties are agreed that, without an
award of the Ryder Cup, development should not proceed.
[7.131, 8.3, 9.65]
14.11 The proposal is a hybrid application which has component parts in the form of
the detailed championship golf course submission and the outline submission in
relation to the housing element. However, the development is indivisible. The
winning of a Ryder Cup sits at the heart of this application, the provision of the
housing has been gauged such as to cross-subsidise the Ryder Cup
development and the heritage works. The Applicant’s case is dependent upon
the claimed benefits which it says arises from the Ryder Cup and the heritage
restoration works.
14.12 On behalf of the Applicant, Mr Knight of Peel Investments gave evidence about
the work already undertaken towards a Ryder Cup bid including 10-year and
12-year business plans prepared by European Tour Properties287. He described
the bidding process as competitive but not an open process, rather it is a
“partnership proposition worked up and delivered with the European Tour and
decided upon behind the scenes”288. Mr Knight confirmed that delivery
partners, anticipated to be the Council and the GMCA, would need to come on
board, as well as UK Sport and Golf England. Mr Knight further confirmed that
he had been informed that the European Tour were currently looking into bids
286 Principal SoCG CD 13.27
287 Appendix 6 to the Planning Statement at CD 05.a1 and appendix 3 to the Proof of
Evidence of Stephen Bell
288 During cross-examination by Mr Dixon
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 75
for the 2030 and 2034 Ryder cups and that decisions on both were expected in
2020 and that very little would be said publicly until that anticipated
announcement. As far as Mr Knight was aware, Hulton Park was the only site in
England under consideration.
14.13 In these circumstances I accept that it is appropriate to ensure that
development should only proceed if the Ryder Cup is secured. I have already
confirmed that the covenants in the section 106 agreement in this regard satisfy
the relevant legal and policy tests.
14.14 I am further satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed to consider the planning
application at this time prior to a Ryder Cup contract having been secured.
Clearly there is a reasonable prospect of the Ryder Cup being won for Hulton
Park. In any event it is inevitable that, in some circumstances, planning
decisions are made on a provisional basis, subject to the outcome of matters
outwith the planning system. The conditionality of a planning permission is a
well-established principle. If the proposal is deemed acceptable on its planning
merits by the Secretary of State, I can see no justification for not granting
planning permission subject to a restriction preventing development until such
time as the Ryder Cup bid is finalised and secured.
14.15 At the Inquiry I asked the parties to consider the most appropriate mechanism
to secure a restriction preventing any development until such time as the Ryder
Cup bid had been successful. The drafting of the clauses within the agreement
were discussed and revised following those discussions. The agreement now
contains a prohibition on beginning development unless the ‘unconditional date’
conditions are met. Those conditions relate to written confirmation of a
successful bid, completion of a legally binding contract and service of notice on
the Council.
14.16 All three Counsel agree that the covenants within the executed section 106
agreement represent the most appropriate device to ensure the restriction is
honoured. The arguments set out in Mr Harris’s note to the Inquiry289 were
accepted by all290. My own legal opinion is that the covenants in the
agreement are binding and would prevent development commencing until such
time as the Ryder Cup was secured in 2030 or 2034. As such it represents the
most appropriate mechanism to secure the desired objective and I commend it
to the Secretary of State.
[7.31, 8.3, 8.6-8.12, 9.65]
Socio-economic effects
14.17 An Economic Impact Assessment prepared by Ekosgen and a Social Value
Assessment prepared by Turley supported the planning application291. On
behalf of the Applicant Mr Tong gave evidence as to the socio-economic impacts
of the development292.
14.18 The socio-economic benefits which would arise from the whole development
would be felt at local, regional and national levels and in three distinct phases;
289 Inquiry Document 49
290 That also includes Dr Brennan of CPRE who latterly withdrew his objection and supported
the Ryder Cup clause
291 CD 05a.4 and CD 05a.5
292 Supported by CD 12.90, 12.91 and 12.92
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 76
in the lead-up to the Ryder Cup, the event itself and post-event. This much is
agreed by all parties. Disputes arise as to the quantification of those benefits
and the analysis in terms of the value of those benefits at each of the three
levels, as well as the distribution and value of those benefits. I propose firstly
to set the context in which any benefits would be felt.
14.19 The local context: Bolton is assessed as the 24th most deprived town (of 109
towns) in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)293 and its neighbour, Wigan,
is the 45th most deprived. Both towns face challenges in terms of slower growth
forecasts relative to regional and national averages; higher rates of
unemployment and economic inactivity, with long-term sickness being more
prevalent in Bolton and Wigan.
14.20 Productivity levels in Bolton and Wigan have increased at a slower rate than
those across Greater Manchester (GM), the North-West and the UK.
Manchester, Bolton and Wigan all exhibit significant degrees of relative
deprivation in many of the constituent categories294 of the IMD. Since 2013
unemployment rates have fallen in Bolton and GM from their peak in 2012, the
rates remain higher than at regional and national level. Whilst Bolton and
Wigan have higher indicators of deprivation relative to GM, GM still faces its
own challenges. Notably GM currently ranks 4 out of 32 counties and
metropolitan areas in terms of unemployment rates.
14.21 Following his evidence Mr Tong produced a note295 to update the IMD with the
most recently released 2019 IMD data which now ranks at authority level. The
2019 IMD ranks 317 authorities and places Manchester 2nd most deprived, with
Bolton at 47th and Wigan at 97th.
14.22 Quantum of benefits: the headline figure in Mr Tong’s evidence is the total
monetised socio-economic impact of the development estimated at some £1.2
billion between at 2021 and 2040296. This is a global figure which includes all
those economic and social impacts which can be given a financial value. It
includes the total cumulative impact across all geographical scales (Bolton and
Wigan, GM, the North-West and the UK). Quantifiable social impacts are
assessed at £123million but exclude qualitative social and cultural benefits, such
as the provision of new greenspace and public rights of way, a sporting legacy
and health and well-being, and other educational benefits.
14.23 The use of sporting events to promote and support business opportunities and
investment, and as an economic force for good, cannot be disputed. In terms
of major sporting events, the Ryder Cup fares well in terms of GVA impact per
day when compared with other events297.
14.24 Economic Impacts: The Applicant’s quantification of the scheme benefits is
based upon predictive judgments having regard to industry best practice, the
application of DCMS298 guidelines and studies examining the impacts of previous
293 Tong, proof of evidence ¶6.1
294 Population health, income and employment and crime and education, Tong ¶6.23-6.24
295 Inquiry document 57
296 All figures are at 2019 prices
297 Tong figure 8.1
298 Department of Media, Culture and Sport
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 77
Ryder Cup venues. Values have been expressed as ‘gross value added’ (GVA)
to represent the economic stimulus over and above the existing baseline. The
Ekosgen report and technical assessment was independently validated by the
same GMCA research team, New Economy, responsible for the guidance on such
methodologies. The technical work was found to be sound. No other economic
forecasts are before the Inquiry.
[8.28]
14.25 The Applicant has set out a baseline position by placing a valuation on the
existing economic usage of the site, but I do not consider this to be particularly
enlightening for two reasons. The site is currently run as a private estate
which, on the Applicant’s own evidence, has been subject to “running repairs”.
Essentially the site has been kept ticking over since its acquisition in 2010299.
Secondly, in the same way that the proposed development would deliver
intangible social benefits, the site also currently delivers other non-monetisable
social benefits, and these would be lost. Such changes/losses will be the
subject of assessment later in this report.
14.26 The quantification of pre-event and event GVA is likely to be more robust than
estimates for the legacy GVA, given that the logistics of building out and
organising the Ryder Cup course and the pre-event requirements are
documented and more easily quantified. Past Ryder Cup events provide points
of comparison in terms of visitor numbers and revenue generated for the local
and wider economies for the event and pre-event activities300. I note that there
have been varying economic impacts from previous Ryder Cups, dependent on
the location of the event, the prestige of the wider location, the opportunity for,
and the attractiveness of, extended stays in a particular region and the quality
of the hotel offer and transport links. The magnitude of the pre-event and
event economic impact in terms of direct GVA ranges from £21m at a more
local scale301 to some £90m at a sub-regional scale302.
14.27 The assumptions and drivers for assessing the effects of a 2030 Ryder Cup are
predicated upon attendee numbers. The Hulton Park venue is anticipated to
host some 60,000 spectators per day which would make it one of the larger
venues. In total some 280,000 spectators would attend across the competition
programme, with staff, volunteers and media personnel increasing the total to
around 337,000 people over the whole event. There are difficulties making
direct comparisons between previous Ryder Cup events due to the benefits
being assessed at different geographical scales, on different bases and because
the venues themselves have different locational and qualitative attributes such
as event capacity and attendance.
14.28 I further note that improved estimation techniques have resulted, in part, in
lower GVA estimates for the 2014 and 2018 Ryder Cups. Clearly the overall
economic effect of a Ryder Cup303 (excluding legacy benefits) upon a national
economy is beneficial to the tune of somewhere between £60m and £98m. I
consider a more realistic range to be between £60m and £80m given that the
higher values appear to relate to 2006 and 2010 when, on Mr Tong’s admission,
299 Mr Knight’s statement and oral evidence
300 Tong figure 7.2
301 Perth and Kinross - Gleneagles
302 South-east Wales- Celtic Manor
303 Including pre-event and event impacts only
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 78
estimation techniques were not as advanced. These figures compare with an
estimated £96m GVA increase in the UK economy for the Hulton Park bid. I
appreciate that the trend is for GVAs to increase and that the capacity of Hulton
Park would be at the higher end of the venue ranges. As a sense-check, whilst
the £96m figure might seem at the higher end and optimistic, the estimate is
not substantially out of kilter with previous events.
14.29 Extrapolating from national GVA benefits, it is also clear that there are
differences between the magnitude of benefits felt at regional and local scales.
More limited data is available in this regard. Regional impacts have been
estimated at £68m in the case of the K Club event in 2006 and £89m in the
case of Celtic Manor in 2010. Local GVA figures are available for the last 3
Ryder Cups: £33.8m, £21.4m and £72.9m in the case of Paris. The figure for
Paris is something of an outlier given that it demonstrates virtually full retention
of the national impacts due to its size, prestige and ability to cater for spectator
requirements and the opportunity for linked trips.
14.30 Legacy benefits are more nebulous and hence difficult to determine. Legacy
impacts of major sporting events are highly variable and critically dependent on
strategy and execution. They are reliant upon strong partnerships between key
stakeholders and cohesive programmes designed to capture a sporting legacy.
In this regard, the Applicant points to the success of the Council in holding the
Iron Man competition and the success of Manchester City Council in delivering a
sporting legacy arising from the Commonwealth Games.
14.31 Notwithstanding the past record and support expressed304, the success of
legacy programmes cannot be guaranteed. It would require clear vision,
stakeholder commitment and execution. The GMCA has set out305 its track
record in hosting and delivering international events and confirmed that the
hosting of the Ryder Cup would fit with GM plans to become a leading European
city region. The GM Local Enterprise Partnership set out its support for the
scheme and its view that the development would represent a major contribution
to the GM economy306. Other letters of support have been received from Wigan
Council, Marketing Manchester, MIDAS, CBI, Bolton University, England Golf,
Sport England, Golf Foundation, Greater Sport, North-West Business Leadership
Team and the University of Manchester. The letters demonstrate a wide-
ranging regional interest in the project which clearly aligns with the economic
ambitions of the GM authority.
14.32 The projections are underpinned by an assumption that a Hulton Park Ryder
Cup legacy programme would be materially larger than previous Ryder Cups.
This is based in part on the region’s catchment population and the North-West
economy being larger than that of previous host venues in Wales and Scotland.
I accept these propositions represent reasonable assumptions to inform the
modelling. I have already commented upon how these figures compare with
other Ryder Cup events.
[14.27]
14.33 Legacy benefits would be achieved by the apprenticeship programme; the
business development programme; and the tournament programme. Estimated
304 CD 09.4.1 to CD 09.4.13
305 CD 09.4.1
306 CD 09.4.2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 79
jobs307 generated by these 3 programmes would be in the order of 1589 UK-
wide, of which 1000 would be in GM with 260 in Bolton and Wigan. Similarly,
around one fifth of the GVA generated for the UK at large (£628m) would be
generated in Bolton and Wigan (£129m)308 with 2/3rds of this estimated GVA
going to GM (£443m).
14.34 The largest contributor to legacy benefits in Bolton and Wigan would be the
business development programme estimated to deliver around £80m GVA over
the 20-year assessment period, as against a total GVA of £273m across the UK.
Similarly, the tournament programme, comprising 12 mini-tournaments, is
estimated to produce £40m GVA for Bolton and Wigan against a total GVA for
this element of £146m in the North-West and £275m across the whole of the
UK.
14.35 The figures for total jobs and GVA are presented across geographical scales
and for the three categories: pre-event, event and post-event. There are
variations in the distribution of jobs and GVA across the three categories, but I
do not propose to analyse those in any further detail. Instead I shall focus on
the totality of the jobs and GVA generated from all three categories combined
and the distribution of those jobs and GVA across geographical scales.
14.36 Total Economic Benefits: Overall, the total jobs309 generated by pre-event,
event and legacy activities are estimated to be in the order of 1686 UK-wide of
which just over 1000 would be in the North-West region, with 921 in GM of
which 294 would be in Bolton and Wigan. The economic impact shows a similar
proportional distribution in terms of cumulative GVA for pre-event, event and
legacy activities. Some £1.11billion is estimated to be generated across the UK,
of which £729m would be in the North-West, £637m of which would be in GM
and £195m in Bolton and Wigan. Some 60% of the Hulton Park jobs would be
entry-level. Given the higher levels of economic inactivity in the borough, these
jobs could offer a stepping-stone into employment.
14.37 In accordance with best practice, the gross impact estimates above have been
reduced to reflect the proportion of positive impacts which come at a cost of
attendant negative impacts (displacement) and impacts which would have taken
place anyway (deadweight), as well as leakage outside of the targeted
geographical area. Given that it is highly unlikely for a similar initiative in the
same timeframe to take place in the North-West or even England, Ekosgen
assessed deadweight to be low. The project is unlikely to result in significant
displacement given that only a small proportion of the country’s top golf courses
are found in GM. It was accepted that Hulton Park would displace business at a
regional level in terms of attracting golfers who might otherwise be attracted to
the Lancashire Golf Coast. These adjustments are reasonable in my view.
14.38 Monetisable Social Impacts: The majority of the social benefits are predicted to
occur locally and regionally. Key benefits in this category relate to
employment; skills and training; apprenticeships; health and well-being and
307 FTE annualised average over 2021-2040 Tong figure 9.8
308 Tong Figure 9.9
309 FTE annualised average over 2021-2040 to cater for anomalies including the 3338 jobs
generated UK wide for one year only as a result of the Ryder Cup event itself. The annualised
average is a fairer representation of the longer-term jobs generated and I rely upon it.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 80
volunteering. A sports participation programme and volunteer recruitment and
training programme form part of the suite of Ryder Cup Commitments. Analysis
is not sub-divided across geographies but instead concentrates on four distinct
activities, which include the construction period (£3.6m), the ongoing operation
of the golf resort (£17.9m), the Ryder Cup event (£0.28m) and finally the
legacy programme (£34.9m). The figures in brackets represent the total
monetised social benefits arising310.
14.39 The volunteer recruitment and training programme at £16m is estimated to
generate by far the greatest social benefit. Although it essentially captures the
benefits of volunteering, it would also represent an opportunity for the upskilling
of large numbers of volunteers, estimated at in excess of 1,500 people, of
whom 600 would be local residents311.
14.40 Distribution of Benefits: The ability of Bolton and Wigan to benefit
economically from the holding of a Ryder Cup would be dependent on a variety
of factors. These have been alluded to above and include the ability to optimise
the opportunity for legacy benefits, by far the largest component. It is also
dependent on the amount of leakage of business and economic benefits
generated but which would not be realised in Bolton and Wigan and are lost to
GM and the North-West. Hotel accommodation is perhaps the best example of
this. Given the limited hotel accommodation offer in Bolton and Wigan it is
likely that patrons and spectators would seek accommodation elsewhere in the
GM region.
14.41 In considering the benefits above I have already set out the proportion of jobs
and GVA estimated to flow to Bolton and Wigan, as well as the wider North-
West region, and the UK. The benefits to Bolton and Wigan, if realised, would
be substantial in terms of jobs generated and GVA. This would be in the
context of the deprived boroughs of Bolton and Wigan exhibiting lower
productivity levels and higher rates of economic inactivity. When the analysis is
widened out to Greater Manchester- two thirds of the total GVA generated
would be retained in GM and 921 of the 1686 jobs created would be in GM.
Again, the GM context is one where there are higher levels of deprivation in
many of the IMD constituent categories.
[14.19, 14.28]
14.42 I appreciate that in some cases economic benefits (GVA or jobs) felt in Bolton
and Wigan may only be a small proportion of the total realisable economic
benefits. HEART point to the GVA arising from the event itself being skewed
heavily in favour of locations outside Bolton, Wigan and GM. Total event GVA
would be £96m with £35m being retained in GM and £3m in Bolton and Wigan.
However, Mr Dixon provides his own explanation- the Ryder Cup is an
[9.72]
international event, the benefits would never be retained in one locality. That
does not mean that such benefits should not be considered in the planning
balance. In any event, the sum of £3m GVA to the Bolton and Wigan economy
as a result of a three-day competition is not an inconsequential sum in the
context of the economy of Bolton and Wigan.
14.43 In terms of the estimated level of economic benefits I make the following
observations: the benefits are difficult to quantify and predict and legacy
310 Mr Tong’s figures 9.12- 9.15
311 Mr Tong PoE ¶9.104
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 81
benefits are even more difficult to estimate. The benefits cannot be guaranteed
but represent the best estimate before the Inquiry. It is not unusual for
planning decisions to be based, in part, upon estimates of future anticipated
benefits. Having regard to past data, I consider that the estimated global
benefits are probably on the high side. Whilst optimistic, they are not
completely out of kilter with the quantum of benefits previously realised. I
make these comments whilst recognising that the trend in terms of GVA for
each subsequent Ryder Cup is upwards, and that the Hulton Park venue would
be a larger venue with good transport links to the North-West.
14.44 Footloose: a debate arose at the Inquiry as to whether the project was
footloose. HEART contend that the benefits described above would arise from a
Ryder Cup staged anywhere in England and that essentially the magnitude of
benefits would remain the same, but the distribution of those benefits would
change dependent on the location chosen. So, HEART contends that the
analysis should focus on the distinctive economic benefits which would arise
from hosting the Ryder Cup at this site and the benefits which would flow to
Bolton and Wigan.
[9.68-9.70,
14.45 HEART’s argument would have more force if there was some evidence of other
competitors in the bidding process. I appreciate that the bidding process is
[7.92]
somewhat opaque. However, the cost of putting together a submission,
together with the stringent requirements in terms of a championship level golf
course would, in my view, narrow the potential pool of bidders. The viability
considerations which have arisen in this case and the evidence of Ryder Cup
courses having to be underwritten elsewhere, also point to the need for a
developer with an appetite for, and deep pockets, to take on such a project.
14.46 There are also potential advantages conferred by designing a championship
golf course in an established parkland environment, where there is a need to
produce dramatic vistas and ‘risk and reward’ challenges for competitors312. Mr
McMurray’s view was that the scale of the landscape and its’ topography would
ensure a well-integrated course presenting the opportunity to create a
spectacular and interesting golf course with a sense of maturity which many golf
courses do not have. The adaptation of other RPGs to accommodate golf
courses and the publication of English Heritage Guidance313 on golf in historic
landscapes attest to the interest of golf designers in such landscapes.
14.47 I make the comments in the preceding paragraph not having done my
assessment as to the heritage impact of the proposal but merely recognising
that the site is an attractive proposition for golf promotors and designers. The
Applicant argues that there is no realistic suggestion as to another venue in the
UK being promoted or that existing venues in the North-West are viable
candidates since they would not meet the current Ryder Cup Committee
requirements. I accept that there is no evidence before the Inquiry to
[7.92]
undermine that position.
312 I rely on the oral and written evidence of Mr McMurray which was unchallenged in relation
to golf course design
313 CD 11.14 Golf in Historic Landscapes- The Planning System and Related Guide and
CD 11.15 Golf in Historic Parks and Landscapes- Understanding Historic Park Designs
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 82
14.48 I further struggle with the proposition that the benefits would be delivered
somewhere else in any event. This is not an either/or situation whereby there
is evidence of another competitor course in England. Even if there were such a
site/existing course, its merits relative to this site are not known and the
success of any other bid cannot be known. For example, it may be that even
without Hulton Park in the running another site would not be successful in their
bid because it does not meet requirements or is not an attractive proposition
relative to other European bids. It may be that another site is more attractive
than Hulton Park and likely to be more successful. These matters are
speculative. I therefore conclude that the full range of benefits, at local,
regional and national level should be taken into account. The weight to be
given to those benefits at these different scales is dependent on the context in
which the benefits would be realised.
14.49 In any event, even if the Ryder Cup is held elsewhere in England and the
national benefits realised, it is possible to say with some certainty that the
benefits to Bolton and Wigan would not be as high. The Hulton Park site places
Bolton and Wigan at the epicentre of potential benefits. If the Ryder Cup were
elsewhere the distribution of benefits would be altered, and it is probable that
the magnitude of effects in Bolton and Wigan and at other locations would be
significantly different.
[8.4-8.5]
14.50 Overall comments: a Ryder Cup event brings economic opportunities and
benefits at all scales. All parties agreed that the scale of socio-economic
benefits, if realised, ought to be given very significant weight . Such
[7.83, 8.25-8.27]
benefits are not guaranteed, and neither would they ever be guaranteed. Much
would depend on the commitment of key stakeholders and the effectiveness of
a clear strategy and delivery mechanisms. There is evidence though of a track
record at both local and regional level of optimising the benefits from such
events. There is also interest and support from those who would be expected to
play an active role in securing a legacy.
14.51 The level of the monetised benefits which would be felt at all levels is very
significant and importantly those benefits would be realised over a 20-year
period. In and of themselves the benefits are of such magnitude that they
attract very significant weight. I am satisfied that they would attract such
weight wherever they were realised. In other words, in any location in the UK
the benefits would be very significant and would attract very significant weight.
In the context of a local and regional area which lags behind economically and
evidences higher levels of deprivation and economic inactivity, the economic
benefits described take on a greater significance. They represent a singular
opportunity for Bolton in particular, to sit at the heart of a prestigious worldwide
sporting event, and to capture the social and economic opportunities which
would potentially arise.
14.52 I also bear in mind that some benefits cannot be measured in monetary
terms: the prestige314 and pride engendered by the holding of such an event,
the association of the town with such an event placing it in a spotlight with a
global audience. The golf resort itself would add to the sporting offer of Bolton
314 The Applicant points to the success of Celtic Manor in establishing Newport as a NATO
summit candidate
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 83
and GM. This would be in addition to social benefits including improvements to
health and wellbeing, increased volunteering and its attendant benefits,
improved employment prospects and increased amenities. All of these are
benefits which go hand in hand with the monetised socioeconomic benefits.
[8.37-8.38]
14.53 The economic benefits assessed above relate only to the golf-course element
of the proposal. The headline figure of £1.2bn does not include any assessment
of the jobs or growth which would be generated over the longer-term315.
Viability considerations
14.54 Background: Mr Richard Knight of Peel Investments gave evidence316 about the
ethos of the Applicant company which is 75% in the ownership of the Whittaker
family and placed in a trust in perpetuity. He attested that the company is
essentially a long-term investor, interested in legacy projects and long-term
acquisitions which have longer timescales than economic or political cycles. The
company, together with other major stakeholders, were behind the
development of Media City at Salford Quays over a 30-year timespan.
14.55 Mr Knight also provided the examples of the Trafford Centre as one of the
company’s trophy projects and Liverpool John Lennon airport as a legacy asset.
Mr Knight indicated that whilst these projects started life with negative viability
balance sheets, they are now trophy or legacy assets with positive values. The
letter of the Peel Group Chairman, John Whittaker, to the Inquiry sets out the
rationale and vision behind the Ryder Cup bid and deals further with the
Applicant’s company’s attitude to viability317.
[7.125-7.128]
14.56 Chronology of events: CS policy SC1 sets out a requirement for the provision
of 35% affordable housing on new greenfield housing developments. The policy
records that a lower proportion may be permitted where it can clearly be
demonstrated that development would not be financially viable. It also sets out
that the 35% provision should be split as to 75% for social renting and 25% for
intermediate housing. Accordingly, the FVA was commissioned to provide an
opinion on the financial viability of the development and as justification for the
level of affordable housing on the site.
14.57 A Market Report and Viability Statement dated May 2017318 was submitted in
support of the planning application. The FVA was reviewed by the District
Valuer319 who concluded that the approach and assumed inputs were robust320 .
The Council’s planning committee resolved to grant planning permission without
any affordable housing provision, but with a future review mechanism which
would secure affordable housing if viability improved as the scheme progressed.
The Statement of Common Ground on viability matters sets out the agreements
between the Council and the Applicant in relation to these matters 321.
[8.53]
315 Set out at ¶9.53-¶9.57 Mr Tong’s Proof of Evidence
316 Mr Knight’s written evidence is at appendix 1 to the Proof of Evidence of Stephen Bell
317 Appendices to Stephen Bell, Appendix 1, page 64-65.
318 CD 05a.10
319 Based on advice from Arcadis
320 Viability SoCG ¶1.3
321 CD 13.5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 84
14.58 The original FVA was updated by the 2019 FVA322 in anticipation of the Public
Inquiry and expanded upon in Mr Nesbitt’s proof of evidence. The Council and
Applicant are agreed that the valuation has been prepared in accordance with
all relevant guidance in the PPG and the RICS323 mandatory requirements. The
Council also instructed Trebbi324 to undertake a review of the updated FVA and
compare it with the original FVA upon which they were not instructed.
14.59 Trebbi commented that the position in 2019 was that the development was,
according to the Applicant, considerably less viable than it had been in 2017
and that the question was one of deliverability as opposed to viability. They
noted that the residential scheme delivered in isolation would make substantial
returns to both housebuilder and developer and would be able to fund a full
policy compliant level of affordable housing. They raised questions in relation to
the value of the 10% offer of affordable housing325, the gross development
value for the hotel and golf course and a mismatch between assumed room
rates for the hotel and the 5* standard of accommodation to be provided. They
also contend that the profit element for the Master Developer related to the
residential elements (estimated at £5.4m) should have already been included in
the residential development profit of £47.9m otherwise there would appear to
be an element of double counting when assessing the risk. I consider that all of
these points have some merit.
14.60 In this case the housing element of the proposed scheme has been included to
subsidise the restoration works to the RPG and the provision of the golf course.
The consequence of this development package is that the FVA indicates that the
development, as it currently stands, cannot afford to make any contribution
towards affordable housing. This remained the Applicant’s position at the
conclusion of the Inquiry and is accepted by the Council326. The Council and
Applicant are also agreed that the lack of provision of affordable housing on the
site would not contravene development plan or national policy given the viability
considerations in this case.
[7.115]
“The main findings from the updated FVA …are that the proposed scheme is not viable
at present and cannot support a policy compliant affordable housing provision based on
the assumed costs and values as the result the result is a negative residual land
value”.327
14.61 At the commencement of the Inquiry, notwithstanding the position that the
project could not support the provision of any affordable housing and having an
eye to the revised policy position in the new Framework328, the Applicant offered
a minimum of 10% affordable housing provision comprising discounted market
housing. It is the joint position of both the Applicant and the Council that this
represents a “policy plus” situation whereby the offer of affordable housing
exceeds that which is reasonably required by policy.
[7.116-7.118, 8.55, 9.56]
322 CD 07c.1. Updated to include changes to key inputs and also to include a 10% affordable
housing commitment
323 RICS Financial viability in planning: conduct and reporting May 2019.
324 Appendix 1 to Ms Lancaster’s Proof of Evidence
325 Ibid ¶2.2
326 Viability SoCG ¶1.10
327 Ibid SoCG ¶1.10
328 ¶64 NPPF February 2019
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 85
14.62 During discussions at the Inquiry I indicated that the Secretary of State may
attribute different weight to the provision of different tenures of affordable
housing, dependent on local needs. So, for example rented affordable housing
may attract more weight than discounted market housing. I asked the
Applicant and Council to revise the section 106 agreement to build in flexibility
to enable the Secretary of State to give an indication as to preferred tenure.
The final section 106 agreement now contains such a provision329 as well as a
review mechanism on viability at three distinct points over the life of the
development.
14.63 All of the above matters were examined at a roundtable session at the Inquiry
following the submission of various modelled scenarios which I had requested
from the Applicant’s viability experts.330 I shall examine the viability position
having regard to all of the evidence and the relevant PPG and other guidance.
14.64 Analysis: Two of the inputs into the updated FVA have changed since the
original assessment was done and the costs of 10% provision of affordable
housing, estimated at £3.95m, have now been included. Each of these
elements have an adverse impact on viability. Firstly, the commercial and
residential build costs across the project have increased by £16m in the two
years since 2017. Secondly, the valuation of the golf course and hotel, at 2019
prices, has decreased by £9m. The golf course and hotel valuation is based on
a Red Book approach, which does not allow optimistic assumptions and is only a
view of the value at the current date. The Applicant acknowledges that it
represents a cautious approach. The consequence of these adjusted inputs is
that scheme viability for 1036 units shows a deficit of £48m.
14.65 I do not propose to interrogate the inputs into the model in any great detail
given that they are in accordance with all relevant guidance, have been subject
to testing by the District Valuer and no other figures are before me. However, I
do make some observations. The inputs are self-evidently susceptible to
market forces. In the space of 2 years since the original 2017 FVA, the
projected deficit has increased by some £25m by virtue of increased costs and a
reduced valuation. Valuations can increase as well as decrease and costs can
also change over time. The proposal would be built out over 20 years which
means that values are more likely to fluctuate, although I accept that the longer
built-out period makes it more likely that the development would not be built at
the top or bottom of an economic cycle and that peaks and troughs in costs and
values are more likely to even out.
14.66 The Applicant acknowledges that the funding gap could be significantly
reduced- if, for example, residential sales values increase and/or if the value of
the hotel and golf course increases. The prospect of increased sales values in
the residential properties is a very real one given that the current valuation is
based on the current market. Properties situated on the periphery of a Ryder
Cup championship golf course are likely to experience an uplift in values due to
prestige and association.
[7.122]
329 Page 3 of the agreement, the definition of Affordable Housing Units is “the discounted
market sale units or…such other tenure of affordable housing as is recommended by the SoS
in the Decision Letter;or…”
330 Cushman and Wakefield ‘Hulton Park Scenario Analysis Summary Schedule-Supporting
Explanatory Note’ and Inquiry Document 7: Additional Sensitivity Analysis.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 86
14.67 Using the FVA as a starting point, I asked the Applicant’s expert to run various
scenarios through the model to test the effect of the provision of different types
and quanta of affordable housing and with some of the variables adjusted. Each
set of variables are applied to the 2026, the 2030 and the 2034 Ryder Cup
scenarios and to two alternative schemes (with 1006 residential units and 1036
residential units). The 2026 scenarios can be ignored given that this option is
no longer available. Given that planning permission is sought for 1036 units, I
shall concentrate on those figures. In any event the outputs in relation to 1006
units are not dissimilar and follow the same patterns.
14.68 With 10% affordable housing provision and more optimistic residential
revenues the 2030 Ryder Cup scenario reveals deficits from around £30m to
£44m dependent on varying residential values331. When a more optimistic
valuation is inserted for the hotel and golf course332, the deficit reduces to £20m
with the highest residential values. When the scenarios are run to test the
different variables and with 35% affordable housing provision, as expected, the
deficit increases333.
14.69 Scenario 7 is interesting because it relates to the commercial (golf course and
hotel) element only and reveals a deficit of over £100m334. When compared to
the base position of the residential element only, on the basis of gross land
value and 10% affordable housing provision335, the housing scheme alone would
produce a surplus of over £60m thus reducing the funding gap. This gives some
indication of the magnitude of support which the golf course/hotel would garner
from the housing element of the scheme.
14.70 Mr Dixon on behalf of HEART maintained that there is a non-traditional,
enabling relationship between the two elements of the development and that a
synergy between the two distinct elements is not obvious. I acknowledge
[9.57]
that there is no direct relationship between the two elements, save for the
Applicant’s claim that the housing represents a minimum safety net for the
Applicant and provides essential cross-funding. However, I must deal with
[7.109]
the application as it is packaged up and assess it against development plan
policy and other material considerations.
14.71 The only scenarios showing a positive outcome for the whole development
(1036 units) package were those where the variables were set at: 10%
affordable housing at discounted market value, increased residential revenues,
uplifted commercial values and the removal of master developer profit and
benchmark land values336.
14.72 During the course of the Inquiry, I asked for further sensitivity analyses to be
done by varying the mix of units on the site and substituting smaller housing
units and by changing the tenure split on the affordable housing to test the
effects of affordable housing provision with a policy compliant tenure split337.
331 Scenario2a
332 Based on Avison Young ‘Special Assumption valuation’
333 Scenario 4
334 This is the funding gap of at least c.£102.6m identified by Mr Nesbitt.
335 Scenario 8a
336 Scenario 2bii for the 2030 Ryder Cup and Scenario 3bii for the 2034 Ryder Cup.
337 75% social rented and 25% intermediate housing Policy SC1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 87
All scenario outputs resulted in the negative viability positions depicted in the
schedule set out in Inquiry Document 7.
14.73 Concluding remarks on viability: I have reservations about some of the inputs
in the modelled scenarios. In particular, I do not necessarily accept the figures
for the Hotel and Golf course GDV and the application of Master Developer’s
Profit for the residential element. I bear in mind that the 2019 updated FVA is
essentially a valuation at a given point in time seeking to estimate future
returns and costs over a long timescale. However, I am not satisfied that the
values inserted in the 2019 updated FVA are truly representative. These, and
other factors, are matters which the Council may wish to investigate further if
the development proceeds.
14.74 At this moment in time however, it would serve no purpose to engage in a
fact-finding exercise in relation to the variables. I say this because even if the
2019 adjusted variables are not accepted, or the GDV of the hotel and golf
complex is adjusted, these adjustments would not be determinative on the
question of viability. Even with a question mark over the golf course valuation,
I am satisfied that the more favourable 2017 scenarios still indicated that the
project is not viable and as such it cannot afford to make any contribution to
the affordable housing element. That was the position put before the Council in
2017. On the Applicant’s analysis it has since worsened.
14.75 On the basis of the above I accept that the Applicant has demonstrated that
the scheme cannot currently afford to bear the costs of affordable housing
provision. Such a finding begs the question as to why the Applicant Company
has chosen to proceed or why would any developer wish to develop out the
project? The answer lies in the evidence of Mr Knight and the Company’s
chairman. They believe that viability would improve over the lifetime of the
development and the scheme would show a positive balance sheet at some
point in the future. I accept this as a proposition which means that reviews into
viability at future points are crucial.
[7.122,]
14.76 There then remains the question of the review mechanism and the weight to
be accorded to the Applicant’s current offer of 10% provision of affordable
housing. The review mechanism within the s106 agreement contains a
commitment to submit revised viability assessments at three different points in
the lifetime of the development. At any of those points, if viability improves
and the scheme can afford it, then additional affordable housing would be
provided up to 35% provision across the development and after taking into
account the existing commitments.
14.77 The mechanism was discussed in detail at the Inquiry. The first viability
appraisal would be before occupation of 275 dwellings; the second viability
assessment would be the earlier of the first reserved matters application
following conclusion of the Ryder Cup or 12 months after the Ryder Cup; and
the third viability appraisal update would be before occupation of 850 residential
units. Given that the Applicant’s own witness338 accepted the likelihood of the
Ryder Cup placing a premium on the value of some of the housing, it is
important to revisit viability after the Ryder Cup event. I am satisfied that the
338 Mr Nesbitt during the viability roundtable session
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 88
three trigger points for review would offer adequate opportunities to revisit the
question of viability and optimise the likelihood of securing affordable housing.
14.78 The 10% offer of affordable housing: The Applicant’s current commitment is to
provide 10% affordable housing in the form of discounted market units for sale,
defined as a resident unit sold at a discount of at least 20% below open market
value. The cost of this was included in the 2019 FVA, put at £3.95m.
14.79 The s106 goes on to provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State to
recommend another form of tenure or, if the Secretary of State makes no such
recommendation, for the Council to specify which tenure it prefers. These
provisions are subject to a caveat that if a different form of tenure is selected
than the overall cost of affordable housing provision to the owner shall not
increase and the quantum of provision would be adjusted downwards. Provision
in accordance with policy aspirations would mean that any affordable housing
should be 75% social rented housing and 25% intermediate housing. Since
provision of these tenures is widely acknowledged to be more expensive than
the provision of discounted market housing, the quantum of 10% provision
would be adjusted downwards to a point where the cost of the new tenure split
equated to some £3.95m.
[7.118-7.121]
14.80 To assess the value of this offer it is necessary to look at local circumstances
and the prevailing need in the Borough. The Strategic Housing Market
Assessment (SHMAA) dated 2008339 formed part of the evidence base
underpinning the CS and CS policy SC1. It points to a greater need of social
rented housing. The Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning
Document, adopted in 2013, refers to more up to date evidence in the Housing
Market and Needs Strategy of 2011 which evidenced a continuing shortage of
affordable housing and a need for the delivery of 377 new affordable units per
annum340.
14.81 On behalf of the Council, Ms Lancaster confirms that the latest Housing Needs
Assessment (HNA) dated March 2016, indicated a Borough-wide net annual
imbalance of 1235 affordable units based on an assessment of the need for
social housing341. The HNA identifies that the greatest need was for social
rented homes (65%) followed by intermediate tenure products (35%). The
Council confirmed that this need would not be addressed by the discounted sale
products proposed by the Applicant342.
14.82 The Council’s Growth and Regeneration Manager has expressed the view that
whilst 20% discounted market sale units are a help, they do not address
affordability issues as well as “more traditional products like shared ownership
or truly affordable housing products as it doesn’t allow for staircasing”.343 In his
closing submissions Mr Dale-Harris confirmed the Council’s preference for 65%
social/affordable rented housing and 35% intermediate tenure and that such a
split should carry more weight in the planning balance.
[8.65, 7.123]
339 CD 12.3
340 ¶2.7 SPD CD 11.7
341 Ms Lancaster Proof of Evidence 8.69
342 Ibid ¶8.74
343 Appendix 2 to Ms Lancaster Proof of Evidence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 89
14.83 Affordable Housing Concluding Comments: I have set out my finding that the
proposal cannot support the provision of any affordable housing. It has
therefore satisfied policy requirements which expect evidence to demonstrate
such matters. The offer of 10% provision can more accurately be described as
a capital sum of £3.95m towards any type of affordable housing given the
review mechanism and power for the Secretary of State to elect the type of
provision. Provision of 65% social rented and 35% intermediate housing would
comply with policy expectations and more importantly would meet the needs of
the local population. Provision of discounted sale units (discounted by 20%), on
a prestige development with potentially rising market values, would do little in
my view to address the affordable housing issues in the Borough. As such the
provision of the 65%/35% tenures would attract more weight than any offer of
discounted market sale housing.
14.84 The provision of 10% affordable housing on a discounted sale basis would
equate to around 100 units in numerical terms. If the same money was instead
used to provide social rented/intermediate housing I acknowledge that such
provision would be materially less than the 10% of all housing in numerical
terms. I have expressed a strong preference for a policy compliant tenure split.
If the Secretary of State takes the same view, then I would recommend that he
provides a clear indication.
14.85 As to the weight which such affordable housing would attract, I would attribute
moderate weight to the provision of social rented/intermediate affordable
housing. I accept that it is beyond policy requirements or ‘policy plus’ and that
it would meet identified affordable housing needs, but it is likely to be
somewhat less than the 100 units which would be provided if discounted market
value housing were to be preferred. I shall proceed on the basis that the
affordable housing provision is for the policy compliant tenure split and shall
ascribe moderate weight to it in the planning balance.
14.86 To be absolutely clear, in circumstances where 100 discounted units were
provided on a policy-plus basis, I would attribute only limited weight to such
provision given that it would not address true affordability issues in the
Borough. I also bear in mind that a 65%/35% tenure split (subject to the
£3.95m cap) would be a minimum provision and that the opportunity would
exist for the further provision of affordable housing if viability improved over the
lifetime of the development.
Market Housing-assessment of benefits
14.87 The market housing proposed would be provided in Green Belt and I make a
full assessment as to its effects on the Green Belt in due course. This section of
the Report deals simply with the context in which the market housing would be
provided and any benefits of it, as well as considering whether this aspect of the
proposal would be in conformity with the development plan.
14.88 CS policy OA4 relates to West Bolton and confirms that the Council will
concentrate sites for new development within the existing urban area and will
maintain current Green Belt boundaries, as well as conserving and enhancing
the character of the existing physical environment, especially the historic
registered Hulton Park. The appeal site is not an allocated housing site.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 90
14.89 The Housing SoCG344 set out the matters agreed between all three main
parties. It records the change in the 5YHLS position since the Council
considered the proposal and recommended approval. CS policy SC1 requires
the Council to identify a range of housing sites for additional provision of 694
dwellings per annum between 2008 and 2026. The latest Annual Monitoring
Report (AMR) indicates that there is a requirement for at least 4,986 dwellings,
as against a deliverable supply of 3,652 dwellings, giving a current shortfall
equivalent to a supply of around 3.7 years. This Applicant and Council
characterise this as a significant shortfall whilst HEART considers it to be
moderate345.
[7.110, 8.47-8.48]
14.90 I note that HEART alight upon the fact that there have been recent approvals
at appeal which are not included in the AMR. However, the AMR is essentially a
snapshot at a point in time and one cannot expect the Council to continuously
update it throughout the course of the following year. I am satisfied that the
latest AMR provides a robust estimation of the position based on the 2017/2018
report which was published in January 2019346. The current 5YHLS is
somewhere between 3.5 and 3.7 years. That is a little over a 25% reduction in
the supply of land which should be available for housing development as a
minimum. The deficit is around 1,300 homes.
14.91 The Supplementary Housing SoCG347 records further agreements between the
Council and Applicant only. They are agreed that the residential development
would make an important contribution towards meeting housing needs both in
terms of quantity and quality, in the short and medium terms and particularly
over the longer term348. They are further agreed that, notwithstanding the
Green Belt designation, the relevant parts of the site are suitable for housing
and would be delivered alongside a package of necessary supporting
infrastructure349. I am satisfied that the housing would be in a location close to
services and public transport options and therefore in a sustainable location
[7.109]
14.92 Differences between the parties relate to the rate of delivery of the housing
and its ability to contribute to the 5YHLS and the weight to be attributed to the
provision of market housing.
14.93 Concluding Comments on market housing: the existing housing stock in the
borough is skewed towards terraced housing and policy SC1 acknowledges the
need for almost half of all new homes to be 3 bedrooms or larger. Whilst the
residential development is in outline only at this stage, the proposal is
predicated350 upon delivery of family market housing with 28% of houses being
3 bedrooms and some 45% being 4 bedrooms351. As such, the development
344 CD 13.9
345 Ibid ¶2.8
346 CD 12.5
347 CD13.17
348 Principal SoCG ¶8.12
349 Ibid ¶8.13 second bullet
350 The mix underpins the viability assessment, informed the Illustrative Masterplan layout
and the Parameters Plan
351 Mr Bell table 10.3- Indicative housing mix
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 91
would be likely to contribute towards the objective of diversifying the existing
housing stock and would provide market housing of a type in demand.
[7.113]
14.94 The Applicant’s first estimate352 was that some 200 dwellings would be
provided during the five-year supply period. A more realistic assessment was
agreed between the Council and Applicant at 115353 homes in the current five-
year period. This is dependent upon the site being selected as a Ryder Cup
destination in the summer of 2020 with the first phases of residential
development commencing in 2021 and a set of other assumptions in relation to
timings. Any delay to any element of the process could potentially reduce the
contribution towards 5YHLS to nil. To that end I prefer the evidence of Ms
Lancaster in terms of her assessment of the likely delivery of housing and her
analysis of the robustness of the assumptions. I shall therefore proceed on the
basis that the proposal could potentially contribute somewhere between nil and
115 homes in the first five years. I consider this to be a modest potential
contribution attracting only limited weight.
[8.49]
14.95 The first draft GMSF included the Western Fields, the location of the housing
element of this proposal, within Green Belt allocated for release to housing.
That has now been removed and the longer-term requirements in terms of
housing in Bolton are somewhat uncertain, given that it will be determined by
the revised GMSF which is at an early stage. The proposal includes housing on
an unallocated site and the housing element of the proposal is contrary to CS
policy OA4. The Council accepts that the CS predates the 2012 Framework and
that policies for the supply of housing (including SC1 and the first bullet point to
OA4) are out of date and should be given limited weight. I agree that such
policies are out of date and accordingly I attribute limited weight to the harm
caused by the proposal being contrary to policy OA4 in terms of the location of
new housing.
14.96 Given the scale of housing on the site it is axiomatic that it has the potential to
make a significant contribution towards meeting any future housing needs of
the people of Bolton over the longer period, whatever they may be. As such I
attribute some weight to the provision of quality family market housing over the
longer-term. I have tempered the weight given to this matter because of the
uncertainty regarding longer-term requirements.
14.97 Ms Copley on behalf of HEART made further points regarding the ongoing
negotiations between the GMCA and MHCLG regarding its Housing Deal. In
particular, she raised concerns over Green Belt releases to meet housing
projections. The development could account for 7.5% of the housing
requirement for the period 2016 to 2037 when delivered over the 20-year
period354. Ms Copley contends that allowing the development would cause
uncertainty in the existing local housing market, which uncertainty is
antithetical to a plan-led system.
[8.51, .52-.55]
14.98 The current deficit within the existing 5YHLS is around 1,300 homes, some 5%
of the total existing 5YHLS. This provides some idea as to the order of the
deficit when compared with the quantum of the housing proposed (1,000
352 Mr Bell Proof of Evidence ¶10.27 and the Supplemental ES CE07b
353 Supplemental Housing SoCG
354 Mr Bell PoE ¶12.58
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 92
homes). The concept of maintaining an adequate supply of housing within a
plan-led system is a firmly established principle. When that plan-led system
fails to deliver the requisite amount of housing, then corrective action is
required, hence the imposition of 20% buffers355 and the footnote 7 provisions
decreeing that in the absence of a five-year supply of deliverable sites then
policies should be considered out-of-date. If the Secretary of State concludes
that approval of the proposal is the appropriate decision, I am satisfied that
such a decision would be in accordance with the plan-led system, its inherent
safeguards and the application of Framework policies.
14.99 Neither do I believe that any grant of planning permission for housing on the
Site would distort the local housing market or have a chilling effect as alleged.
Such a decision would be made in the context of a housing market which is
currently failing to deliver the required number of homes for Bolton.
14.100 Finally, Mr Wood, a chartered engineer and local resident, conducted his
own analysis regarding delivery of the housing and staging of the Ryder Cup356.
In short, his point was that delivery of the housing is planned in phases357. Mr
Woods points out that the need to retain approximately half of the Western
Fields as undeveloped land to enable staging of the Ryder Cup would adversely
impact housing delivery or the need to deliver the housing in line with the
planned trajectory would adversely impact upon delivery of the Ryder Cup.
14.101 The proposed residential development has been split into six parcels or
character areas358. Parcels 1 to 4 relate to the housing on the Western Fields.
Parcels 5 and 6 relate to the housing on Dearden’s Farm and Park End Farm
which would be built out first, delivering a combined total of 277 houses. The
northern parcels (1 and part of 2) can be built before the staging of the Ryder
Cup. In the 2030 Ryder Cup scenario, a further 280 houses would be built on
the Western Fields north site (parcel 1) by 2029/2030. The Ryder Cup would
then use the rest of the Western Fields to stage the 2030 event.
14.102 Mr Wood’s analysis moves onto the 2034 scenario. He demonstrates
that the trajectory is such that in his view, in order to achieve the target of 691
houses by 2033/34, development would have to occur on the remaining parcels.
This would result in only 20.8 hectares of undeveloped land remaining which is
less than the 22.5 hectares advised as necessary. I accept entirely Mr Wood’s
analysis but make two points. Firstly, the development is predicated on the
Ryder Cup bid and its minimum requirements. If the 2034 bid proceeds, then
whatever land is required for staging would have to be reserved as such.
Secondly, if the effect of this is that there is a hiatus in the middle of the 20-
year development programme (2021 to 2041), this is not material to my
decision making. I say this because the hiatus would occur outside the
immediate 5YHLS period, which I have considered earlier, and it would not
affect the overall quantum of housing contributing towards the longer-term
355 Framework ¶73(c)
356 Inquiry document 18
357 See Appendix 6 to PoE Mr Stephen Bell- housing trajectory.
358 See plan at page 15 of PoE of Mr Stephen Bell
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 93
Biodiversity-assessment of benefits
14.103 The application site contains four locally designated Sites of Biological
Interest (SBIs): Mill Dam Wood, Hulton Park, New Park Wood and Carr Brook
Mere and it contains several lakes which are silted up to varying degrees. The
proposal includes a de-silting operation of the central lakes, designed to remove
some 58,000 cubic metres of material.
14.104 The planning application is supported by a suite of documents setting
out ecological measures and arboricultural proposals359. The updated Interim
Landscape and Habitat Management Plan360 (ILHMP) sets out management
arrangements for existing habitat and newly created habitats, corridors and
greenspaces. These matters are secured for each phase by obligations within
the s106 agreement361. The parties are agreed that a Construction
Environmental Management Plan362 (CEMP) would be provided pursuant to a
planning condition. Other measures are included in the Lighting Strategy363 and
the Outline Lake Desilting and Restoration Plan364.
[8.61]
14.105 A further Updated Biodiversity Impact Assessment365 was undertaken
following a series of amendments and additions to the scheme since the date
that the application was considered by the Council. The Applicant has also
submitted a Supplemental Environment Statement which assesses the likely
significant effects under the 2030 and 2034 Ryder Cup scenarios. Essentially
the changes have resulted in a significant uplift to biodiversity gains- from
3.53% to 15.23%. This is attributable to a series of measures, one of which
was the provision of the Gorse Wood woodland planting scheme366 designed to
deliver 5.36 hectares of off-site woodland.
[8.62]
14.106 The s106 agreement as originally drafted contained provision for the
Applicant to elect to provide either off-site woodland planting on land adjacent
to the site or to pay a commuted sum to the Council to deliver off-site woodland
itself. Following discussions at the Inquiry the agreement was changed to
secure the provision of the off-site planting on a site immediately adjacent to
the application site. This removes the possibility of the Council being asked to
find land to provide such planting which could be located away from the site. It
also removes the uncertainty associated with such a process.
14.107 Evidence from the Applicant’s Ecologist, Mr Hesketh, was largely
unchallenged. The RPG is currently unmanaged and consequently its ecological
value is on the decline and would decline further in the absence of proactive
management measures due to the presence of invasive species and grazing on
the site367. The proposal would result in the enhancement of woodlands on site
which are locally designated SBIs, with a number of these experiencing a
359 Listed in ¶2.0 of the SoCG
360 CD 07a.6
361 Schedule 4
362 Outline CEMP at CD 07a.5
363 CD 07b.5.3
364 CD 06c.5.12
365 At Annex A to the Ecological SoCG
366 CD 06c.5.10
367 Mr Hesketh PoE ¶9.37
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 94
material uplift in value. Whilst there would be initial harm due to the
construction works, the totality of the proposal would result in significant
biodiversity improvements.
[7.97-7.98,
14.108 Management of the semi-ancient woodland on site would reduce
trespass and improve their value as ecological assets. The removal of 251 trees
is associated with the development of the golf-course, but the proposal involves
the planting of over 3,400 additional specimen trees in numerical terms (a net
effect of +3,226nr). When this is viewed in terms of the quality of trees, lost
and replaced, the adjusted loss is some 532 trees with the net effect at
+2,945nr.368
14.109 During the consultation phase the Council’s Tree and Wildlife Officer
commented that there were existing tree losses due to lack of management and
the proposal would have a short/medium-term adverse effect on some species
which would be outweighed by other benefits. The Officer classified those
benefits as; the inclusion of far rough and grassland management regime
leading to additional colonisation of flora and fauna; compensatory tree planting
in Gorse Wood SBI and enhanced woodland management; management of the
golf course to provide biodiversity benefits and the management of retained
habitat.
14.110 The Woodland Trust and Ancient Tree Forum369 strongly objected to the
proposal citing the degradation of the RPG landscape and unacceptable tree
loss. They claimed that the Arboricultural Impact Assessment underestimated
the current value of mature and veteran trees on the site and the quality of
woodland and wood pasture habitat. The Applicant’s Ecologists (TEP)
responded fully to the criticisms370. The Woodland Trust’s letter371 of 6 June
2019 sought to row back on some of its earlier criticisms. They accepted that
their previous estimate of veteran trees on site was probably a significant
overestimate but that they were not entirely convinced that some of the woods
on site are not areas of potentially unmapped ancient woodland.
14.111 Natural England have confirmed that there is not enough evidence to
indicate that the woods on site are older than 18th century plantations. This is
now accepted by The Woodland Trust. None of the three confirmed veteran
trees on the site would be lost and ancient woodland within the site boundary
would be protected in accordance with ‘Standing Advice’ and having regard to
the IHLMP. I am satisfied that a full assessment has been carried out in
[8.63]
relation to existing trees and woodland areas. The proposal is accepted by
Natural England and has been audited by the GMEU on behalf of the Council.
GMEU is the specialist unit providing ecology advice to a consortium of ten
district Councils.
14.112 The Ecological and Arboricultural SoCG372 contains agreements between
the Applicant and the GMEU. As indicated, the SoCG records an overall
enhancement of 15.32% in the biodiversity metric of the site. Mr Hesketh
368 Tables 4 & 5 Mr Hesketh Proof of Evidence
369 Appendix A within Appendix E of the PoE of Mr Hesketh
370 Appendix E to PoE of Mr Hesketh
371 Inquiry document 27
372 CD 13.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 95
confirmed that this was a very substantial net gain in terms of a development
but attributed this to the size and nature of the site. HEART contends that a
large element of the gain would be attributable to the grassland management
regime and in particular the ‘Far Rough’ component of the golf course which
would be harmful in heritage terms. The effect upon heritage assets will be
assessed separately. It does not detract from the overall biodiversity benefits
of the scheme, rather it is another element to place in the weighing scales.
[7.95,
8.61, 9.86]
14.113 Natural England did not object to the proposal. In terms of protected
species and the Habitats Regulations, Mr Hesketh confirmed that there was no
reason to believe that the requisite licences would not be obtained from Natural
England. In the event that the SoS considers it right to grant planning
permission, I am satisfied that: the activities which would need to be licenced
would be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest; there are no
satisfactory alternatives in planning terms and Mr Hesketh confirmed that the
least damaging alternative had been selected in ecological terms; finally
favourable conservation status would be maintained and this is addressed in the
ES.
[8.63]
14.114 The Council suggested that moderate weight should be given to the
biodiversity benefits. HEART accepts that the net biodiversity gains are of a
high degree. I accept that they are by no means guaranteed but the figures
have been validated by the GMEU experts and they contain a discount to allow
for some habitats being difficult to establish373.
14.115 Concluding comments on biodiversity gains: I am satisfied that there
would be substantial benefits in relation to the diversification of the ecological
features and habitats on the site. Given the size of the site and its parkland
nature and the quantum of trees and woodland, it is not surprising that the net
gain figures are of a high order. In addition, I bear in mind that the ecological
value of the site is declining, and the proposal would secure its ongoing
maintenance. These are important material considerations and I accord them
substantial weight. As a result of these conclusions it follows that the proposal
is in accordance with CS policy CG1.1 which seeks to ensure that the borough is
protected from proposals which adversity affect biodiversity. It also contributes
to the strategic policy objectives within the Framework which promote
improvements in biodiversity within the development process.
Highways
14.116 A great many residents, and others, expressed concerns about the
existing levels of congestion on the local and strategic highway networks
surrounding the site and the ability of those networks to cope with the
additional traffic generated by the proposal. The Applicant contends that the
package of measures associated with the development would mean that the
proposal would not only address its own impacts but would also provide
additional benefits in terms of a reduction in congestion. All these matters were
explored at a Highways roundtable session attended by the Applicant’s
highways expert, Mr Eggleston, and the Council’s Highways Engineer, Mr
373 Mr Hesketh under cross-examination referred to a difficulty rating of 1.5, dividing the
values by 1.5 so as to ‘factor in insurance that you won’t always get what you plan for’.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 96
Johnson. Members of the public also attended and made points and asked
questions of the experts.
[7.108, 8.57-8.58]
14.117 The question of any benefits of the proposal in highway terms and the
mitigation package on the highway network is inextricably linked to the overall
impact of the proposal on the local roads. In this section therefore I shall
examine all aspects of the impacts upon various sections of the highway
network. Before doing so, I confirm that before, during and after the Inquiry
sessions I have had the opportunity of travelling on the local and strategic
highway networks several times and I am familiar with the local area.
14.118 The application was accompanied by a full Transport Assessment
(TA)374and plans showing various highways mitigation schemes at key
junctions375. The scope of the assessments was agreed by both the Council, as
local highways authority, and by Highways England (HE) in relation to the wider
strategic road network. Traffic surveys were conducted to examine existing
traffic flows and the existing peak hour flows and junction capacities were
agreed. Finally, the TA was considered by both consultees who raised questions
and issues resulting in further information being provided and revisions to the
measures. Eventually the highways authorities arrived at a point where they
were satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed.
14.119 A comprehensive Highways SoCG sets out the agreed position between
the Applicant, the Council and HE376. It contains agreements relating to the
existing baseline in terms of traffic conditions, accessibility of the site, traffic
forecasts and the impacts of the full development on both the local road
network and the strategic road network, with separate consideration given to
the impacts of the Ryder Cup.
14.120 Many residents expressed concerns that a number of existing, large
developments had been granted planning permission and when built, they
would have a further deleterious effect upon the highway network. As is usual
in such assessments, the projections take account of the traffic generated from
those developments which have gained planning permissions (committed
development)377 when looking at traffic impacts in future years. Having regard
to the TA and the evidence I am satisfied that a robust assessment has been
carried out.
14.121 Accessibility of the site: the site is located close to the M61 and wider
motorway network. It is served by a wide range of existing transport services,
including bus and rail services. There are two railway stations some 500 metres
of Hulton Park and two further rail stations a little further away. The Site itself
is criss-crossed by a network of Public Rights of Way (PRoWs). The Site
therefore has excellent public transport links and good connectivity to the wider
highway network and to other shops, services, schools and local employment
opportunities. As such it is in an accessible location.
374 CD 05a.11
375 CD 05a.22.2 to CD 05a.22.6
376 CD 13.12
377 Inquiry Document- Plan B
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 97
14.122 The Proposal: The existing access to Hulton Park is via a main entrance
gate on Newbrook Road. The proposal would retain this access but only for
ceremonial use during golf tournaments and this would be secured by condition.
Access to the clubhouse and hotel would be via the entrance from the A6.
Access onto the proposed residential areas would be from the A6 Manchester
Road to serve the housing on Dearden’s Farm and from Woodland Drive and
Broadway to serve Park End Farm. The largest parcel of housing, located on
the ‘Western Fields’, would be accessed via the A6 Manchester Road and via an
additional access to the proposed new Platt Lane-Chequerbent Roundabout link
road.
14.123 Whilst a design for the link road has been worked up, approval for it is
not sought as part of this application since the Council may pursue an
alternative arrangement as part of improvements to the wider Strategic Road
Network in the area378. As such the principle of access from the west must be
considered as part of this application, but the details would be reserved for
further consideration379. The access arrangements have all been subject to
traffic capacity assessments which indicate that they would operate within
capacity, subject to mitigation measures in some cases. The TA contains
agreed existing peak hour traffic flows and theoretical capacities. Thereafter
the impact of the proposal in terms of traffic generated and its addition to
existing flows has been modelled.
14.124 Proposed Mitigation Measures: The main measure proposed is the
construction of a new link road between the Chequerbent roundabout and Platt
Lane, serviced by the enlargement of an existing minor arm to the roundabout.
At the southern end of the new link road there would be a new roundabout
leading onto the residential Western Fields part of the development. The link
road would then continue southwards to connect to the northern section of Platt
Lane via a priority junction.
14.125 The link road would either be delivered as an integral part of the
Council’s Westhoughton Bypass scheme or as a shorter section as part of this
proposal. Other mitigation measures comprise junction improvements as
follows: at junction 5 of the M61, at the junction of Park Road and Leigh Road
and at the Four Lane Ends crossroads380. Apart from the link road, all the other
mitigation measures are secured by condition381.
14.126 The Chequerbent roundabout is currently over-capacity, especially in the
evening peak hour. Around 4000 vehicles enter the Chequerbent junction
during the AM and PM peaks 382 resulting in significant queuing, particularly on
Snydale Way. Surveyed queues were in the order of around 200 vehicles. The
PM peak two-way flow along the A58 Snydale Way is some 2,770 vehicles. In
the PM peak hour traffic is funnelled off the roundabout onto Park Road and due
to the large volume of vehicles, it backs up, with traffic queuing back to the
378 Namely the provision of the Westhoughton bypass which potentially forms part of a wider
scheme between M61/J5 and M6/J6 across Bolton and Wigan- ¶4.2.4 Principal SoCG and
¶6.66
379 See Parameters Plan CD 06b.8
380 A traffic signal-controlled junction of A6 Manchester Road with the A579 Newbrook Road.
381 Proposed condition 16
382 TA Table 4.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 98
roundabout, sometimes around the roundabout and onto Snydale Way back to
the M61.
14.127 The link road would connect into an existing arm off the Chequerbent
roundabout which would be enlarged, and the circulatory system would be
reconfigured. This would alleviate some of the pressure on Park Road. It is this
link road which would provide access firstly to the Ryder Cup spectators and
later, to residents of a large portion of the housing proposed on the Western
Fields. The traffic generated by these two scenarios and its’ impact on the
network has been modelled. For the full development the additional traffic was
calculated and then distributed across the network and its impact upon key
junctions considered with committed developments factored in383. In addition,
the highways effects of the phase 1 development were estimated given that this
development would be built prior to the link road. The impacts of the Ryder
Cup were also assessed separately.
14.128 The analysis shows that the baseline plus committed development would
result in a worsening in the operation of the Chequerbent roundabout. When
the Hulton Park development and attendant link road are factored in, the
analysis demonstrates that queueing lengths and delays are generally reduced
and are reduced significantly on several arms in the PM peak. The introduction
of the link road would therefore represent a significant benefit in terms of the
operation of the roundabout due to its more efficient operation and the
distribution of traffic across the various arms. This is accepted by AECOM, the
Council’s independent highways consultants.
[7.105, 8.58]
14.129 Some of the earlier phases of development would be delivered before
the link road and an assessment has been done of the effects of this
development. The additional phase 1 traffic would result in increased queueing
and delays at the roundabout. Therefore, consideration was given to a partial
implementation of the mitigation scheme384 to ameliorate the effects of the
phase 1 development. With this partial mitigation scheme in place there would
be some benefits in the operation of the roundabout which would continue to
operate above capacity. In other words, the scenario involving the baseline
plus committed development plus phase 1 and partial mitigation would
represent a slightly better position than just the baseline plus committed
development385. I accept this analysis.
14.130 During the roundtable session members of the public raised concerns
about the effects of the new link road and the distribution of traffic on the Platt
Lane junction with Park Road. Others were concerned about the traffic joining
Park Road from the side roads and the queues on Park Road to and from the
roundabout. The tables at H26/4 and H26/5386 set out the picture of the
existing baseline position with the committed developments included and
secondly the existing baseline with committed developments and Hulton Park
development without mitigation.
383 Table 7.1 Chequerbent roundabout capacity analysis results
384 Being the improvement works to the roundabout only
385 TA Table 7.12
386 In the appendices to the Highways SoCG
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 99
14.131 In the baseline plus committed development scenario, Park Road and
Leigh Road are operating above capacity in the PM peak and this would worsen
with the Hulton Park development adding to queueing times. When the
mitigation measures are factored in, with all committed development, and the
Hulton Park development, the levels of saturation are still high in the PM peak,
but they are marginally better and queueing times are projected to reduce.
This is attributable to the redistribution of the traffic on the network and the
operation of the roundabout. Mr Eggleston explained that the link road is a
shorter and faster route, so traffic would transfer to the link road more quickly
thus reducing flows and reducing the blocking back to the junction on Platt
Road. I accept the modelling and its underlying premises in relation to this
matter.
14.132 There was a debate at the Inquiry as to how any benefits of the link
road should be viewed in terms of the planning balance in this application. This
is because the link road in these mitigation measures would potentially form
part of the Westhoughton Bypass Scheme which itself is part of a wider
strategic network scheme for which the Council and Wigan Council have jointly
applied for granting HIF grant387. The amount requested by the Council is
some £38m for its part of the bypass scheme. If the bid is successful, then it is
a requirement of the process that the monies are spent by 2023. The
contribution of £4.92m from this development would bridge the Council’s
funding gap in relation to its part of the scheme.
[7.107]
14.133 HEART contends that if planning permission is refused for this scheme it
would throw the HIF bid into doubt because the bid is reliant upon the s106
contribution to close its funding gap. Whilst the Applicant contends that the
contribution towards the wider scheme would effectively be a benefit of this
proposal, HEART asserts that that is only because the Council has put itself in a
position whereby an important public project is reliant on s106 contributions.
The Council contends that the development’s contribution to delivery of the
[9.87]
link road is one of “moderate benefit”. The Applicant avers that the
enhancement of the motorway network, the reduction in congestion and waiting
times is a “very powerful and weighty public benefit”.
[7.108]
14.134 The Council helpfully prepared a note for the Inquiry setting out the
current position on the HIF bid388. This should be read in conjunction with the
Council’s Committee Report of January 2019389. The total cost of the HIF bid
across the two Councils is some £131m with the Westhoughton Bypass scheme
comprising one element at a cost of £38m. The bidding process is somewhat
protracted, and the Council has just moved to stage 2 which requires the
business case to be further developed. The note to the Inquiry states in no
uncertain terms that, without this contribution, there would be a shortfall in
funding, which could prevent delivery of the HIF scheme.390
14.135 The scheme is linear in nature, so every section of the link is necessary.
The committee report of January 2019 sets out the finance case as relying upon
the following elements contributing to a total cost of £220m:
387 Housing Infrastructure Fund
388 Inquiry Document 51
389 CD 12.64
390 Inquiry document 51 ¶5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 100
• HIF £131m
• Wigan £19.3m
• Private sector/section 106 £38.476m
• Other public £30.594m
14.136 Given the scale and nature of the whole road scheme, I find it
somewhat surprising that the delivery of one link would be jeopardised if
planning permission was not granted for this development and the s106
contribution was not forthcoming. Be that as it may, if planning permission is
granted in this case and the contribution made, I accept it would make some
contribution towards easing congestion on the road network as set out above.
In the absence of the appeal scheme coming forward, I further accept that
there is a question mark over delivery of this link and the benefits which would
accrue. I therefore accord moderate weight to the contributions towards
highway improvements having regard to the circumstances and the magnitude
of the net improvements.
14.137 Junction 5 of the M61: some residents gave evidence that they had
experienced queueing on the M61 junction 5 slip road back to Four Lane Ends.
The mitigation measures proposed include the widening of the A58 Snydale
Way391. The scheme would increase flow such that the junction would operate
within capacity when the development traffic is factored in.
14.138 The TA also looked at the merge and diverge provision at junction 5 and
concluded that at 2027, the eastbound merge and diverge provision would
accommodate the existing forecasts. The westbound merge and diverge
provision at this junction would not meet theoretical requirements at opening
year or at 2027. Importantly the inclusion of the development generated traffic
does not change this position. HE has accepted that no improvements are
needed to the slip roads and the impacts of the proposed development would
not be severe on the operation of this junction. I have seen no evidence to
counter any of these projections.
14.139 Four-Lane Ends: this junction was remodelled in June 2019 as part of
the mitigation measures included in a planning approval for residential
development at Logistics North. Residents were concerned that the
arrangements for a left-hand turning lane on the westbound A6 at the signals
would be reinstated as part of the mitigation measures392 for this proposal which
would essentially revert matters to their previous position. The Applicant’s
expert confirmed that this was because the traffic flows further east would be
increased as a result of the current proposal.
14.140 The Council further confirmed that it was part of the overall highway
improvements and they were satisfied that the southern arm should return to
its previous configuration because of the improvements on the southern
approach and better operation of the network. The mitigation scheme has been
subject to an independent Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and the recommendations
which came out of that audit have been adopted. The Council’s Highways
391 Highways SoCG Appendix H35
392 Appendix H28 Highways SoCG
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 101
Expert is satisfied with the measures. I accept that the proposed mitigation
works would offset the effects of additional traffic generated by the proposal.
14.141 Impacts of The Ryder Cup Event: the Ryder Cup event would last for
seven days, with three days of competition when an estimated 70,000
spectators would attend on each day of the competition. A temporary car park
would provide some 3000 car parking spaces on the Western Fields. It is
anticipated that up to 50,000 people would use Park and Ride facilities with a
further 7000 spectators travelling by train. An Interim Event and Travel
Management Plan (IETMP) accompanied the planning application and included
details of the staging of the event and traffic management proposals393. The
staging plan indicates that areas of parking for the tournament would be located
on the southern portion of the Western Fields with the spectator entrance
located off the new link road providing access to a bus terminal and car parking
areas.
14.142 It is anticipated that during the event a traffic control and management
strategy would direct vehicular traffic to the course via junction 5 of the M61,
Snydale Way, Chequerbent roundabout and the new link road. Temporary
traffic control measures would be utilised to control long queues at peak times.
Table 10.2 in the TA provides a summary of the two-way Ryder Cup traffic
generation. It estimates some 1200 cars, 144 coaches and 372 park and ride
buses in the AM and PM peak hours. Mr Woods calculated that this would entail
a coach movement every 4.1 seconds and what he described as a huge amount
of conflicting movements.
14.143 I am informed that the competition event would occur over a weekend
(Friday to Sunday). The Applicant’s expert indicated that it is usual to instigate
temporary one-way systems on local roads and that local emergency services
would be involved in forward planning measures. I am satisfied that, subject to
forward planning, there would be traffic management measures which could be
deployed to manage the large numbers of attendees. The IETMP provides some
idea as to how traffic would be managed through the three days of competition
and the four practice days. It provides a reasonable basis upon which a future
management plan could be based. The control measures would be temporary
and akin to other measures used for large events.
14.144 Concluding comments on Highway Matters: drawing together my
findings above, I conclude that the package of measures secured by condition
and the s106 agreement would be sufficient to address the additional traffic
impact arising as a result of the proposal, including the holding of the Ryder
Cup event. The introduction of the link road would significantly improve the
operation of the Chequerbent roundabout when the proposed development and
all committed development is taken into account. Without the appeal scheme
coming forward there is a question mark over the delivery of the link road, and
I have ascribed moderate weight to the contribution of the proposal towards
highways improvements.
[14.136]
14.145 Having regard to the above I conclude that the proposal is in conformity
with CS policies P5 and S1 and AP policies P7AP.
393 CD 07b.5.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 102
Heritage Matters
14.146 I have set out a description of the site and its surroundings in section 2
of this Report. The application was accompanied by a Landscape Character and
Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)394. The ES also contains a Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment (HIA)395 and a Conservation Management Plan (CMP)
comprising an Assessment of Heritage Significance and a Conservation
Strategy396. Supporting documents include a report on Historic Structures:
Condition/Repair Issues397. Relevant plans include a restoration plan and plans
relating to the Dovecote398. The LVIA is supported by a series of figures and I
also had the benefit of a 3D virtual reality animation series which was made
available to all participants in the Inquiry and which I found to be most useful.
14.147 A series of experts gave evidence to the Inquiry. On behalf of the
Applicant, Ms Knight gave evidence as to landscape effects and Mr Wikeley gave
evidence about the historic landscape. The two key experts were Dr Miele, on
behalf of the Applicant and Mr Gallagher, on behalf of HEART, who each gave
evidence about heritage matters, one of the main issues in this application. The
original HIA in the ES was completed by Mr De Figuereido for the Applicant and
Dr Miele has adopted most of the conclusions, with some adjustments. Where
there is any difference between the HIA and Dr Miele, I have taken the position
of the Applicant to be that propounded by Dr Miele.
14.148 There is a SoCG relating to historic landscape matters between the
Applicant and HEART.399 A key dispute between the Applicant and HEART
relates to the effect of the proposal upon heritage assets. In short, the
Applicant identifies a significant net enhancement to the special interest of the
RPG, whereas HEART contends that there would be substantial harm to the RPG
in that the significance of the RPG would be drained away. Both parties are
agreed that the proposed repairs to the Dovecote would constitute a beneficial
effect, but Mr Gallagher believes that the setting of the Dovecote would be
substantially altered, which in turn would harm its significance. The Council’s
position is that the development involves some aspects which would cause harm
to the significance of the RPG and the Dovecote and many which would give rise
to benefits, and that the benefits of the scheme in heritage terms outweigh the
harms.
[7.49-7.50, 8.39]
14.149 Law and policy: Within the application site there are two heritage
assets, the Hulton Park grade II RPG and the grade II listed Dovecote. Outside
the site, along the A6, residential properties at nos. 791 and 793 Manchester
Road are also grade II listed. The Planning (Listed Buildings and
[7.21]
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers to
have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its
setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest when
394 CD 05b.3, CD 05b.4 and CD06c.2 and Supplemental LVIA updated Landscape and Visual
Assessment Tables at CD 07b.5.6 and CD 07b.2
395 CD 05b.3, CD 06c.2 and CD 07b.2 and CD 07b.5.7
396 CD 05a.8.1 and CD 05a.8.2
397 CD 05a.9
398 CD 05a.36, CD 05a.37, CD 05a.37.1 and CD 05a.37.2
399 CD 13.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 103
considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects
the setting of a listed building.
14.150 The Framework explains that heritage assets range from sites of local
historic value to those of highest significance and that assets should be
conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 192 is
important in this appeal. It provides that when applications are determined
account should be taken of:
• The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting
them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
• The positive contribution that conservation of the heritage assets can make to sustainable
communities including their economic vitality; and
• The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness.
14.151 The Framework confirms that, when considering the impact of a
proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great
weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It goes on to categorise any
harm to the significance of a heritage asset as either ‘substantial harm to (or
total loss of significance of) an asset’ or ‘less than substantial harm to the
significance of an asset’. The planning balances in each case are different and
are set out in paragraphs 195 and 196 of The Framework. I shall return to the
heritage planning balance at the end of this assessment.
14.152 I have set out the policy principles in the Framework in some detail
since they form the basis of my assessment. The adopted development plan is
broadly consistent with the above national policy objectives. CS Policy OA4 sets
out a requirement to “conserve and enhance the character of the existing
physical environment, especially...the historic registered Hulton Park” and CS
Policy CG3: promotes good design and seeks to conserve and enhance the
heritage significance of heritage assets.
14.153 The PPG provides guidance on decision making and the historic
environment. It deals with the importance of significance and how to assess it,
before going to explain the concept of optimum viable use and harm to a
heritage asset400. I am further assisted by two Good Practice Advice Notes401
and other guidance issued by Historic England (HistE) and its predecessor,
English Heritage.402 Further guidance is to be found in The Gardens Trust
publication403. I must finally mention, in particular, the two English Heritage
publications in relation to Golf in Historic Landscapes404, which, although a little
dated and now archived (GPA2) and a research paper (GPA3), are still useful
today.
400 CD 11.6.5
401 GPA 2-Managing Significance in Decision -Taking in the Historic Environment and GPA3-
The Setting of Heritage Assets
402 CD 11.14 to 11.20
403 CD 11.21 The Planning System in England and the Protection of Historic Parks and
Gardens
404 CD 11.14 and CD 11.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 104
Hulton Park-Assessment of Significance and Effects on Significance
14.154 Introduction: The parties are agreed that Hulton Park is a designed
landscape of acknowledged national importance. Its association with the Hulton
family spanned several centuries but ended with the sale of the estate in 2010.
During its ownership, the Hulton family oversaw the evolution and expansion of
the estate. The late-18th and early-19th century saw key developments in terms
of the design of the parkland estate by two respected landscape architects,
William Emes and John Webb. The resultant estate was of significant scale and
quality incorporating designed woodland, meadow and agricultural lands, large
waterbodies, formal display gardens and architectural structures. This
development was funded by coal-mining activities across the Hulton Park estate
and the family were important local employers in the mining industry. It is
emblematic of a time when the park and the family sat at the heart of social
and political life.
14.155 The Hall was demolished in the 1950s and the site has suffered from a
lack of maintenance over many years. Structures have become degraded and
features obscured over time. Some of the woodland plantations, including the
Pleasure Grounds have been colonised by rhododendron and other non-native
invasive species. The walled kitchen garden is in a parlous state, having
suffered from collapse or partial demolition. Similarly, the ha-ha has suffered
partial collapse and the large waterbodies have become silted up and reduced in
size. (Heritage SoCG)
14.156 In its consultation response The Gardens Trust405 acknowledge that
”…currently there is no realistic strategy that will bring Hulton back to its former
glory, and if nothing is done the Park will probably be lost entirely”.
Importantly all parties acknowledge that intervention is necessary to secure a
sustainable future for the RPG406.
14.157 Other application site land outside and to the west of the RPG, includes
the agricultural land referred to as the Western Fields totalling some 42
hectares. This land is crossed by a network of public footpaths, interspersed
with blocks of woodland. It is bounded on its immediate west side by a former
railway line, now used as a recreational footpath. The residential development
would occupy the Western Fields, with two smaller parcels of residential
development partly within the boundary of the RPG at Park End Farm, in the
south-eastern corner, and Dearden’s Farm in the north-eastern corner.
14.158 In conducting its landscape assessment, the Applicant divided the whole
site up into ten distinct landscape character areas407. These were used to
assess the heritage significance of the RPG and the effects upon significance.
The approach was broadly endorsed by Mr Gallagher.
14.159 Significance: All parties agree that a key aspect of the special interest of
the RPG is derived from the landscape designs of Emes and Webb. In
particular, the water features, the pleasure grounds, the walled Kitchen Garden,
the parkland and the associated woodlands combine to create a special created
405 CD 09.1 Statutory Consultee Responses page 276 letter dated 14 July 2017
406 SoCG ¶2.6
407 CD 05b.4.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 105
landscape of significant quality. The Conservation Management Plan (CMP)408
divides the RPG into eight heritage ‘character areas’ for the assessment,
namely: The Park; Pleasure Grounds and Woodland; Mill Dam Wood and Lake;
North Meadows; West of House; New Park Wood and Fields; Park End Farm;
and Dearden’s Farm.
14.160 Each of the heritage character areas exhibit distinct character traits
which combine to give the RPG its significance. However, not all areas make an
equal contribution towards significance. At the heart of the estate is The Park
and the Pleasure Grounds and Woodlands which are of considerable
significance. This is because these features surrounded the old Hall and they
were the areas developed for social and recreational purposes as well as
facilitating the running of the Hall. These are the elements most closely
associated with the works of Emes and Webb.
14.161 The landscape was designed for the Hulton family, to promote their
social standing, enhance and service the family Hall and to create a parkland
setting of interest and beauty. The association of the RPG with the Hulton
family, and the industrialisation of the land in terms of mineral and coal
extraction, also contributes to significance. The tragic Pretoria Mining disaster
on the site is significant because of the loss of life, making it one of the worst
pit tragedies in the history of coal mining in this country. The memorial erected
is testament to this, but the memorial and its immediate setting has been
eroded due to the encroachment of nearby housing along Broadway.
14.162 Mr Gallagher contends that the survival of the farm buildings and
complexes at Home Farm, Dearden’s Farm and Park End were the functional
elements through which management of the agricultural elements of the
designed parkland was realised. As a consequence, he contends they are of
some significance. Dr Miele agrees with the HIA that the Park End Farm and
Dearden’s Farm character areas are of low significance.
14.163 I do not accept that there is a demonstrable visual connection between
the core of the RPG and its parkland and (i) Park End Farm towards the edge of
the RPG and (ii) with Dearden’s Farm, as contended by Mr Gallagher. Park End
Farm operates as an enclosed, separate unit with limited physical connectivity
to the wider RPG. The farmsteads to both Park End Farm and Dearden’s Farm
both have their own entrances away from the RPG, which creates a further
sense of separation. I acknowledge that some of the grazing lands, particularly
in the case of Dearden’s Farm, form an integral part of the periphery of the RPG
but in these parts the character is several steps removed from the picturesque
parkland seen in The Park and West of House character areas.
[7.55-7.60]
14.164 Dearden’s Farm and Park End Farm may have been an integral part of
the estate in terms of their functional relationship to it. The farms may have
made produce used in the Hall and contributed to the stewardship of the
associated land, but there is limited evidence on this point. They are working
farms, laid out to agriculture as is evident on the many OS maps and other
plans submitted into the Inquiry. Visually there is a sense of separation
between the farms and the wider RPG which I shall return to. My conclusions in
this matter are that the farms contribute only a limited amount to significance
408 CD 05a.8.2 and CD 06c.5.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 106
by virtue of the historical landownership and because of their functional
relationship with the RPG.
[7.55-7.59]
14.165 Significance-the making of a parkland: William Emes was a talented
landscape gardener and agricultural ‘improver’. He reorganised landscapes to
make them aesthetically pleasing and more economically productive and
efficient. Hulton Park is one of his early private commissions, with his
improvements there starting in the 19th century and continuing over many
years409. Emes was a visionary and renowned as a master of the water feature.
His work is evident in the water features all over Hulton Park today, particularly
in the Serpentine Lake. Emes was also known for creating sylvan recreational
routes in the form of pleasure gardens and woodland walks.
[7.24-7.25]
14.166 John Webb undertook work with Emes and subsequently became a well-
regarded landscape gardener in his own right, although not as renowned as
Emes. He came to prominence at a time when picturesque thinking was finding
favour. Following the death of William Emes, John Webb oversaw landscape
works at Hulton Park, which are agreed to have somewhat overwritten the Emes
parkland structure of a meadow flowing into a Great Park. This work included
the re-alignment of the main carriageway and the arrangement of farmland
areas at Dearden’s Farm, Home Farm close to the Hall, Park House Farm and
Wood End Farm.
[7.30]
14.167 In the later 19th and early 20th century the parkland landscape is
depicted on surviving plans as more established. Coal mining operations on
land surrounding the park is also evident. Throughout this period the Hulton
family continued to invest in mining and became a major employer in the
Lancashire coal mining industry. The farm complex around the Hall was firmly
established in later plans depicting the stable block, the Dovecote, the Pleasure
Ground and ha-ha410.
14.168 In the later 20th century coal mining activities were receding, but the
pattern of woodlands laid out by Emes and Webb was still evident, albeit with a
decline in the number of individual trees. The coherent and comprehensive
design of the parkland and pleasure grounds, with the extensive woodland
additions and other features listed above, are agreed by both experts to
contribute to Hulton Park being of considerable heritage significance 411. The
only real dispute related to Mr Gallagher’s inclusion of the wider agricultural
landscape as contributing to considerable significance by way of forming part of
its setting.
14.169 The site of the former Hulton Hall was at the heart of the RPG and was
the rationale for all that followed. A family home, and the lands surrounding it,
evolved over time into a beautiful parkland estate and a created romantic
landscape. The Pleasure Grounds and Serpentine lake were added as
adornments to enable recreation and to signify the family’s stature and wealth.
The Kitchen Garden would have been an attractive and productive addition.
These elements sat at the centre of the overall composition, surrounded by the
ornamental parkland and woodland plantations which were put to use as
409 Mr Gallagher PoE section 2
410 Mr Gallagher PoE figures 18-29
411 Mr Gallagher and Dr Miele
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 107
grazing and farming. The aesthetic value of Hulton Park is indisputably high- it
is self-evident on travelling through the main gates as the picture-perfect
landscape unveils itself as one proceeds along the main drive. I single this
dynamic view out as important because it is the one which a visitor would have
had on arriving at Hulton Hall.
14.170 Finally, within the RPG there are two publicly accessible Public Rights of
Way (PRoW). PRoW WES 134 is in the western part of the RPG and affords
views of the agricultural hinterland behind the Pleasure Gardens and it makes a
modest contribution to the appreciation of the park. The second PRoW is a
short length of footpath in the south-eastern corner of Park End Farm which
only provides close views of the farm and its immediate surroundings.
14.171 Setting: Beyond the RPG are views of the wider landscape. To the west
are expansive views of rolling pastureland out towards the Western Fields from
southern points along the Emes’ footpath between the Pleasure Grounds and
Mill Dam Lake.412 Partial, but nevertheless panoramic views over the
surrounding landscape to the south are available from points on the main
entrance drive and on points in the southernmost parts of the RPG. There are
also the views along the two driveways. Along the main carriageway, facing
east, there are views through the ornamental gates towards the wider world
beyond Hulton Park. There are also extensive views of the northern
pasturelands from the track which travels from the former Hulton Park Hall site
up to Hulton Cottage.
14.172 One of the disputes between the experts centred upon the Applicant’s
assertion that Webb’s design utilised woodland plantations, belt and clumps to
contain a core area of parkland, with any views outwards to the wider landscape
being incidental or accidental. As a consequence, the Applicant posits that
these outer areas are less sensitive to change. The Applicant’s approach
extends to the housing areas on the Western Fields and the farmsteads, which
are said to have little or no effect upon significance. The argument between the
parties developed to one regarding the attribution of various plans and the
intentions of the respective landscape designers.413 By contrast, HEART’s
[9.22]
view is that the connectivity between the parts of the RPG and the surrounding
landscape is an integral element in Webb’s design and indicative of the
functional relationship between the two elements.
[9.29-9.30]
14.173 I do not propose to embark on a forensic exercise to determine which
plans should be attributed to individual landscape designers and then seek to
divine intentions from the plans. I find it more instructive to look at the
landscape as it exists and analyse what it is which currently contributes to
significance, and what, on a balance of probability, was likely to have been
considered important in the design of the parkland landscape.
14.174 Views out towards the west over the Western Fields are extensive and
are of agricultural lands which provide a sense of place. Glimpsed views to the
south from the main drive and from the southern extremities of the parkland
are impressive and again allow the viewer to understand the location and
context of Hulton Park in the wider landscape. Similarly, views out of the main
412 HVP09
413 The presentation attributed to Webb
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 108
gates and over the surrounding landscape appear to have been given some
thought. When travelling back down the drive towards Newbrook Road, these
views give the viewer a clear sense of where the park sits in the wider world-
framing the parkland and creating a distinctive sense of place.
14.175 To that end, I consider that any retained views out of the parkland
would have been valuable to the landscape designer, since they provide a sense
of location and setting for the RPG. Such views also add to the grandeur of the
RPG. For example, the views out are not limited to land within the ownership of
the Hulton family. By retaining views of attractive pastureland and expansive
landscapes beyond the limits of Hulton Park this land would, to some extent, be
co-opted into the overall composition to give the impression of a generous,
extensive parkland befitting of a wealthy local landowner.
14.176 For these reasons, I believe that the views out are likely to have been
considered by Webb. I further think it likely that he sought to retain such
longer distance views insofar as they contributed to the overall composition of
the RPG and allowed its wider landscape setting to form part of an attractive
backdrop. When one considers the views out of Hulton Park which are
available, they are generally of longer-distance attractive landscapes. For
example, the longer views over the agricultural Western Fields feed into the
impression that these fields could be part and parcel of the RPG- the viewer is
not aware of the end of the RPG and the beginning of the agricultural lands
beyond. By contrast, much of Newbrook Road and the A6 is obscured by tree
belts and plantations, which reinforces my belief that any retained views out,
albeit limited, are not accidental.
[9.29]
14.177 Whilst I therefore agree with the Applicant that the two farms within the
site add little to the significance of the RPG, I conclude that the Western Fields
contribute somewhat more to significance for the reasons set out above. I have
concluded that the views out towards land beyond the RPG and in particular, the
views over to the Western Fields, form part of the setting of the RPG as a
matter of principle. However, I make two further points. With the exception of
the views out over the Western Fields, the other views out of Hulton Park are
often glimpsed from a handful of viewpoints. As such the sense of a
contribution from the wider area to setting is somewhat limited. Secondly, in
this case the asset itself is of such a large size that it stands to be read on its
own and the contribution which the wider setting make to its heritage
significance is somewhat diluted.
14.178 An assessment of present-day significance of Hulton Park and its
setting: Mr Gallagher spoke enthusiastically about the beauty of Hulton Park as
an enclosed green oasis, with its core structure and design elements (trees,
water, woodland and undulating grassland) remaining largely in good health414.
The Bolton Landscape Character Appraisal notes the particular interest of Hulton
Park as follows:
“…one of the best historic landscapes in the Borough, which has been
described by David Crosby in 1998 as ‘a remarkable oasis in a district which has
suffered significant damage to countryside and farmland character’. It is an
example of an 18th and early 19th century parkland and, although there were
414 Ibid ¶2.71
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 109
collieries and tramways outside the perimeter, the park itself is almost
untouched so that the pattern of plantation woodlands, the open parkland and
the chain of small lakes are in an excellent state of preservation. The
woodlands in particular are afforded protection locally for their importance for
nature conservation.”415
14.179 One area of dispute between the experts relates to the baseline
assessment of Hulton Park today and its current character and condition. On
behalf of HEART, Mr Gallagher asserts that the degree of its apparent decline
has been overstated by the LVIA. His view is that the greater part of the
parkland is currently managed as grazing land which is an efficient and
sustainable means of preserving the significance of the asset. Mr Gallagher
acknowledges that the former Pleasure Grounds and Kitchen Gardens have
become overgrown and that, in places, the loss or decay of fabric to buildings
and structures has had a damaging impact.
[8.40]
14.180 There can be no doubt that the core area of the RPG has been
degraded. Hulton Hall as a focal point has been lost and its immediate environs
in the guise of the Pleasure Grounds and Kitchen Gardens are much diminished.
They have become overgrown and reclaimed by vegetation. The Serpentine
Lake is badly silted-up and has lost its shape and purpose. Home Farm and the
stables and other associated buildings, including the Dovecote are in poor
condition.
14.181 There is decline in these core areas, and much would need to be done to
restore key features. The parkland area still contains a valuable, although
much reduced, stock of individual mature specimen trees. The woodland
plantations remain largely intact, if in need of management. Whilst the
grassland is being grazed much as it would have been at the height of Hulton
Park, there have been significant individual tree losses over time with no
replenishment of stock or active management. Invasive species also have crept
in and dominate some areas.
[7.26-7.27]
14.182 The Park is the largest character area and it has suffered losses. Mr
Gallagher confirmed that the Ordnance Survey 1st Edition plan of 1893/4 is the
most precise guide to historic tree positions and woodland cover416. This depicts
some 521 trees in the open areas of the park with about 300 trees in the ‘core
parkland areas’. He estimates that about 40+ trees and small clumps or groups
of trees survive today. On comparing the 1893 plan with a current constraints
plan depicting the surviving trees417, it becomes clear that it is the individual
specimens dotted around The Park which have been lost. The comparison is
quite startling and indicates just what has been lost.
14.183 The magnificent feature lake at Mill Dam Wood is somewhat overgrown
and has contracted in size, although it has retained much of its shape and
grandeur. The woodland walk through the steep valley is framed by fine mature
specimen trees but rhododendrons are creeping in. It is a thoughtfully designed
secluded walk, making an important contribution to the significance of the
asset.
415 CD-05b.3, LVIA ¶7.86
416 PoE ¶7.25 and CG Figure 18
417 LUC Overall Constraints Plan
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 110
14.184 I would agree with Dr Miele’s assessment418 that the North Meadow’s
character area in the north of the RPG, whilst of less significance than the core
areas, is more important than Dearden’s Farm and Park End Farm. The
plantations framing the area were planted by Webb and are largely intact.
There are also views into the meadows from the Park which creates the
impression of a green landscape rolling off into the distance. The track leading
up from Hulton Hall Home Farm to Manchester Road is a secondary entrance to
the Park. To the west of this entrance is Hulton Cottage, a formerly elegant
building which has been significantly altered and degraded. The Cottage and its
curtilage are open to view when travelling along the track. Its altered and
degraded appearance, and the attendant cluttered domestic paraphernalia, add
nothing to the significance of the RPG. Of some interest, however, is the view
travelling from the main road down the track, where the expanse of the
parkland is seen unfurling in the distance.
14.185 In terms of the baseline condition, in a sense both experts are correct.
I agree with the Applicant’s contention that there has been significant decline
which rests on much of the above. The core area around the Hall is particularly
degraded and the important water features on the estate have become
diminished. However, Dr Miele also observes that “the original layout and
structure have survived with relatively few changes”.419 The RPG covers such a
wide area that the survival of the parkland shape, together with the established
plantations and individual trees make it a very fine and valuable picturesque
parkland scene today. I therefore also agree with Mr Gallagher that the
“essential integrity of the later-18th & early-19th century landscape design at
Hulton Park remains intact”. The listing as Grade II on the Register of Parks and
Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England occurred as late as 2002 and is
testament to this. 420
14.186 I have set out above the agreements between the parties regarding the
elements which are of considerable significance. In addition, the Dovecote and
other structures hold both architectural interest and are of evidential value.
These include the entrance Lodge and gateway, the farm buildings forming part
of the four farmsteads within the RPG. The surviving elements of the ha-ha and
the kitchen gardens are of interest. The grade II listed RPG is of evidential
value due to the abundance of archive materials and the historic trees on the
land. Further historic interest comes from the Hulton family and its long-
standing association with the land, and from the involvement of Emes and then
Webb who were influential in shaping the parkland. This is made more
important because of the rich archive and pictorial sources associated with the
family.
14.187 Trees are the very fabric of the parkland itself. Webb was responsible
for much of the current structural planting on the site today. It is evident from
the plans, and agreed by the experts, that a lack of active management over
time has resulted in the loss of a substantial number of parkland trees which
would have been fine specimens, sitting in their own space, artfully placed to
engineer the picturesque result desired. One of the most important areas is the
418 Contrary to the HIA conclusions
419 Dr Miele PoE ¶5.94
420 Mr Gallagher PoE ¶2.83
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 111
ancient woodland known as New Park Wood, which straddles the southern
boundary. Nevertheless, the tree belts, plantations and individual specimens
continue to make a substantial contribution to significance.
[7.31-7.32, 7.36]
14.188 I have dealt with the contribution of the setting to the significance of
Hulton Park above. Whilst I agree that the setting does make a contribution
towards significance, for the reasons set out I would categorise that contribution
as modest.
14.189 The Proposal: before embarking upon an assessment of its impact, it is
helpful to set out the main elements of the proposal that would impact on
significance. The detailed golf course proposal would involve the introduction of
a new hotel, golf clubhouse and other associated structures. The existing Barn
within Home Farm would be retained and the Dovecote and ha-ha would each
be repaired; the pleasure grounds would be reinstated as would the Serpentine
Lane and Mill Dam Lake. There would also be tree, woodland and hedgerow
removals and planting of new trees. Much of the grazing land would become
part of the golf course, or far rough.
14.190 There are some 672 individual trees across the site recorded in the
Arboricultural Assessment421. Of these about 37% would be removed including
52 trees of high quality. The survey identified some 33 clumps or groups of
trees, of which 3,100m2 of high-quality trees would be removed. Overall, some
9.53 hectares of woodland and woodland clumps are scheduled for removal.
Some 2.91km of hedgerow would also be removed.
14.191 The Impact of the Proposal Upon the Significance of Hulton Park: the
parties are agreed upon the method of assessment of effects on significance.
Both experts agree that the principles established by the Palmer case422 should
be applied. This essentially means assessing the effects against a single
heritage asset in the round, looking at both positive and negative effects and
coming to a view as to the ‘net’ effects of a development proposal. I endorse
this approach which I shall adopt.
14.192 The Hall was an important component of the designed landscape, it was
the seat of the Hulton family and the focal point of the estate. Reinstating an
imposing building in this location would contribute towards the significance of
the asset. Mr Gallagher points out that the driveway towards the Hall and the
enveloping parkland was designed such that the Hall could not be seen from the
front gates. Instead there was a ‘slow reveal’ of the Hall as one progressed
along the driveway, in keeping with the picturesque theme of the parkland.
[9.32]
14.193 The new hotel would be on a larger scale than the original Hall423
which was relatively modest in scale compared to the extent of the RPG. The
hotel would also be more prominent within the parkland setting. However, it
would recreate an attractive and appropriate centrepiece around which the rest
of the RPG would be read and understood. The hotel design is elegant, and the
layout of the hotel and conference facility reflects the historic locations of the
421 CD 05b.6.15
422 Palmer v Herefordshire Council & Another [2016] EWCA Civ 1061
423 A photograph of the original Hall taken in 1939 is at page 128 of the Design and Access
Statement CD 05a.2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 112
original hall, lake and stable block. These key relationships would be
reinstated. The hotel would maintain an appropriate relationship with the
reinstated pleasure gardens. Whilst the romanticism of the slow reveal would
be somewhat lost and the hotel would be seen above the treeline in views from
the driveway, it would be an attractive building which would sit well in its
location at the heart of the RPG. I am satisfied that the addition of the hotel
complex would be a positive benefit in terms of its contribution to significance.
14.194 During the Inquiry I asked about the passing places on the main
driveway depicted on the plans but absent from some of the illustrations. It
seems to me that the passing places would interrupt the sinuous line of the
driveway and would be detrimental. The Applicant confirmed that they could be
deleted, with the driveway used as a ceremonial approach for golf competitions
only. This matter is now the subject of a condition. I have conducted my
assessment on the basis that the passing places are deleted.
14.195 The Clubhouse would be positioned in the North Meadows, adjacent to
the Northern Drive, with access taken from the A6. The clubhouse would be of
two-storeys, with a curved frontage. The associated car parking would be
enveloped by an existing woodland belt. The Applicant has sought to embed
the clubhouse sympathetically into the landscape, in a less sensitive area of the
RPG. Even so, the presence of a large building and attendant car parking in
this location would be somewhat out of kilter with the picturesque landscape
and in this regard, it would detract to a modest extent from significance.
[9.38]
14.196 For the reasons set out earlier, I have concluded that Hulton Cottage
contributes little to significance and its removal would not cause material harm.
The loss of the view along the track and the line of the track would erode
significance to a limited extent. This track appears to have gained prominence
by its upgrading in later years and it forms an attractive secondary entrance to
the parkland.
14.197 A new reservoir would be sited within the North Meadows character
area. This is one of the character areas of lesser sensitivity, but here the Webb
plantations are still intact. A new reservoir would be enclosed by a new belt of
woodland planting, merging into the existing planting on the northern parts of
character area 2: Pleasure Grounds and Woodland. Other changes would
include the construction of a bridge to cross the stream valley at the end of the
golf course after hole 18. There would be features lakes and the clubhouse
which I have discussed above. The combination of these things would result in
quite a change to the North Meadows which plays less of a role in the
significance of the RPG. Overall there would be some harm to this aspect of
significance.
14.198 Other buildings associated with the golf complex include the
maintenance building, the starter hut, a halfway house and the Academy
building. Of these the maintenance building is the largest with a utilitarian
design. However, it would be sited within the maintenance compound which
would be located discretely to the west of the hotel and screened by existing
woodland supplemented by additional planting. Its location means that the
maintenance building would be completely enclosed, and the screening needed
would not impact upon the parkland landscape. The starter hut and halfway
house would be low-key, relatively modest buildings. The Academy building
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 113
would be located on the other side of the A6, outside the RPG and it would not
affect the significance of the setting of the RPG.
14.199 The Kitchen Garden and Pleasure Grounds would be reinstated and
would go a long way in reclaiming the contributions which these elements made
to significance. Given the current parlous state of these elements of the RPG
and the quality of the proposed restoration I am satisfied that the works
represent a significant benefit. Similarly, the stone ha-ha would be repaired
and would appear as an attractive feature. Whilst there was some debate about
the authenticity and methods for the reinstatement work, I am satisfied that
they would be done with care and to a high standard, controlled by
conditions424. The pleasure grounds and walled garden were characteristic of
the work of Emes and their reinstatement and conservation would represent an
important benefit.
[7.37]
14.200 Restoration of the Serpentine Lake and its desilting would make a
major contribution to significance, enabling the former glory of the lake to be
revealed. The outflow dam structure would be reinstated and the Emes cascade
feature at the southern end brought back to life. These works would enable the
artistry of Emes, in his manipulation of watercourses, to be properly seen and
appreciated.
14.201 The Dovecote would be repaired which is welcomed by Mr Gallagher.
However, he is concerned that its setting would be substantially altered which
would harm its significance. The Dovecote is an integral part of the RPG, but it
is a heritage asset in its own right. I shall conduct a separate assessment of
the effect upon the Dovecote and its setting separately, but I include it here as
acknowledgment of its contribution towards the RPG. Its repair in terms of the
wider RPG would enhance significance of the RPG and would represent a small
benefit. It would also sit in a more generous and attractive setting which would
be a benefit although I acknowledge that the loss of some of the older Home
Farm structures would cause some harm, but they are in a poor state of repair.
I shall expand upon these points later.
14.202 Desilting, repairs and reinstatement of Mill Dam Lake and of Mill Dam
would be undertaken. Mr Gallagher expresses his concern about the extent of
such works425 and indeed Dr Miele accepts that the works required to
accommodate the fairway of hole 13, and a bridge spanning the valley, would
cause a degree of harm. Facilitation of these works would require the removal
of trees426 across the valley stream and on the far bank. Dr Miele acknowledges
that it would result in a greater degree of openness than was intended by Emes’
original design intent. It would however reinstate a break in the trees,
providing a glimpse of the water which was also part of the design rationale.
14.203 Part of the charm of Mill Dam Lake and Mill is its sense of seclusion and
privacy, an aquatic oasis in a valley floor. The introduction of a bridge structure
and the loss of trees would be harmful and would disturb this sense of quiet
seclusion. I bear in mind the reinstatement of the ‘tantalising glimpse’ of the
424 CD 05a.9 Lloyd Evans Pritchard Ltd, Historic Structures Condition Report
425 PoE ¶7.39-7.40
426 I appreciate that the ES is based on a worst-case scenario with further works to be done
but, in my view, I must assess the proposal upon the worst-case scenario.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 114
water body but the end effect would not be so much a tantalising glimpse of a
waterbody within a secluded glade but a wider view with a functional bridge
structure, associated footpaths and its attendant footfall over the bridge.
14.204 I do not accept Dr Miele’s contention that the introduction of the bridge
across fairway 13 would not be incongruous due to its lightweight, simple
structure. Dr Miele accepts that such bridges were not particular features
favoured by either Emes or Webb. I therefore consider that a bridge at this
point would be an alien addition to this picturesque scene and conclude that,
notwithstanding its design, this part of the proposal would be harmful to both
the landscape character of this area and to the significance of the heritage
asset. There would however be improvements to the woodland walk which
would be better defined and appreciated.
14.205 The Park would be affected by the golf course in four ways: upon
landform; trees; grassland management/appearance, and by the proposed path
network. Mr McMurray gave evidence regarding the requirements for a
championship golf course and how the need to protect the heritage asset as
much as possible had been considered in designing the course. In terms of
landform, the RPG as it exists today is not regular for a number of possible
reasons including land slippage, drainage, water retention and contained
agricultural drains. This is not surprising given the boggy nature of much of the
site. These irregularities have generally blended into the undulating topography
of the site. I accept that the course has sought to follow the grain of the
landscape and has largely achieved that objective with the notable exception of
part of hole 13.
[7.41-7.46]
14.206 Landform: The cut and fill grading plan427shows changes of between
+2.5m to -2.5m above or below existing levels across the site. Mr Gallagher
expressed concern about the levels of land moving, categorising it as a
complete reprofiling and the total loss of these historic areas428. Over half a
million cubic metres of ‘cut’ would take place with slightly more ‘fill’. His
concern was that very little of the original fabric of the parkland would remain
untouched. However, the woodland areas would not be disturbed and in The
Park character area the fill would generally be limited to less than one metre in
depth.
[7.33, 9.39]
14.207 The larger landform changes relate to the creation of water bodies. The
sections produced by Mr Wikeley429 demonstrate that across key areas the
changes would be graduated. In my view the regrading of the land would result
in some material changes to the appearance of an undulating parkland
landscape which has undergone changes in the past. Those areas where
bunkers and new water bodies are proposed to create hazards on the course
would be intrusive and alien in form to the parkland landscape. They would be
detrimental to its significance.
[7.41]
14.208 The grassland management of the course would represent a notable
change to the current regime. Currently, the core areas of the parkland and the
outer areas are similar in appearance, they constitute grazing lands with little
427 CD 06c.4.2
428 PoE ¶9.3
429 Included at Appendix 13 to PoE of Dr Miele
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 115
differentiation. This gives the park a naturalistic feel. The areas flow into each
other and are framed by the plantations. The golf course would result in a
managed grassland regime, incorporating distinct types of grassland: greens
and tees; fairways and semi-rough; rough and far rough. They would amount
to 19 micro-landscapes430, one for each hole and be intersected by new buggy
routes. Altogether, the feel of the parkland would become one of a managed
and an overtly designed landscape. To my mind these changes would be the
most significant. They would be deleterious and would remove much of the
romance from the landscape.
[9.40-9.42]
14.209 In terms of trees, the proposal would result in new tree planting for
open areas of the Park of around 252 trees which Mr Gallagher estimates
represents some 48% of historic numbers. I have already compared the
existing numbers of individual trees in The Park with historic plantings in 1893,
and I have set out the extent to which these individual specimens have been
lost. Mr Gallagher has estimated that some 40 or so trees now survive in the
core parkland compared to the 300 trees depicted on the historical plans. Mr
Gallagher criticises the positioning of some of the proposed planting and the
decision not to replant historic trees due to the need to accommodate the golf
course.
[7.28-7.29, 7.36, 9.44]
14.210 Trees are an important component of the RPG; they are its very fabric
and contribute much to significance. In my view, in assessing the effect of the
proposal upon this element of significance, the test cannot be to exactly
replicate what is shown on the historic plan. That misses the point. The current
baseline in terms of surviving individual trees contributing to the parkland scene
(and to significance) is low. Some 40+ trees survive out of 300. The proposal
would result in the replanting of 252 trees. Mr Gallagher’s ‘figure 31’ is a very
useful depiction of the historic trees which would be replaced, and those historic
trees previously lost which would not be replaced. It is evident that the
proposal would result in the further loss of some individual specimens of value.
However, when the extent of replanting is compared to what currently exists, it
is evident to me that it would represent a substantial enhancement to the
character of the parkland in the core character area known as The Park and to
its significance.
14.211 Figure 31 also incorporates the areas of historic woodland proposed for
removal. These are largely to facilitate fairways and other elements of the golf
course. They would represent a modest erosion of the existing woodland
cover. This would be compensated for by additional planting and by active
woodland management, which would remove the areas of rhododendron
understoreys and other invasive species. Active management of the woodland
areas would also be a benefit of the scheme. Three veteran trees on the site
would be retained and managed. Other benefits would include a new woodland
belt on the eastern boundary which would have the virtue of screening the
housing on Newbrook Road.
14.212 As part of my assessment of the effects upon the significance of The
Park, it is useful to return to the dynamic experience of the viewer proceeding
along from the main entrance to the driveway towards the hotel site. The main
430 As described by the Council’s Greenspace Management Officer CG 9.1 p.127
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 116
gates and lodge would be repaired, but the main gate would lose its status as
the main entrance. Progressing through the gates the magnificent Park is
revealed. The scenic park and its tranquillity would be eroded by views of
buggy lanes, manicured greens, golf flags and bunkers. I appreciate that the
grassland adjacent to the drive would comprise rough and meadows, but the
golf holes would come into view as one proceeded. The buggy routes and path
networks would be an unwelcome distraction from the sweeping driveway,
particularly at the five intersections with the drive. Adding to the picture would
be the hotel which would be seen on progressing west, which aspect would
represent an improvement.
14.213 The combination of changes to landform and the grassland management
regime and paths would result in the most harm to the RPG and would be
especially felt in The Park. I am quite clear that they would represent the single
most harmful change. In in my view, the overall resultant immediate
impression would not be that of a picturesque parkland but of a golf course
albeit within a majestic parkland setting.
14.214 The Hulton Trail would be created within the ancient woodland. It
would follow an existing track and would be fenced to prevent indiscriminate
access. During my unaccompanied site visits, I travelled this track on two
occasions, the track is wide in some parts where walkers have deviated from
the main route and at the entrance to the park there is evidence of fly-tipping.
Whilst it is likely that the numbers of people using the trail would increase,
fencing and proper management of the trail would ensure that walkers
remained on a dedicated pathway and would prevent incursions into the
woodland. As such it would represent an improvement and a contribution to
significance.
14.215 The PRoW (WES14) in the west of the RPG would be realigned to run
along the western boundary of the RPG. The housing on the Western Fields
would be immediately visible to the left and the juxtaposition of the housing
would substantially harm the views and experience of the RPG from these
viewpoints. There would be some modest harm.
14.216 I have concluded that Dearden’s Farm and Park Farm do not make a
visual contribution to significance but contribute by virtue of their functional
relationship with the parkland as illustrated by inclusion within its boundary.
The proposal would result in the loss of the historic farmhouse at Dearden’s
Farm and ancillary buildings. The farmhouse and historic barn at Park End Farm
would be renovated but it would cease to operate as a working farm. Housing
within these areas would be contained by trees belts and would be visually
separate from the parkland. I conclude therefore that housing in these two
locations would not be visually harmful to the RPG designation but there would
be some loss of significance because of the loss of the functional relationship
and the loss of some of the historic buildings.431
[7.55]
14.217 The Pretoria Park Memorial would be relocated to a site closer to the
site of the former pit in the south-eastern part of the estate. A species rich
meadow and amenity grassland would be created to provide a more tranquil
and suitable setting for the memorial. This relocation to a site more fitting and
431 Dr Miele PoE ¶5.166
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 117
in a more sympathetic environment would represent a significant improvement
in understanding the history of the estate and the tragedy which occurred. This
improvement would constitute a net benefit insofar as the pit memorial
contributes to significance.
14.218 In terms of the impacts on the setting of the RPG I have already
found that the Western Fields contribute to significance by virtue of the views
out from the park. The Western Fields would undergo a dramatic change by
the introduction of a significant number of housing, roads and other
infrastructure. Views out from the Emes footpath would be curtailed by the
edge of the residential development screened by new planting. In these views
the sense of a never-ending pastoral landscape would be lost. This loss would
be harmful to the contribution which the setting makes to significance.
[9.5]
14.219 I disagree that the demolition of Hulton Cottage and the introduction of
a statement entrance to the clubhouse would mean that the Academy complex
would adversely affect the setting. This is because of the nature of the road
and the strong northern boundary of the RPG. There is a distinct separation
between the northern side of the road and the parkland, and this would remain
even with the loss of Hulton Cottage and a more conspicuous entrance. I
conclude that this element of the proposal would have no material adverse
impact on the significance of the setting.432
Overall Conclusions on the Effects of Significance on RPG
14.220 I have already referred to the Palmer case. Whilst that case concerned
a listed building and its setting, the comments of Lord Justice Lewison in terms
of the approach to a multi-faceted assessment are pertinent here. He
commented “…where proposed development would affect a listed building or its
settings in different ways, some positive and some negative, the decision maker
may legitimately conclude that although each of the effects has an impact,
taken together there is no overall adverse effect on the listed building or its
setting.” In this case all parties are agreed that, in concluding upon the effects
on significance of the RPG, it is the net effect which matters when all individual
(positive and negative) effects have been considered. Not only would I endorse
that view as an approach, I would comment that it seems to me the only
sensible basis upon which to conduct the assessment.
14.221 I need not repeat each of my individual findings here- they are all
carried forward into a global assessment. However, it occurs to me that broadly
there are two important strands to my findings which feed into the final
assessment. On the one hand there is an acknowledgement that there would
be substantial benefits of the proposal. These would be in the core areas
especially, with the reinstatement of key features and the return of a focal
point. Allied to that is the replacement tree planting- I have already stressed
the importance of trees as a very important part of the fabric of the parkland.
On the other hand, there would also be substantial harm to the parkland
character area and the loss of some historic material. It is my view that, to
some extent, the parkland landscape canvas would be overwritten by the golf
course. On entering Hulton Park, one would, firstly see a golf course and then
432 Mr Gallagher PoE ¶7.64
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 118
the parkland setting. This would be reflected by the Hulton Park name
becoming synonymous with golf. These aspects would be harmful.
14.222 When I consider all matters together, I have come to the view that,
even with the substantial improvements to significance in some parts, when
these are weighed with the harm which I have identified there would remain
some overall harm to the RPG which would be less than substantial harm. I
would not place it at the upper end of the less than substantial harm spectrum.
I do not consider it necessary to calibrate my findings any further.
Dovecote-Assessment of Significance and Effects on Significance
14.223 The Dovecote is in poor state of repair and the parties are agreed that
the proposed repairs to it would constitute a beneficial effect and would go
some way to ensuring its continued survival. Mr Gallagher has expressed his
surprise at the retention of the suspended cupola supported only by a central
post, which he believes to be a somewhat odd arrangement. Notwithstanding
this, the refurbished Dovecote would be an attractive feature and I am satisfied
that the restoration would be sympathetic.
14.224 The Dovecote is a small but integral part of the parkland estate,
comprising a functional but attractive brick-built tower for the keeping of
pigeons, kept as a supply of meat originally. Mr Gallagher’s further concerns
related to the immediate setting of the restored Dovecote. It originally existed
within the Home Farm complex- a ‘model farm’ used to showcase emerging
Victorian farming practices. The Dovecote stands between the stables and
Home Farm and would have been in a more generous setting. However,
modern farm buildings and paraphernalia have encroached upon this setting.
This encroachment, coupled with general neglect, has eroded the current day
setting of this listed building.
14.225 The refurbished Dovecote would sit within an attractive walled garden
with sufficient space around it to enable a full appreciation of the asset. Whilst
some of its historical authenticity would be lost by virtue of it no longer being
within a model farm, I conclude that the net effect would be substantially
beneficial. The heritage asset and its significance would be enhanced.
Listed buildings at 791-793 Manchester Road
14.226 The two listed buildings at 791 and 793 Manchester Road are residential
properties. They are situated on the northern side of the road, opposite Hulton
Park and separated by the wide carriageway. There is a clear sense of
separation between these listed buildings and the RPG. On the northern side of
Manchester Road, the Academy complex would wrap around the domestic
curtilages at one end, but the properties would be away from the main Academy
buildings. I am satisfied that the listed buildings would be preserved.
Conclusions on the effects on significance of the RPG and the Dovecote
14.227 During the Inquiry I asked Counsel about the treatment of the two
heritage assets in this case in terms of the heritage balance which needs to be
undertaken pursuant to footnote 6 of paragraph 11 of the Framework.
Essentially, I sought views as to whether there should be one heritage balance
relating to the effects on both the RPG and the Dovecote, or two heritage
balances, one for each asset in the event that I concluded that there was some
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 119
harm to each asset. My initial view was that there should be one heritage
balance for reasons which I shall outline. Each of the three barristers confirmed
that they considered two separate balances should be undertaken.
14.228 I have carefully considered the arguments put forward by Counsel in
relation to the point on the heritage balance. After much deliberation I remain
of the view that one balance is the appropriate approach for the following
reasons. In this case the Dovecote is part and parcel of the RPG. It is
essentially a small heritage asset nesting within a much larger asset. It
contributes to the significance of the RPG. In my view it would be somewhat
artificial to seek to divorce the two assets therefore and to conduct separate
balancing exercises under paragraph 196 of the Framework. It is instructive
that all of the experts have embedded their assessment as to the effects on the
Dovecote within the larger RPG assessment.
14.229 I have further concerns that in conducting two separate balances, any
potential harms or benefits would be separated into two balances whereas the
public benefits would be counted twice, once in each balance. For these
reasons I shall conduct one heritage balance. In any event I have now
concluded that there would be no harm to the Dovecote. As such there is only
one heritage balance which is required and that is an assessment of the less
than substantial harm to the RPG considered in light of the advice within
paragraph 196.
14.230 The heritage balance: The assessment of effects on the RPG is
complicated by virtue of the ten distinct character areas and the number of
different elements which contribute to significance. There are several instances
of the proposal resulting in the restoration of significance to varying extents,
but there are also several instances where the proposal would cause harm to
the asset and its significance. I have reminded myself of the national policy
objectives in relation to heritage assets. I am aware of the importance of
attaching great weight to the conservation of heritage assets.
14.231 I have concluded that the proposal would cause less than substantial
harm to the RPG and that it would preserve and enhance the Dovecote. The
combination of these findings results in a conclusion of less than substantial
harm to the heritage assets on the site (i.e. the net effects on both the RPG and
the Dovecote combined). This is because the Dovecote is a small part of a
much larger asset and whilst its enhancement contributes to the positive effects
on the RPG, I have already included the effects on the Dovecote and its setting
within my finding of less than substantial harm to the RPG in terms of net
overall effects. Returning to the Framework I again remind myself that
considerable weight must be given to my finding of less than substantial harm.
[7.50]
14.232 Before undertaking the heritage balance, I shall examine the proposal
against the objectives in paragraph 192 of the Framework. The guidance
directs decision-makers to take account of the desirability of putting heritage
assets to viable uses consistent with their conservation. It is recognised that an
asset with a long-term beneficial use is more likely to retain its significance.
14.233 The financial picture is complex in that the housing is being used to
cross-subsidise the golf course development and only part of the golf course
development costs are associated with restoration costs, albeit those costs in
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 120
themselves are significant. They are agreed between the parties. A full
schedule of restoration and other costs is included in Mr Nesbitt’s evidence but
as an illustration I note the costs of renovation of the ha-ha, the kitchen walled
garden and the Dovecote are put at £49,220, £509,690 and £16,000
respectively433.
14.234 It is probable that the development would be highly profitable in the
long-term, but its development is not viable at the current time. Dr Miele
asserts that there remains no alternative, so the asset’s condition represents a
significant threat to its conservation434. The Council’s recorded position is that it
is unlikely that the current use of the site would provide for conservation or
enhancement of the RPG in the medium or long-term. The Council have
focussed on the overall net effect of the development, as well as the threats
which, it perceives, exist to its future condition and the overall outcome in
terms of achieving a future viable use.
[8.40-8.42]
14.235 HEART points to observations within the guidance by Historic England on
historic landscapes.435 This guidance recognises that historic parks are far less
vulnerable to destruction from lack of maintenance than buildings and that it is
possible to recover a historic park which has not been maintained. I would
agree that any suggestion of the RPG’s imminent demise is not supported. The
decline has been gradual, and it is likely to remain on this trajectory without
any meaningful intervention.
[9.36]
14.236 The Hall was lost over 70 years ago and since then the park has
experienced a period of benign neglect. Its original intended use as a family
seat has long gone and there is no prospect of a return to this type of use.
Since the family left the hall there have been no other prospective uses which
have come forward. None are suggested by other parties. Whilst grants may
go some way to maintenance and some restoration costs, the ongoing use
would still be uncertain. I remind myself again of the consultation response
from the Gardens Trust to the effect that currently there is no realistic strategy
that will bring Hulton back to its former glory, and if nothing is done the Park
will probably be lost entirely. Importantly all parties acknowledge that
intervention is necessary to secure a sustainable future for the RPG.
14.237 There can be no argument that the proposed project would bring Hulton
Park back into a purposeful use and that its future maintenance would be
secured. The use put forward is a viable use and as the only use being
proposed, it represents the optimum viable use in accordance with PPG
guidance.
[7.51-7.54, 8.40-8.45]
14.238 The second limb to paragraph 192 directs decision makers to have
regard to the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can
make to sustainable communities, including their economic vitality. I have
already set out above the economic and social benefits which the project would
bring to the local area. Finally, the third limb exhorts the desirability of new
development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness. In colloquial terms the proposal would put Hulton Park on the
433 Appendix 9 to Mr Nesbitt’s Proof of Evidence
434 Proof of Evidence ¶5.106
435 Historic England Guidance on Golf in Historic Landscapes CD 11.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 121
map. It would only proceed if the Ryder Cup was won and in those
circumstances the park would become a distinctive destination.
14.239 Turning finally to the balance in paragraph 196. I say at the outset that
I consider it a difficult task to balance the less than substantial harm to the
significance of the RPG against the public benefits of the proposal. It requires
the balancing of very different elements. However, given the enormity of the
public benefits in this case and the quantum of harm, I am entirely satisfied
that the balance tips strongly in favour of the public benefits. It follows that, in
terms of paragraph 11, the application of heritage policies does not provide a
clear reason for refusing the development.
14.240 CS policies CG3 and OA4 require, amongst other things, that proposals
conserve and enhance the heritage significance of heritage assets. I have
concluded that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the RPG
and as such it might be said that it fails to conserve and enhance the asset.
However, the picture is more nuanced and to the extent that the proposal is not
in conformity with adopted CS policy I rely upon my conclusions in relation to
the Framework as the most recent expression of national policy.
Landscape Character
14.241 On behalf of the Applicant, Ms Rebecca Knight gave evidence about
landscape character. She was responsible for leading the preparation of the
LVIA and completing the Supplemental LVIA436. As previously mentioned, the
proposed development site was divided into 10 distinct character areas. The
wider landscape character comprises a mixture of undulating farmland and
urban areas intersected by highways. The Bolton Landscape Character
Appraisal437 classifies the site and the surrounding rural areas to the west, east
and north as the Agricultural Coal Measures Landscape Character Type and
more particularly as the Blackrod/Hulton Ridge Landscape Character Area. This
landscape character area is characterised by low grade farmland, ponds and
woodland. Key features are undulating topography, structural woodlands and a
fragmented landscape with scattered settlements and dissecting transport links.
14.242 Hulton Park forms the largest component of the site. It is largely
enclosed with limited local views into the site, predominantly from Newbrook
Road and from the network of public footpaths to the west of the park. The
LVIA identifies key visual receptors as the walkers along the Bolton Rotary Way
and other PRoWs, local road users and local communities. A lighting
assessment was undertaken in terms of existing baseline conditions and future
baseline conditions. Embedded mitigation was taken into account in the
assessment and the likely significant effects likely to occur during construction,
operation and decommissioning phases were then assessed.
14.243 Many of the effects on landscape character have already been analysed
in the heritage section of this Report. The LVIA concludes that although there
would be some significant adverse effects on individual character areas within
the Proposed Development Site, these are well contained and the effect on the
wider landscape character area Agricultural Coal Measures (Bolton) and
436 CD07b.2
437 CD 12.28
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 122
Undulating Enclosed Farmland (Wigan) would not be significant. During
operation of the Project there would be long-term significant beneficial
landscape effects on the pleasure grounds, Mill Dam Wood and the lake within
Hulton Park; long-term significant adverse effects on those parts where housing
is proposed and an overall neutral effect upon landscape character in other
parts of the RPG.
14.244 The LVIA further concludes that whilst there would be loss of land to
housing, effects within the development site would be well-contained and the
effect upon the wider landscape character area would not be significant. I
accept this proposition entirely. In terms of visual effects, the only significant
effects on visual amenity would be within or immediately adjacent to the
development site. Whilst there would be some changes to the aspects of those
residents living adjacent to the site, those changes would not be materially
harmful and would not cause any harm to residential amenity.
14.245 CS policy CG1.1 directs that the rural areas of the borough should be
safeguarded from development which would adversely affect trees, woodland
and hedgerows and landscape character, amongst other things. Similarly,
policies CG3.2 and CG3.7 seek to conserve and enhance local distinctiveness
and to ensure that landscape character of the surrounding countryside is
maintained and respected. These objectives are mirrored in the location
specific policy OA4.4 relating to the West Bolton area and they are similar to
national policy objectives seeking to conserve and enhance the natural
environment.
14.246 In conclusion, in broad terms I accept the findings of the LVIA in relation
to landscape character. The most significant finding is in relation to some harm
to landscape character caused by the loss of land to housing. It would be
minimised to some extent by virtue of the housing being well-contained.
Overall, I conclude that the proposal would, to some extent be at odds with
policies CG1.1, CG3.2 and CG3.7 in terms of the limited harm to landscape
character to which I attribute moderate weight.
Other Planning Matters
14.247 Impact on PRoWs: CS policy P5 seeks to ensure that development
proposals take into account accessibility considerations by a range of means
including walking. AP policy P8AP more particularly states that development
proposals affecting PRoW will be permitted provided that the integrity of the
right of way is retained. The proposal would affect a total of 10 PRoW located in
the application site438. A PRoW Strategy was submitted with the application439.
This included plans for the provision of a new PRoW, the Hulton Trail as well as
the realignment of existing footpaths. The Hulton Trail would provide a further
950metres length of public footpath together with the formalisation of some
1,500 metres of footpath.
14.248 The Council’s PRoW confirmed that whilst some lengths of footpath
would be diverted, there would be overall net benefits by virtue in an increased
length of PRoWs and there would be a new and enhanced network across the
438 WES 211, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 and 139.
439 CD 05.a.6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 123
RPG and the appeal site generally. I have already referred to the experience of
walkers along footpath WES14 in the west of the RPG which would be realigned
to run along the western boundary of the RPG. The housing on the Western
Fields would be immediately visible to the left and the juxtaposition of the
housing would substantially harm the views and experience of walkers along
this route.
14.249 Notwithstanding the harm identified above, I am satisfied that when the
package of measures is considered as a whole, there would be a net benefit
both in terms of PRoW provision but also in terms of its attractiveness and
utility. I say this because the provision would have more connectivity and
would be likely to appeal to a wider variety of users. As such it would increase
public access to parts of the RPG. I ascribe some moderate weight to this
benefit, and I conclude that the proposal is in conformity with the policies set
out above.
14.250 Coal Mining: CS policy CG4 seeks to ensure that new development
proposals on land affected by land instability issues must include an assessment
of possible risks. The ES contains a full assessment as to impacts in relation to
geology, soils and contamination and detailed assessment of past mining
activities and ground conditions. The Council’s Pollution Control Officers and the
Coal Authority have been consulted. The Coal Authority has confirmed that the
site lies within an area defined as ‘Development High Risk Area’. It has
accepted the conclusions of the Applicant’s Minerals Assessment440.
14.251 The Applicant also submitted an extensive Mining Assessment Report441
which sub-divided the whole site into a series of blocks. Only two blocks did not
require further assessment with the rest needing further investigation prior to
the commencement of development. To that end, the Coal Authority has
expressed itself satisfied if conditions are imposed requiring further
investigation work and a detailed remediation strategy prior to the
commencement of development. These matters are now secured by condition.
14.252 During the Inquiry Mrs Hesketh submitted a handful of coloured plans
depicting past mine workings which were subsequently provided to the Coal
authority for review. The Applicant produced a note442 detailing that the Coal
Authority confirmed that these plans had been considered and that they had
reviewed their in-house mapping system and database. Their own information
flagged up all recorded and potentially unrecorded coal mining features. I am
satisfied that the response of the Coal Authority was based on the best evidence
available and that a precautionary approach has been taken in terms of the
imposition of the conditions requested.
14.253 Mineral extraction: CS policy P4 seeks to identify and protect sites for
minerals extraction. Parts of the application site fall within Mineral Search
Areas for sand and gravel and the whole site is allocated as a Mineral Search
Area for surface coal and brick clay by the Greater Manchester Joint Minerals
Plan. Policy 8 of this plan provides that any viable mineral resource should be
extracted in advance of the construction of non-mineral developments.
440 CD 05a.18
441 CD 05b.6.48
442 Inquiry Document 30
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 124
14.254 A detailed Minerals Assessment was submitted with the
application443which amongst other things, demonstrated that it was not
environmentally acceptable or economically viable to extract the mineral prior
to the non-mineral development and that the mineral is of no economic value or
too deep to extract. Policy 8 provides that in such circumstances a proposal can
be permitted in the absence of prior extraction of minerals. I am satisfied
therefore that the relevant tests have been passed in relation to policy 8 and
the proposal is compliant in this regard.
14.255 Living conditions of nearby residents: there are detailed lighting impact,
air quality and noise assessments supporting the application444. The Council’s
Pollution Control Officers have considered the proposal and its effects in relation
to noise from both the construction phases, the holding of the Ryder Cup
tournament and the day to day operation of the golf club resort. I note that an
acoustic fence is proposed between the boundary of the Academy and the
residential properties on Manchester Road. Subject to the suggested
conditions, they are content that the living conditions of adjoining residents
would not be compromised. These conditions were discussed at length at the
Inquiry and I have already made my views known in relation to them.
14.256 Having regard to the above I conclude that the proposal would not
cause any material harm to the living conditions of existing residents. As such
the proposal would be compliant with CS policy CG4.
14.257 Retail considerations: CS policy P2 confirms that additional convenience
goods floor space of up to 10,000 square metres will be planned for in town,
district and local centres where communities have good access. Policy P2 is
silent on the question of leisure provision. The Framework seeks to ensure the
vitality of town centres and sets out a sequential test for main town centre uses
which are not in an existing centre or in accordance with an adopted plan.
Impact assessments are required for retail and leisure developments outside
town centres above either a locally set threshold or 2500 square metres in the
absence of a local threshold.
14.258 The floorspace of the hotel complex would be 10,469 square metres.
There is no sequential assessment of the hotel complex. However, given the
very specific nature of the proposal and noting that the hotel is part and parcel
of the golf course complex, I am satisfied that the site is likely to be the only
one in Bolton which would offer an opportunity to develop a championship golf
course. A Feasibility Study445 was submitted with the planning application. This
study indicates that the hotel complex would not undermine the operation of
existing or planned developments in existing town centres and it would not
impact upon the overall vitality and viability of such town centres. The study is
not challenged, and I accept its conclusions.
14.259 The local centre would potentially provide a broad range of uses
including retail, office, restaurant/café, drinking establishment and hot food
takeaway as well a health centre. At up to 1,382 square metres it would
operate essentially as a local hub designed to service the needs of residents on
443 CD 05a.18
444 CD 05a.20, Cd 05b.3 Chapters 12 and 13
445 Appendix 8 of the Planning Statement
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 125
the proposed development. Whilst the local centre would not be a local centre
as defined by policy P2, given the scale of the proposed housing I am satisfied
that it would be a necessary addition. As such I am satisfied that it would
comply broadly with the objectives of policy P2 which is designed to direct
essential services at appropriate scales to centres of population.
14.260 Local infrastructure: I have set out the financial and other contributions
which would be made and are designed to mitigate the impacts of the
development. Over 1000 houses are proposed on the site but I am satisfied
that the needs of the intended occupiers would be met by the contributions
which are outlined. These contributions relate to retail, health, leisure,
education and highways and I am satisfied that they are sufficient to ameliorate
the additional demands which would be generated by the new residents.
14.261 Loss of local farms: CS policy CG1 seeks to safeguard rural areas from
development which would adversely affect, amongst other things, agricultural
value. The agricultural land within the application site is used for the grazing of
livestock by the occupiers of Dearden’s Farm, Home Farm and Back Gates Farm.
The tenants of Dearden’s Farm have developed an award-winning farm and ice
cream business of which they are rightly proud. The farms are an integral part
of the community and an important source of local employment. Mr Partington
spoke about the history of his farm and the work which he, and his family, have
put into developing a successful enterprise. The development would result in
the loss not only of livelihood but of a family home. I was left in no doubt as to
how keenly this loss would be felt. The proposal would be contrary to policy
CG1 in that it would have an adverse impact in terms of the loss of agricultural
land.
14.262 Best and Most Versatile Land: The application site runs to 268 hectares,
of which some 180 hectares is in agricultural use. The majority of the
agricultural land is either moderate quality (grade 3b) or poor quality, with the
remaining 3 hectares being of good quality (grade 3a)446. Whilst the proposal
would result in the loss of some best and most versatile land, in terms of this
application it would be ‘de minimis’. I conclude that its loss carries no weight in
the overall planning balance.
14.263 Surface water drainage and flooding: The application was accompanied
by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy447. The strategy is designed
to ensure that surface water run-off from the site would be discharged to onsite
watercourses at a restricted greenfield runoff rate, that sufficient attenuation
storage would be provided and that detailed surface water modelling would be
provided as detailed design stage which would include sustainable urban
drainage systems where possible. The Environment Agency and the Council’s
inhouse experts have not raised any objections. I am satisfied that the proposal
would comply with CS policy CG1 and Framework objectives which seek to
reduce flooding risk.
446 Agricultural Land Classification CD 05a.17
447 CD 06c.5.13
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 126
Green Belt Analysis
14.264 The entire application site is located within the adopted Greater
Manchester Green Belt. Figure 11.1 of the Planning Statement448 contains a
plan of the Green Belt with the site shown edged in red.
14.265 All three parties are agreed that the proposal constitutes inappropriate
development in the Green Belt. The Framework sets out a presumption against
inappropriate development in the Green Belt unless very special circumstances
exist. It provides that, when considering any application, substantial weight
should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. It goes on to state that very
special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt
by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the
proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations449.
14.266 The Framework sets out five purposes served by the designation of
Green Belt land. For ease of reference I repeat them here:
(a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
(b) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
(d) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;
and
(e) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land.
14.267 In terms of the development plan, policy CG7AP of the Allocations Plan
Document says that the Council will not permit inappropriate development in
the Green Belt. It states that inappropriate development includes any
development which does not maintain the openness of land or which conflicts
with Green Belt purposes. Whilst policy CG7AP sets out categories of
development which would not constitute inappropriate development, it does not
contain a clause which permits inappropriate development in very special
circumstances. As such it is out of step with more recent national policy in the
latest Framework. I shall conduct my Green Belt analysis by applying the
principles set out in the Framework.
14.268 Finally, my attention was drawn to the Greater Manchester Green Belt
Assessment of 2016450 which comprises a baseline assessment of the extent to
which parcels of land making up the Greater Manchester Green Belt meet green
belt objectives. However, this was intended to form part of the evidence base
to support the preparation of the GMSF and any Green Belt review. I do not
consider that its findings, in terms of the qualitative merits of parcels of Green
Belt, should play any part in the decision-making process of a single application.
It is not part of my remit to conduct a Green Belt review. As far as I am
concerned the application site is within the Green Belt, has full Green Belt status
448 CD 05a.1 reproduced at page 78 of Mr Bell’s Proof of Evidence
449 The National Planning Policy Framework ¶144
450 CD 12.9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 127
and I shall conduct my assessment using the Green Belt policies set out in the
Framework.
14.269 Openness: The proposal would introduce over 1000 new homes, internal
roads and a local centre and primary school onto the Western Fields. As such
this element of the proposal would cause significant harm to the openness of
the Green Belt.
14.270 During the Inquiry there was a dispute between the parties regarding
consideration of the golf course development. The Applicant’s planning
[8.22]
witness conducted an analysis as to those parts of the development, namely the
golf course and associated structures, which in his view would not constitute
inappropriate development451. However, Mr Bell did accept that the whole
development is inappropriate development in Green Belt terms and must be
assessed as such.
14.271 Most of the harm to openness, in both spatial and visual terms, would
be due to the housing. One thousand homes with gardens, fences, garages,
driveways and all of the other associated domestic paraphernalia would be sited
on land which currently comprises open, agricultural fields. The application site
is some 286 hectares in total; the Western Fields constitute some 43 hectares
of the site, with the other housing parcels on Park End Farm and Dearden’s
Farm being some 6 hectares and 7.4 hectares respectively452. The housing
would therefore take up some 56.4 hectares of open Green Belt land. That
would represent a very substantial erosion of this part of the Green Belt.
14.272 The Framework confirms that the provision of appropriate facilities in
connection with a change of use for outdoor sport or recreation would not be
inappropriate development provided the facilities preserve the openness of the
Green Belt and do not conflict with Green Belt purposes. I accept that some of
the smaller ancillary structures, the internal roads, car parks and pathways
would represent appropriate facilities to support a golf course use and would
largely preserve openness.
14.273 In principle I accept that a clubhouse might be an appropriate facility to
support outdoor recreation. However, the clubhouse proposed would patently
not preserve openness, it would be a sizeable building in a visible location. I do
not consider that it would be an appropriate facility for the purposes of outdoor
sport and recreation due to its size. Similarly, the hotel, spa and conference
facilities would have 142 bedrooms to service the needs of a championship golf
course. As such I am not satisfied that the complex would be an appropriate
facility. It would be a significant addition reducing the openness of the Green
Belt in volumetric terms. Whilst the hotel complex would be located at the
heart of the site, it would only be visible from within the site, but it would still
be prominent building, to the visual detriment of the Green Belt, when viewed
from within the site.
14.274 The driving range and Academy buildings on the northern side of the A6
would also erode the openness of the Green Belt. The Academy buildings are
relatively small scale and I accept that they would represent a modest erosion
451 Mr Stephen Bell proof of evidence Table 11.1
452 Cd 05a.1 Planning Statement ¶2.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 128
to Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. Regrading of the RPG would
result in substantial amounts of earth moving, but generally the amounts of cut
and fill are similar and the ground levels in most parts would not be significantly
different. The regrading works would cause limited harm to openness in spatial
terms and would not be discernible in visual terms.
14.275 I further accept that many parts of the RPG would remain open and free
from development, but this does not detract from the quantum of development
on other parts of this Green Belt site. Overall the development would result in a
substantial erosion of this part of the Green Belt. I attribute substantial weight
to the global harm to openness.
14.276 Purpose (a) to check unrestricted urban sprawl of built-up areas: the
site is an important piece in the Greater Manchester Green Belt jigsaw in terms
of checking unrestricted urban sprawl. Its importance derives from its location
on the edge of three urban settlements. Figure 11.1 within the proof of
evidence of Mr Bell contains the location of the approved residential
development sitting below the Chequerbent roundabout. The housing on the
northern portion of the Western Fields would sit very close to this development
and would represent urban sprawl in its clearest form.
14.277 In assessing the magnitude of harm caused by urban sprawl, it seems to
me that it is helpful to have regard to its location within the Green Belt, its
visibility within the Green Belt and the quantum and nature of the development
constituting urban sprawl. The housing on the Western Fields would be
associated with the Persimmon development by virtue of its location. This
would add to the impression of urban sprawl in the region of the Chequerbent
Roundabout. This largest housing parcel would be enclosed by woodland
planting on its eastern edge which would form a well-defined boundary between
the housing and the RPG, as well as screening.
14.278 The Park End Farm parcel of housing and the Dearden’s Farm housing
would be smaller parcels, visually and spatially contained by strong woodland
boundaries and close to the existing housing. The boundaries would be clear
and defensible, thus reducing the risk of further urban sprawl. I conclude that
these housing parcel would cause modest harm to this Green Belt purpose.
14.279 Overall, the development would result in substantial urban sprawl
because it would introduce large amounts of housing into open countryside and
extend existing built development on the edge of settlements. The sprawl
would be significant, and it would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt.
14.280 Purpose (b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another:
Figures 11.1 and 11.2 in the proof of Mr Bell depict the site located between
Over Hulton to the east, Atherton to the south and Westhoughton to the west
and contain various measurements. It also depicts the parcel of land
immediately to the south of the Chequerbent Roundabout which is subject to a
residential planning permission.
14.281 The development would result in a material narrowing of the gap
between Westhoughton and Atherton/Over Hulton. At its narrowest point the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 129
gap would be some 113 metres453. This is the gap between the existing housing
on Everest Road and the southernmost edge of the Western Fields
development. The effect would be compounded by virtue of the proposed
housing on the Persimmon development which, in combination with the
application proposal, would effectively result in housing running along the whole
of the A6 through the roundabout and wrapping around it. The finger of
housing on the application site would extend a long way south towards the edge
of Atherton.
[8.20]
14.282 The combination of the above aspects would lead to an erosion in the
physical separation and the sense of physical separation between Westhoughton
and Atherton. This would be somewhat mitigated because it would only be
perceived by those handful of residents at the end of the Everest Road housing
and those residents on part of the southern edge of the Western Fields housing.
However, even though there would be the erosion in the physical separation of
settlements, the proposal would not result in coalescence or the merging of
settlements. I am satisfied that the proposal would not offend this Green Belt
purpose.
14.283 I have also considered the effects of the housing on Dearden’s Farm and
Park End Farm. I have concluded that they would have no material effect upon
this Green Belt purpose because of the quantum of housing on these parcels
and its location. Similarly, the Academy building and complex on the northern
part of the A6 would be viewed as part of the sporadic, linear development
along this thoroughfare and I conclude that it would not result in any material
reduction in the gap between Over Hulton and Westhoughton.
14.284 Purpose (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment: The proposed housing would result in encroachment into the
open countryside, introducing urban form where currently there is none. Again,
due to the quantum of development on the Western Fields in particular, the
encroachment would be significant.
14.285 Purpose (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic
towns: there was a minor debate at the Inquiry as to whether the towns of
Westhoughton and Over Hulton were “historic towns”. There is limited evidence
to suggest that they are. The reference in purpose (d) is a reference to the
need to preserve the ‘setting’ and ‘special character’ of historic towns which
indicates to me that something other than age of settlement is involved. I do
not therefore accept that this purpose is pertinent to the consideration of this
application or that there is any harm to this purpose.
14.286 Purpose (e) to assist in urban regeneration: this purpose is allied to the
policy objectives of re-using brownfield land in preference to green field land.
The project can only be carried out upon this site and to that end, it is not
preferring green field land over brownfield land or compromising such policy
objectives. I find no harm against this Green Belt purpose.
14.287 Other matters: The Applicant points to improved access and beneficial
use of the Green Belt as a benefit of the proposal. I acknowledge that there
would be a public access programme which would secure at least 50 public
453 Mr Bell Figure Figure 11.2 in Proof of Evidence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 130
participation events per year in the RPG. Whilst the proposal would increase
access to the RPG by virtue of these events and by increased lengths of PRoWs
through the park, it would not increase access to the Green Belt per se because
the Western Fields would be completely transformed and the RPG would
become a golf resort. Indeed, the Council and Applicant are agreed that if
planning permission is granted, it is likely that the Green Belt boundaries would
ultimately be altered within a development plan process to exclude those parts
of the site proposed for housing454.
[9.3]
14.288 The increased access afforded to the RPG by virtue of the public events
would have to also be considered in the light of the loss of the existing small-
scale community activities, including archery and other outdoor events. For the
above reasons I do not accept that there would be improved access to the
Green Belt by the proposal.
14.289 The Applicant also advanced the proposition that the proposal amounts
to a beneficial use of the Green Belt as advocated in paragraph 141 of the
Framework. This paragraph confirms that once Green Belts have been defined,
local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use
by for example looking for opportunities to provide access and to provide
opportunities for outdoor sport or recreation, amongst other things.
14.290 The proposal would introduce golf as a sporting activity to the site, but it
would be run on a commercial basis and open to those able to afford
membership fees. The Academy would provide some increased access to
sporting opportunities for younger members of the community. However, the
proposal would also essentially result in the loss of a swathe of Green Belt land
on the Western Fields reducing the quantum of open Green Belt land.
14.291 In terms of a more fitting location for the Pretoria Park and
improvements to the RPG and Dovecote, I have already taken this benefit into
account in the heritage balance, the results of which will be carried forward into
the Green Belt balance. After taking all of the above into consideration, I
conclude that the proposal would result in a modest beneficial use of the Green
Belt to which I attribute limited weight.
[8.59, 9.80-9.84]
The Green Belt Balance
14.292 I have now arrived at the point where I have assessed all the impacts of
the development across multiple areas. I have arrived at conclusions in terms
of the benefits and harms of the proposal and I have undertaken a full Green
Belt assessment. I must now come to a view as to whether very special
circumstances exist.
[8.17]
14.293 Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to
the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting
from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal
constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which attracts
substantial weight. In addition, there would be substantial erosion of openness,
substantial urban sprawl and substantial encroachment into the open
454 CD 13.8/8.22 and accepted by Mr Bell and Ms Lancaster during cross-examination
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 131
countryside. Taken together these matters attract very substantial weight in
the balance.
14.294 Other harms: In addition to the Green Belt harm, there are other
harms. These include the harm by virtue of the proposal being contrary to
policy OA4 in terms of the location of new housing. I have already confirmed
that this policy is out of date and accordingly I attribute limited weight to the
harm caused by the proposal being contrary to policy OA4 in terms of the
location of new housing. There would also be some limited harm to landscape
character caused by the loss of land to housing to which I have attributed
moderate weight. The proposal would be contrary to CS policy CG1 in terms of
the loss of local farms and agricultural value. Given the scale of the losses I
attribute limited weight to these matters.
[14.245, 14.259]
14.295 I have undertaken a comprehensive heritage impact assessment and
concluded that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the RPG
and that it would enhance the Dovecote and its setting. This harm, together
with the harm in terms of policy OA4 and landscape harm is added to the
overall Green Belt harm and adds to the very substantial weight I have already
attributed to Green Belt harms. The totality of harms is very substantial and
attracts very substantial weight.
14.296 However, that is not the end of the matter with regards to the heritage
assets because I have also concluded that the proposal would bring Hulton Park
back into a purposeful and viable use and would represent the optimum viable
use of the park, given that no other viable uses are put forward. In addition,
the heritage assets would make a positive contribution towards the
establishment of a sustainable community and to local character and
distinctiveness. I attribute some weight to these positive benefits.
14.297 Benefits: Against the above harms I must weigh the benefits of the
proposal. In addition to the optimum viable use of the heritage asset, other
benefits include the socio-economic benefits which I have considered in detail.
They are of considerable magnitude and all parties are agreed that they should
be given very significant weight. The level of monetised benefits would be felt
at all geographic levels and would be realised over a 20-year period.
14.298 I have already indicated that the magnitude of the economic and social
benefits is such that, in my view, they would attract very significant weight in
whatever location they were focussed upon. In this case the location is Bolton.
The context is a local area which lags behind economically and evidences higher
levels of deprivation and economic inactivity relative to other parts of the
country. As such the benefits become even more important and gain even
more significance. The application represents a singular opportunity for Bolton
to sit at the heart of a prestigious worldwide sporting event and to capture all
the social and economic opportunities which would arise from it.
[14.50-14.53]
14.299 The Applicant has offered 10% provision of affordable housing in the
form of discounted market housing OR such other affordable housing tenure as
the Secretary of State indicates, capped at the same cost of 10% discounted
housing provision. I have already indicated that the provision of 65% social
rented and 35% intermediate housing is to be preferred and would meet
existing affordable housing needs. I have also indicated that such preferred
provision would attract moderate weight since it is beyond policy requirements.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 132
The Review Mechanism in the s106 agreement provides the opportunity to
revisit the question of viability and, if appropriate, for the Applicant to provide
further affordable housing in accordance with policy requirements. I attract
only limited weight to this provision given its uncertainty.
14.300 The scheme would also provide market housing over a long timeframe.
The Council does not currently have a 5YHLS and the proposal would make a
modest contribution in the first five years to which I have attributed limited
weight. Over the longer-term the proposal would potentially make a significant
contribution to the supply of family housing in the borough and towards meeting
future housing needs. I have attributed some weight to the provision of quality
family market housing over the longer-term.
[14.93, 14.95]
14.301 There would also be substantial benefits in relation to the diversification
of the ecological features and habitats on the site. These are important given
that the ecological value of the site is in decline. The proposal would halt such
decline and reverse the process. These are important material considerations
and I have accorded them substantial weight.
[14.114]
14.302 Other benefits of the scheme would be some highway improvements
which I have examined in detail and to which I have ascribed moderate weight
for the reasons set out. There would also be a net benefit in terms of the PRoW
provision to which I have ascribed moderate weight.
[14.143 and 14.248]
14.303 The Overall Green Belt Balance: Mr Dale-Harris neatly summarised the
position with the Green Belt balance as presenting an asymmetric and complex
exercise. I would agree with that assertion. The Green Belt balance in this case
is multi-faceted and includes harms and benefits of significant orders of
magnitude. When the Green Belt and other harms are taken together, I am
more than satisfied that they are clearly outweighed by the benefits and other
considerations which I have identified. I have come to this view primarily
because of the range of benefits and the magnitude of those benefits. In
particular, the range and magnitude of the socio-economic benefits which would
be felt and the context in which they would be realised have contributed to this
finding.
14.304 I have now concluded that very special circumstances do exist in this
case. As such policies in the Framework relating to Green Belt land do not
provide a clear reason for refusing the development. I now return to the
remainder of paragraph 11 of the Framework.
Overall Conclusions
Paragraph 11 of the Framework
14.305 The duty in section 38(6) of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004 enshrines in statute the primacy of the development plan. As an essential
component of the ‘plan-led’ system, it is also reiterated in the Framework455.
The appeal site is in the Green Belt and the proposal constitutes inappropriate
development. It would also result in substantial harm to openness and the
purposes of including land in the Green Belt and less than substantial harm to
heritage assets. Policies for the supply of housing are out of date which reduces
455 ¶2, 11, 12
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 133
the weight afforded to them. The policies contravened are strategic policies
and as a result of their contravention I conclude that the proposal is contrary to
the development plan when considered as a whole.
14.306 The Framework is, of course, a material consideration to which
substantial weight should be attached. Paragraph 11 recites the presumption in
favour of sustainable development and sets out what it means for decision-
taking and contains two sub-paragraphs (c) and (d). I have already concluded
that the development does not accord with the development plan in terms of
paragraph 11(c) and that relevant policies are out of date in relation to
paragraph 11(d). Therefore, I shall progress to the two sub-clauses in 11(d).
14.307 Paragraph 11(d)(i) indicates that the presumption should not be applied
if specific policies indicate development should be restricted. I have already
concluded that heritage and Green Belt policies do not indicate that the
proposed development should be restricted. I now move on to paragraph
11(d)(ii) which requires a balance to be undertaken whereby permission should
be granted unless the adverse impacts of granting permission significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the
Framework as a whole.
14.308 Given my conclusions in relation to the Green Belt balance I shall go
back to perform the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d)(ii). I accept that this may
be viewed as a somewhat academic exercise given that I have already
undertaken the Green Belt balance. However, it seems to me to be a necessary
and logical step in my decision-making process. This sub-clause indicates that
planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed
against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
14.309 The Green Belt balance has set out all of the harms on one side and all
of the benefits and other material considerations on the other side of the
balance. I have already concluded that all of the harms are clearly outweighed
by all of the benefits. It is axiomatic therefore that the adverse impacts of the
proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Whilst
the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole, there are
significant material considerations which weigh in favour of the proposal. It
follows that I conclude that planning permission should be granted.
Recommendation
14.310 I therefore recommend that planning permission should be granted,
subject to the imposition of conditions in Annex D and subject to the provisions
in the section 106 Agreement. I would further recommend that the Secretary of
State gives a clear indication that he would prefer the affordable housing to be
in the form of a policy compliant tenure split.
Karen L Ridge
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 134
APPENDIX A- APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Mr Russell Harris of Queen’s Instructed by Mr Ian Ginbey of Clyde & Co LLP
Council
He called
Mr Andrew Tong BSc On Economic Impact and Legacy
(Hons), MSc Director, Deloitte
Mr Francis Hesketh BSc On Ecology
(Hons) CEnv CMLI Director, The Environment Partnership
MCIEEM MICFor
Mr Ross McMurray BA On Golf Course Design
MEIGCA Designer, European Golf Design
Mr Justin Marks On Golf Resort Buildings Design
BA(Hons) BArch Director, Leach Rhodes Walker
Mr Derek Nesbitt MRICS On Viability
APAEWE Director, Cushman and Wakefield
Ms Rebecca Knight BSc On Landscape and Visual Impact
DipLA MA CMLI Director, Land Use Consultants Limited
Mr Steven Eggleston On Highways
BSc(Hons) BEng(Hons) Partner, i-Transport LLP
CMILT MCIHT
Dr Chris Miele MRTPI On Heritage
IHBC FRHS Senior Partner, Montagu Evans
Mr Adrian Wikeley On Historic Landscape
BA(Hons) DipLA FLI Director, Land Use Consultants Limited
Mr Richard Knight MRTPI On behalf of the Applicant Company
Director, Peel Holdings (Land and Property)
Limited
Mr Stephen Bell On Planning/policy
BA(Hons) MTPl MRTPI Senior Director, Turley
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 135
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Matthew Dale-Harris of Counsel Instructed by Ms Nicola Raby of Legal
Services, Bolton Metropolitan Council
He called
Ms Emma Lancaster MTPl On Planning and Planning Policy
MRTPI Associate, Quod North
Mr Alistair Johnson BSc On Highways
PgD Associate Director at AECOM
Mr Murray LLoyd On Viability Matters
Trebbi Continuum
FOR HEART:
Mr Peter Dixon of Counsel Instructed by Mr Paul Haworth, Chairman
HEART
He called
Mr Paul Haworth Chartered On various matters
Engineer, FICE Chairman of HEART
Mr Christopher Gallagher On Historic Landscape and Heritage
BSc
Ms Jackie Copley BA(Hons) On Planning and Planning Policy
MA MRTPI
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 136
INTERESTED PERSONS:
First Public Session
Mr Chris Green Member of Parliament, Bolton West
Mr Garry Croft Local resident (doc 9)
Dr Paul Richardson Leigh Ornithological Society (doc 10)
Mrs Elaine Taylor MA Local resident and garden historian (doc 11)
Mr Luke Smith Representative of Over Hulton Neighbourhood
Forum (doc 12)
Mrs Sandra Hesketh Local resident (doc 13)
Cllr Derek Bullock Councillor for Hulton Ward (doc 14)
Cllr Toby Hewitt Councillor for Hulton Ward (doc 15)
Cllr Diane Parkinson Councillor for Hulton Ward (doc 16)
Mr Pimlett Local resident
Mr John Roberts Local resident (doc 17)
Mr Phil Wood Local resident (doc 18)
Second Public Session
Ms Yasmin Qureshi Member of Parliament
Mr Brian Jones Local resident (doc 31)
Mr Sullivan (speaking on behalf Local resident (doc 32)
of Mr Graham White)
Mr Alan Dean Local resident
Cllr Christine Wild Ward Councillor Westhoughton North and Chew
Moor (doc 33)
Miss Sylvia Fewtrell Local resident (doc 34)
Mr Geoff Hamlett Local resident (doc 37)
Mr Michael Partington Tenant Dearden’s Farm (doc 38)
Dr Des Brennan CPRE Lancashire Trustee (doc 39 and doc 59)
Mr Garry Cook Businessman
Ms Wilcox Buffey Local resident
Ms Nykola Taylor Troy Planning for Over Hulton Neighbourhood
Forum (doc 46)
Ms Dorothy Syddall Local resident (doc 36)
Mr Peter German Local resident (doc 40)
Mr Barrington Upton Local resident (doc 41)
Mr David Chadwick Local resident and former Councillor (doc 42)
Mr Stephen Taylor Local resident (doc 44)
D A Dean Local resident (doc 47)
Mrs Elaine Taylor Local resident (doc 43)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 137
APPENDIX B
CORE DOCUMENTS
Document No. Appeal Document
01 Original Application Forms
01.1 Application Forms and Certificates
02 Site Ownership certificate and agricultural holdings certificate
02.1 Application Forms and Certificates
03 LPA Planning Committee Key Documents
03.1 Bolton MBC Officer Report to Planning Committee (22 March 2018)
03.2 Bolton MBC Planning Committee Late List (22 March 2018)
03.3 Bolton MBC Planning Committee Minutes (22 March 2018)
04 Site Plan
04.1 Site Location Plan [Dated 28 March 2017]
04.2 Areas for Detailed and Outline Approval
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-000 Issue E]
05a Copies of all application plans and supporting documents submitted with the
Original application on 19 May 2017
Application Documents and Reports
05a.0 Application Cover Letter, prepared by Turley (19 May 2017)
05a.1 Planning Statement, prepared by Turley (May 2017)
05a.2 Design and Access Statement, prepared by Land Use Consultants, Leach
Rhodes Walker, Calder Peel, and European Golf Design (Version 5.0, April 2017)
05a.3 Residential Design Codes, prepared by Calder Peel (comprising two documents
set out below):
05a.3.1 Character Area 5: Park End Farm (May 2017)
05a.3.2 Character Area 6: Dearden's Park (May 2017)
05a.4 Economic Impact of Hulton Park and the 2026 Ryder Cup, prepared by Ekosgen
(March 2017)
05a.5 Social Value Assessment, prepared by Turley (May 2017)
05a.6 Public Right of Way Strategy, prepared by Land Use Consultants (May 2017)
[Document Ref. 6628-LD-REP-800 Version 4.0]
05a.7 Statement of Community Involvement, prepared by Newington (April 2017)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 138
Document No. Appeal Document
05a.8 Conservation Plan, prepared by Land Use Consultants (comprising two
documents set out below):
05a.8.1 Volume 1: An Assessment of the Heritage Significance (April 2017)
05a.8.2 Volume 2: Conservation Strategy (April 2017)
05a.9 Historic Structures: Condition/Repair Issues, prepared by Lloyd Evans Pritchard
(Version 3, March 2017)
05a.10 Market Report and Viability Statement (Private & Confidential), prepared by
Cushman & Wakefield (May 2017)
05a.11 Transport Assessment, prepared by i-Transport (April 2017)
[Document Ref. SEE/VACE/dc/ITM10187 – 012E]
05a.12 Travel Plan Golf Resort, prepared by i-Transport (April 2017)
[Document Ref. VACE/SEE/dc/ITM10187-015 A]
05a.13 Travel Plan Residential, prepared by i-Transport (April 2017)
[Document Ref. VACE/SEE/dc/ITM10187-013 A]
05a.14 Interim Event and Travel Management Plan, prepared by i-Transport (April 2017)
[Document Ref. SEE/dc/ITM10187 - 016B]
05a.15 OnCourse Developments: Golf Sustainability Blueprint, prepared by Golf
Environment Organisation (February 2017)
05a.16 BREEAM and Sustainability, prepared by Sustainable Assessments Limited
(Revision B, April 2017)
05a.17 Agricultural Land Classification, prepared by Reading Agricultural Consultants Ltd
(March 2017) [Document Ref. RAC 7403, Version 1.2]
05a.18 Minerals Assessment, prepared by Aecom (April 2017)
05a.19 Interim Level 2 Utility Study, prepared by Zerum (February 2017)
05a.20 Lighting Assessment, prepared by Zerum (Revision 2.0, January 2017)
05a.21 Crime Impact Statement, prepared by GM Design for Security (February 2017)
[Document Ref. 201 6/1 030/CIS/01, Version A]
05a.22 Section 106 Heads of Terms, comprising:
05a.22.1 S106 Agreement Heads of Terms and CIL Compliance Statement, prepared by
Turley (May 2017)
05a.22.2 Indicative Local Bypass Route to Platt Lane & Mitigation Works at Chequerbent
Roundabout [Drawing Ref. ITM10187-SK-199 Rev A]
Indicative Local Bypass Route to Platt Lane [Drawing Ref. ITM10187-SK-159 Rev
05a.22.3
H]
M61 J5 Mitigation Scheme [Drawing Ref. ITM10187-SK-192 Rev A]
05a.22.4
A58 Park Road / Leigh Road Mitigation Scheme [Drawing Ref. ITM10187-SK-193]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 139
Document No. Appeal Document
05a.22.5 Four Lane Ends Mitigation Scheme Newbrook Road / A6 Manchester Road / St
05a.22.6 Helens Road / A6 Salford Road [Drawing Ref. ITM10187-SK-194 Rev A]
Application Plans and Drawings
05a.30 Site Location Plan (Dated 28 March 2017)
05a.31 Areas for Detailed and Outline Approval
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-000 Issue E]
05a.32 Landscape Masterplan Site Wide (Full Development)
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_103 Issue C]
05a.33 Illustrative Masterplan [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 001 P]
05a.34 Parameters Plan [Drawing Ref. 15191 (Pl) 500 Q]
05a.35 Demolition Plan [Drawing Ref. 6628-LD-PLN-010 Issue E]
05a.36 Restoration Plan [Drawing Ref. 6628-LD-PLN-011 Issue A]
05a.37 The Dovecote (Grade II Listed), comprising:
05a.37.1 Elevations and Masonry Repairs [Drawing Ref. dov/lbc/001]
05a.37.2 Plans and Sections [Drawing Ref. dov/lbc/002]
05a.38 The Golf Course, comprising:
05a.38.1 Golf Grading Overview [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.01 Rev E]
05a.38.2 Golf Grading 1 of 3 [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.02]
05a.38.3 Golf Grading 2 of 3 [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.03]
05a.38.4 Golf Grading 3 of 3 [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.04]
05a.38.5 Golf Grading Analysis [Drawing Ref. 1263.415.01 Rev D]
05a.38.6 General Arrangement Overview Plan
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_200 Issue A]
05a.38.7 General Arrangement Plans Site Wide, Drawings 1 to 19
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_201 to 219 Issue C]
05a.38.8 Indicative Planting Schedule & Specification [Drawing Ref. 6628-LD-SCH-705]
05a.38.9 Detailed Area; Golf and Academy Entrance
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-231 Issue A]
05a.38.10 External Lighting Layout [Drawing Ref. 3023-(97)-EX-01 Rev P5]
05a.39 The Clubhouse, comprising:
05a.39.1 Clubhouse Lower Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan
[Drawing Ref. L(20)11]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 140
Document No. Appeal Document
05a.39.2 Clubhouse Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)12]
05a.39.3 Clubhouse Roof General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)13]
05a.39.4 Clubhouse General Arrangement Elevations [Drawing Ref. L(20)14]
05a.39.5 Clubhouse Section A-A [Drawing Ref. L(20)15]
05a.39.6 Clubhouse Visualisation [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)159]
05a.39.7 Clubhouse Views, Sheet 1 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)145B]
05a.39.8 Clubhouse Views, Sheet 2 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)146A]
05a.40 The Academy, comprising:
05a.40.1 Academy Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)16]
05a.40.2 Academy Roof General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)17]
05a.40.3 Academy General Arrangement Elevations [Drawing Ref. L(20)18]
05a.40.4 Academy Sections A-A B-B C-C [Drawing Ref. L(20)19]
05a.40.5 Academy views, Sheet 1 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)147A]
05a.40.6 Academy views, Sheet 2 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)148A]
05a.40.7 9 Hole Adventure Golf & 9 Hole Ryder Cup Course
05a.41 The Hotel Complex, comprising:
05a.41.1 Hotel Visualisation [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)150A]
05a.41.2 Hotel Visualisation (rear) [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)158]
05a.41.3 Hotel Views, Sheet 1 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)141B]
05a.41.4 Hotel Views, Sheet 2 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)142B]
05a.41.5 Hotel Views, Sheet 3 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)143B]
05a.41.6 Hotel Views, Sheet 4 [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)144B]
05a.41.7 Hotel Lower Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)01]
05a.41.8 Hotel Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)02]
05a.41.9 Hotel First Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)03]
05a.41.10 Hotel Second Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)04]
05a.41.11 Hotel Third Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)05]
05a.41.12 Hotel Fourth Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)06]
05a.41.13 Hotel Roof General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)07]
05a.41.14 Hotel General Arrangement Elevations North & South [Drawing Ref. L(20)08]
05a.41.15 Hotel General Arrangement Elevations East & West [Drawing Ref. L(20)09]
05a.41.16 Hotel Sections A-A B-B [Drawing Ref. L(20)10]
05a.42 Associated structures and buildings, comprising:
05a.42.1 Maintenance Shed General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)20]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 141
Document No. Appeal Document
05a.42.2 Maintenance Shed General Arrangement Elevations & Sections
[Drawing Ref. L(20)21]
05a.42.3 Maintenance Building Views [Drawing Ref. 7433-L(00)149]
05a.42.4 Halfway House General Arrangement Plans & Elevations [Drawing Ref. L(20)22]
05a.42.5 Starters Hut General Arrangement Plans & Elevations [Drawing Ref. L(20)23]
05a.42.6 Bridge 1 [Drawing Ref. 60484817-DR-BD-03.001-1D]
05a.42.7 Bridge A [Drawing Ref. 60484817-DR-BD-03.004-1D]
05a.42.8 Bridge B [Drawing Ref. 60484817-DR-BD-03.005-0D]
05a.42.9 Bridge C [Drawing Ref. 60484817-DR-BD-03.006-1D]
05a.42.10 Underpass North & South Ramps [Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00115]
05a.42.11 Illustrative Golf Buggy Underpass Sections
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00002 Rev P3]
05a.43 Landscape, comprising:
05a.43.1 Illustrative Landscape Masterplan; Hotel & Pleasure Grounds
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-101 Issue A]
05a.43.2 Illustrative Landscape Masterplan; Academy & Clubhouse
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-102 Issue A]
05a.43.3 Detailed Area; Hotel and Pleasure Grounds, Drawing 1
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-225 Issue C]
05a.43.4 Detailed Area; Hotel and Pleasure Grounds, Drawing 2
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-226 Issue C]
05a.43.5 Detailed Area; Hotel and Pleasure Grounds, Drawing 3
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-227 Issue C]
05a.43.6 Detailed Area; Hotel and Pleasure Grounds, Drawing 4
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-228 Issue C]
05a.43.7 Detailed Area; Clubhouse [Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-229 Issue C]
05a.43.8 Detailed Area; Golf Academy [Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-230 Issue C]
05a.44 Hulton Trail Proposals, comprising:
05a.44.1 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 1 [Drawing Ref. 507C 08 Rev A]
05a.44.2 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 2 [Drawing Ref. 507C 09 Rev A]
05a.44.3 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 3 [Drawing Ref. 507C 10 Rev A]
05a.44.4 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 4 [Drawing Ref. 507C 11 Rev A]
05a.44.5 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 5 [Drawing Ref. 507C 12 Rev A]
05a.45 Residential Development, comprising:
05a.45.1 Illustrative Masterplan for Dearden’s Farm [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 002 J]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 142
Document No. Appeal Document
05a.45.2 Illustrative Masterplan for Park End [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 005 K]
05a.45.3 Illustrative Masterplan for Western Fields 1 [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 003 K]
05a.45.4 Illustrative Masterplan for Western Fields 2 [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 004 J]
05a.46 Highways and Access, comprising:
05a.46.1 Proposed Residential Access to Dearden’s Farm Parcel from A6 Manchester Road
[Drawing Ref. ITM10187–SK–145 Rev D]
05a.46.2 Proposed First Phase Residential Access to Western Fields from A6 Manchester
Road [Drawing Ref. ITM10187–SK–146 Rev D]
Proposed Residential Access from Broadway
05a.46.3
[Drawing Ref. ITM10187–SK–191 Rev C]
Proposed Residential Access from Woodlands Drive
05a.46.4
[Drawing Ref. ITM10187–SK–208 Rev A]
Proposed Clubhouse, Hotel and Academy Accesses from A6 Manchester Road
05a.46.5
[Drawing Ref. ITM10187–SK–197 Rev B]
Combined Proposed Road Layout [Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00116]
05a.46.6
05a.47 Drainage, comprising:
05a.47.1 Drainage General Arrangement [Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00117]
05a.47.2 Academy Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00108]
05a.47.3 Clubhouse Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00107]
05a.47.4 Hotel / Car Park General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00105]
05a.47.5 Maintenance Building General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00106]
05b Environmental Statement (May 2017)
05b.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion Request, comprising:
05b.1.1 EIA Scoping Opinion Request: Scoping Report (November 2016), by Turley
05b.1.2 EIA Scoping Opinion Request: Scoping Report Appendices, prepared by various
05b.2 Environmental Statement Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary (May 2017),
prepared by various
05b.3 Environmental Statement Volume 2: Technical Assessment (May 2017),
prepared by various
Chapter 1: Introduction (Turley)
Chapter 2: Site Location and Description (Turley)
Chapter 3: Project Description (Turley)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 143
Document No. Appeal Document
Chapter 4: Response to Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion (Turley)
Chapter 5: EIA Methodology (Turley)
Chapter 6: Consideration of Alternatives (Turley)
Chapter 7: Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (Land Use Consultants)
Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage (Peter de Figueiredo)
Chapter 9: Archaeology (Salford Archaeology)
Chapter 10: Ecology and Arboriculture (TEP)
Chapter 11: Traffic and Transportation (i-Transport)
Chapter 12: Air Quality (Miller Goodall)
Chapter 13: Noise (Miller Goodall)
Chapter 14: Geology, Soils and Contamination (Aecom)
Chapter 15: Water Environment (Aecom)
Chapter 16: Socio-Economics (Turley and Ekosgen)
Chapter 17: Environmental Management (Turley)
Chapter 18: Conclusion and Summary (Turley)
05b.4 Environmental Statement Volume 3a: LVIA figures (May 2017), prepared by
Land Use Consultants
05b.4.1 Appendix 7.1 – Study Area
05b.4.2 Appendix 7.2 – Location Plan
05b.4.3 Appendix 7.3 – Public Rights of Way in Bolton
05b.4.4 Appendix 7.4 – Local Character Areas within the Proposed Development Site
05b.4.5 Appendix 7.5 – District Scale Character Areas
05b.4.6 Appendix 7.6 – Historic Landscape Characterisation
05b.4.7 Appendix 7.7 – Assessment Viewpoints
05b.4.8 Appendix 7.8 – Masterplan with Character Areas
05b.4.9 Appendix 7.9 – Masterplan with Viewpoints
05b.4.10 Appendix 7.10 – Cumulative Sites
Appendix 7.11 – 7.38 – Viewpoints
05b.4.11
05b.5 Environmental Statement Volume 3b: Other Assessment Figures (May 2017),
prepared by various
05b.5.1 Appendix 3.1 – Project Illustrative Masterplan
05b.5.2 Appendix 3.2 – Proposed Development Boundary
05b.5.3 Appendix 3.3 – Ryder Cup Illustrative Masterplan
05b.5.4 Appendix 3.4 – Cut and Fill / Grading Plan
05b.5.5 Appendix 3.5 – Location of proposed Bridges
05b.5.6 Appendix 3.6a – Bridge 1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 144
Document No. Appeal Document
05b.5.7 Appendix 3.6b – Bridge A
05b.5.8 Appendix 3.6c – Bridge B
05b.5.9 Appendix 3.6d – Bridge C
05b.5.10 Appendix 3.7 – Underpass Plans
05b.5.11 Appendix 3.8 – Access to golf resort and Academy (T junction)
05b.5.12 Appendix 3.9 – Access to golf resort and Academy (T junction)
05b.5.13 Appendix 3.10 – Internal access roads and paths
05b.5.14 Appendix 3.11 – Historic Assets Location Plan
05b.5.15 Appendix 3.12a – Access to Dearden’s Farm Residential Area
05b.5.16 Appendix 3.12b – Access to Western Fields Residential Area
05b.5.17 Appendix 3.12c – Indicative Access to Western Fields Residential Area from Link
Road
05b.5.18 Appendix 3.12d – Indicative Access to Park End Residential Area
05b.5.19 Appendix 3.12e – Access to Park End from Woodlands Drive
Appendix 3.13 – Hulton Trail
05b.5.20
05b.5.21 Appendix 3.14 – Residential Parameters Plan
05b.5.22 Appendix 5.1 – Location of Other Major Projects
05b.5.23 Appendix 8.1 – Overall Constraints Plan
05b.5.24 Appendix 9.1 – Location of non-designated below ground heritage assets
05b.5.25 Appendix 9.2 – Hulton Park in relation to known prehistoric activity
05b.5.26 Appendix 9.3 – Geophysical Survey
05b.5.27 Appendix 9.4 – Location of evaluation trenches
05b.5.28 Appendix 10.1 – Phase 1 Habitat Survey
05b.5.29 Appendix 10.2 – Tree Loss
05b.5.30 Appendix 10.3 – Grassland Loss
05b.5.31 Appendix 10.4 – Hedges Lost and Retained
05b.5.32 Appendix 10.5.1 – Bat Buildings Surveyed
05b.5.33 Appendix 10.5.2 – Bat Buildings Results
05b.5.34 Appendix 10.5.3 – Bat Build Tree Results
05b.5.35 Appendix 10.5.4 – Bat Activity Results Land S of A6
05b.5.36 Appendix 10.5.5 – Bat Activity Results Land N of A6
05b.5.37 Appendix 10.6 – GVN Survey
05b.5.38 Appendix 10.7 – GCN Mitigation
05b.5.39 Appendix 10.8 – Invertebrate Sampling and Trap Locations
05b.5.40 Appendix 10.9 – Habitat Creation Areas
05b.5.41 Appendix 10.10 – Ponds Created, Enhanced, Disturbed and Lost
05b.5.42 Appendix 10.11 – Arable Land Loss
05b.5.43 Appendix 10.12 – Air Pollution 2015 N Deposition Current Baseline
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 145
Document No. Appeal Document
05b.5.44 Appendix 10.13 – Air Pollution 2026 N Deposition with development
05b.5.45 Appendix 10.14 – Air Pollution 2026 N Deposition without development
05b.5.46 Appendix 10.15 – Air Pollution 2040 N Deposition wit development
05b.5.47 Appendix 10.16 – Air Pollution 2040 N Deposition without development
05b.5.48 Appendix 10.17 – Location Context
05b.5.49 Appendix 10.18 – Ancient Woodland
05b.5.50 Appendix 11.1 – Study Area
05b.5.51 Appendix 12.1 – Construction Dust Study Area
05b.5.52 Appendix 12.2 – Road Traffic Study Area
05b.5.53 Appendix 12.3 – Diffusion Tube Monitoring Locations
05b.5.54 Appendix 12.4 – Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.55 Appendix 12.4a – Existing Sensitive Receptor Location Detail
05b.5.56 Appendix 12.5 – Location of the AQMA
05b.5.57 Appendix 12.6 – BMBC and WMBC Diffusion Tube Monitoring Location
05b.5.58 Appendix 12.7 – 1KM Grid Square References
05b.5.59 Appendix 12.8 – 2018 Baseline N02 Concentrations
05b.5.60 Appendix 12.9 – 2026 Baseline N02 Concentrations
05b.5.61 Appendix 12.10 – 2040 Baseline N02 Concentrations
05b.5.62 Appendix 12.11 – 2018 Construction NO2 Concentrations
05b.5.63 Appendix 12.11a – 2018 Construction NO2 Concentrations – Four Ends Lane
05b.5.64 Appendix 12.12 – 2026 Platforms Construction NO2 Concentrations
05b.5.65 Appendix 12.13 – 2026 Infrastructure Constructions NO2 Concentrations
05b.5.66 Appendix 12.14 – 2040 with NO2 Concentrations
05b.5.67 Appendix 12.15 – 2026 With Development NO2 Concentrations
05b.5.68 Appendix 12.16 – 2026 Decommissioning Construction NO2 Concentrations
05b.5.69 Appendix 13.1 – Study Area
05b.5.70 Appendix 13.2 – Noise monitoring locations
05b.5.71 Appendix 13.3 – Construction Noise Assessment – Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.72 Appendix 13.4 – Operational Noise Assessment - Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.73 Appendix 13.5 – Road Traffic Noise - Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.74 Appendix 13.5a – Road Traffic Noise - Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.75 Appendix 13.5b – Road Traffic Noise - Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.76 Appendix 13.5c – Road Traffic Noise - Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.77 Appendix 13.5d – Road Traffic Noise - Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.78 Appendix 13.6 – Road Traffic Noise - Sensitive Receptor Locations
05b.5.79 Appendix 13.7 – Future baseline noise levels (2026)
05b.5.80 Appendix 13.8 – Contour Map of Road Traffic Assessment –Full development
including link road (2040) – Results
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 146
Document No. Appeal Document
05b.5.81 Appendix 13.9 – Contour Map of Road Traffic Assessment –Operation of Ryder
Cup (2026) – Results
05b.5.82 Appendix 13.10 – Contour Map of Road Traffic Assessment Operation of Ryder
Cup (2026) Results
Appendix 13.11 – Contour Map Showing Difference Between Ryder Cup (2026)
05b.5.83
and Do Minimum (2026)
05b.5.84
Appendix 13.12 – Mitigation for BS4142
05b.5.85
Appendix 15.1 – Water Receptors
05b.6 Environmental Statement Volume 4: Technical Appendices (May 2017), prepared
by various
05b.6.1 Appendix 3.1a – Hulton Park Conservation Plan Volume 1: An Assessment of the
Heritage Significance
05b.6.2 Appendix 3.1b – Hulton Park Conservation Plan Volume 2: Conservation Strategy
05b.6.3 Appendix 3.2 – Lighting Impact Assessment
05b.6.4 Appendix 3.3 – Interim Event and Travel Management Plan (IE&TMP)
05b.6.5 Appendix 4.1 – Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion
05b.6.6 Appendix 4.2 – Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion: Consultee Response
Review
05b.6.7 Appendix 7.1 – Landscape and Visual Assessment Tables
05b.6.9 Appendix 8.1 – Heritage Impact Assessment
05b.6.10 Appendix 8.2 – Historic Structures Condition and Repair Issues
05b.6.11 Appendix 8.3 – Hulton Park Existing Masonry Wall
05b.6.12 Appendix 9.1 – Archaeological Desk Based Assessment for Hulton Park
05b.6.13 Appendix 9.2 – Geophysical Survey Report for Hulton Park
05b.6.14 Appendix 10.1.1 – Desk Based Ecology Assessment
05b.6.15 Appendix 10.1.2 – Arboricultural Desk Study
05b.6.16 Appendix 10.2.1 – Phase 1 Habitat Survey, South of A6
05b.6.17 Appendix 10.2.2 – Phase 1 Habitat Survey, North of A6
05b.6.18 Appendix 10.3 – Tree Survey/Arboricultural Implication Assessment
05b.6.19 Appendix 10.4 – Mycology (Fungi) Report
05b.6.20 Appendix 10.5.1 – Bat Roost Overview
05b.6.21a Appendix 10.5.2 – Bat Survey 2015 Results
05b.6.21b Appendix 10.5.3 – Bat Inspection Survey Report – Hulton Cottage
05b.6.22 Appendix 10.5.4 – Bat Hibernation Survey Report
05b.6.23 Appendix 10.5.5 – Bat Roost Survey Report 2016
05b.6.24 Appendix 10.5.6 – Bat Tree Assessment Schedule
05b.6.25 Appendix 10.5.7 – Bat Activity Survey Report 2016
05b.6.26 Appendix 10.5.8 – Bat Impact Assessment: Construction Phase Scenario 1
05b.6.27 Appendix 10.6 – Breeding Bird Survey
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 147
Document No. Appeal Document
05b.6.28 Appendix 10.7 – Great Crested Newt Survey
05b.6.29 Appendix 10.8 – Invertebrate Assessment
05b.6.30 Appendix 10.9 – Inter Project Cumulative Assessment
05b.6.31 Appendix 10.10 – CONFIDENTIAL Badger Desktop Records
05b.6.32 Appendix 11.1 – Transport Assessment
05b.6.33 Appendix 11.2 – Committed Development Details
05b.6.34 Appendix 12.1 – Consultation document - BMBC
05b.6.35 Appendix 12.2 – Consultation document - WMBC
05b.6.36 Appendix 12.3 – ADMS Inputs
05b.6.37 Appendix 12.4 – Dust Risk Assessment – Construction of Development Including
Off-Site Improvement Works (2018)
05b.6.38 Appendix 12.5 – Dust Risk Assessment – 2026 Ryder Cup Construction
05b.6.39 Appendix 12.6 – Dust Risk Assessment – 2026 Ryder Cup Decommissioning
05b.6.40 Appendix 13.1 – Consultation document for Bolton MBC
05b.6.41 Appendix 13.2 – Consultation document for Wigan MBC
05b.6.42 Appendix 13.3 – Noise measurement methodology
05b.6.43 Appendix 13.4 – Construction Noise Assessment - Calculation Methodology
05b.6.44 Appendix 13.5 – CadnaA inputs
05b.6.45 Appendix 13.6 – BS4142;2014 Assessment Data
05b.6.46 Appendix 13.7 – Road traffic Assessment Results
05b.6.47 Appendix 14.1 – Phase 1 Desk Study Report (ref: 60484817/MNGEO/RP/001)
Date: April 2015
05b.6.48 Appendix 14.2 – Mining Assessment Report
05b.6.49 Appendix 14.3 – Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Desk Study
05b.6.50 Appendix 14.4 – Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Ground Investigation
05b.6.51 Appendix 14.5 – Minerals Safeguarding Report
05b.6.52 Appendix 14.6 – Golf Academy Area, Ground Investigation Report
05b.6.53 Appendix 14.7 – Lake Sediment Technical Note
05b.6.54 Appendix 14.8 – TS Link Road
05b.6.55 Appendix 15.1 – Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy
05b.6.56 Appendix 15.2 – Mill Dam Stream Hydromorphological Desk Study and Site
Survey
05b.6.57 Appendix 15.3 – Mill Damn Stream, Ornamental and Back O’ Th’ Woods
(‘Upper’) Lake Investigation and Monitoring Report
05b.6.58 Appendix 15.4 – Preliminary Water Framework Directive (WFD) Compliance
Assessment
05b.6.59 Appendix 15.5 – Drainage Strategy Report
05b.6.60 Appendix 15.6 – EA Letter
05b.6.61 Appendix 16.1 – EKOSGEN Economic Impact Report
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 148
Document No. Appeal Document
06a Copies of all application plans and supporting documents submitted post-
validation and pre-determination by BMBC (May – December 2017)
06a.1 Hulton Park Golf Course Masterplan
*Submitted 20 June 2016
06a.2 Landscape Masterplan Site Wide (Full Development)
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_103 Revision E]
*Submitted 12 July 2017
06a.3 Illustrative Masterplan [Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_100 Issue N]
*Submitted 12 July 2017
06a.5 Biodiversity Impact Assessment Report, prepared by The Environment Bank
(July 2017) [Document Ref. EB3072-A2]
*Submitted 19 July 2017
06a.5 Hulton Trail Proposals
06a.5.1 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 1 [Drawing Ref. 507C 08 Rev B]
06a.5.2 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 2 [Drawing Ref. 507C 09 Rev B]
06a.5.3 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 3 [Drawing Ref. 507C 10 Rev B]
06a.5.4 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 4 [Drawing Ref. 507C 11 Rev B]
06a.5.5 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 5 [Drawing Ref. 507C 12 Rev B]
*Submitted 19 July 2017
06a.6 Drainage
06a.6.1 Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00117 Rev E]
06a.6.2 Academy Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00108 Rev P2]
06a.6.3 Clubhouse Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00107 Rev P2]
06a.6.4 Hotel / Car Park General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00105 Rev P3]
06a.6.5 Maintenance Building General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00106 Revi P2]
*Submitted 03 October 2017
06a.7 Section 106 Supporting Document: M61 J5 Mitigation Scheme [Drawing Ref.
ITM10187-SK-192 Rev C]
06a.8 Updated Hulton Park Flood Risk Assessment (Version 002, September 2017)
06a.9 Development Appraisal, prepared by Cushman & Wakefield (September 2017)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 149
Document No. Appeal Document
*Document dated 18 September 2019 due to date file saved as PDF
06b Copies of all application plans and supporting documents submitted post-
validation and pre-determination by BMBC (Submitted 12 January 2018)
06b.1 Revised Design and Access Statement, prepared by Land Use Consultants, Leach
Rhodes Walker, Calder Peel, and European Golf Design
(Version 6.1, January 2018)
06b.2 Revised Residential Design Code, prepared by Calder Peel, comprising:
06b.2.1 Revised Character Area 5: Park End Farm (January 2018)
06b.2.2 Revised Character Area 6: Dearden's Park (January 2018)
06b.3 Revised Conservation Plan, prepared by Land Use Consultants, comprising:
06b.3.1 Revised Volume 1: An Assessment of the Heritage Significance (January 2018)
06b.3.2 Revised Volume 2: Conservation Strategy (January 2018)
06b.4 Revised Travel Plan Golf Resort, prepared by i-Transport (December 2017)
[Document Ref. VACE/SEE/dc/ITM10187-015 C]
06b.5 Revised Interim Event and Travel Management Plan, prepared by i-Transport
(January 2018)
[Document Ref. SEE/dc/ITM10187 – 016E]
06b.6 Landscape Masterplan Site Wide (Full Development)
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_103 Revision H]
06b.7 Illustrative Masterplan [Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_100 Issue Q]
06b.8 Parameters Plan [Drawing Ref. 15191 (Pl) 500 U]
06b.9 The Golf Course
06b.9.1 Golf Grading Overview [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.01 Rev H]
06b.9.2 Golf Grading 1 of 3 [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.02 Rev C]
06b.9.3 Golf Grading 2 of 3 [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.03 Rev B]
06b.9.4 Golf Grading 3 of 3 [Drawing Ref. 1263.405.04 Rev B]
06b.9.5 Golf Grading Analysis [Drawing Ref. 1263.415.01 Rev G]
06b.9.6 General Arrangement Overview Plan
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_200 Issue B]
06b.9.7 General Arrangement Plans Site Wide, Drawings 1 to 19
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_201 to 219 Issue E]
06b.9.8 Detailed Area; Golf and Academy Entrance
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-231 Issue B]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 150
Document No. Appeal Document
06b.10 The Clubhouse
06b.10.1 Clubhouse Lower Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan
[Drawing Ref. L(20)24A]
06b.10.2 Clubhouse Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)25A]
06b.10.3 Clubhouse Roof General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)26A]
06b.10.4 Clubhouse General Arrangement Elevations [Drawing Ref. L(20)32A]
06b.10.5 Clubhouse Section A-A [Drawing Ref. L(20)15A]
06b.10.6 Clubhouse Views, Sheet 1 [Drawing Ref. L(20)33A]
06b.10.7 Clubhouse Views, Sheet 2 [Drawing Ref. L(20)34A]
06b.11 The Academy
06b.11.1 Academy Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)27A]
06b.11.2 Academy Roof General Arrangement Plan [Drawing Ref. L(20)28B]
06b.11.3 Academy General Arrangement Elevations [Drawing Ref. L(20)29B]
06b.11.4 Academy Sections A-A B-B C-C [Drawing Ref. L(20)19A]
06b.11.5 Academy views, Sheet 1 [Drawing Ref. L(20)30B]
06b.11.6 Academy views, Sheet 2 [Drawing Ref. L(20)31B]
06b.12 Landscape
06b.12.1 Illustrative Landscape Masterplan; Academy & Clubhouse
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-102 Revision D]
06b.12.2 Detailed Area; Clubhouse [Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-229 Rev E]
06b.12.3 Detailed Area; Golf Academy [Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-230 Rev E]
06b.13 Hulton Trail Proposals
06b.13.1 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 1 [Drawing Ref. 507C 08 Rev C]
06b.13.2 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 2 [Drawing Ref. 507C 09 Rev C]
06b.13.3 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 3 [Drawing Ref. 507C 10 Rev C]
06b.13. 4 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 4 [Drawing Ref. 507C 11 Rev C]
06b.13.5 Hulton Trail Proposals Plan 5 [Drawing Ref. 507C 12 Rev C]
06b.14 Residential Development
06b.14.1 Illustrative Masterplan for Dearden’s Farm [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 002 K]
06b.14.2 Illustrative Masterplan for Park End [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 005 M]
06b.14.3 Illustrative Masterplan for Western Fields 1 [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 003 N]
06b.14.4 Illustrative Masterplan for Western Fields 2 [Drawing Ref. 15191 (PL) 004 K]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 151
Document No. Appeal Document
06b.15 Drainage
06b.15.1 Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00117 Rev F]
06b.15.2 Academy Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00108 Rev P3]
06b.15.3 Clubhouse Drainage General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00107 Rev P3]
06b.15.4 Hotel / Car Park General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00105 Rev P4]
06b.15.5 Maintenance Building General Arrangement
[Drawing Ref. PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00106 Rev P3]
06b.16 Hulton Trail: Access Restrictions Proposals [Drawing Ref. 507C-13 Revision A]
06b.17 Academy Entrance Visual [Drawing Ref. L(20)35]
06b.18 Clubhouse Entrance Visual [Drawing Ref. L(20)36]
06b.19 Clubhouse Rear Visual [Drawing Ref. L(20)37]
06b.20 Outline Construction and Environment Management Plan (January 2018)
06b.21 Interim Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (January 2018)
06c Environmental Statement Addendum (January 2018)
06c.1 Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 1A: Non-Technical Summary,
prepared by various
06c.2 Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 2A: Technical Assessment,
prepared by various
Chapter A: Introduction to the ES Addendum (Turley)
Chapter 1: Introduction (Turley)
Chapter 2: Site Location and Description (Turley)
Chapter 3: Project Description (Turley)
Chapter 4: Response to Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion (Turley)
Chapter 5: EIA Methodology (Turley)
Chapter 6: Consideration of Alternatives (Turley)
Chapter 7: Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (Land Use Consultants)
Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage (Peter de Figueiredo)
Chapter 9: Archaeology (Salford Archaeology)
Chapter 10: Ecology and Arboriculture (TEP)
Chapter 11: Traffic and Transportation (i-Transport)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 152
Document No. Appeal Document
Chapter 12: Air Quality (Miller Goodall)
Chapter 13: Noise (Miller Goodall)
Chapter 14: Geology, Soils and Contamination (Aecom)
Chapter 15: Water Environment (Aecom)
Chapter 16: Socio-Economics (Turley)
Chapter 17: Environmental Management and Conclusions (Turley)
06c.3 Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 3aA: LVIA figures, prepared by
Land Use Consultants
06c.3.1
06c.3.2 Overview of LVIA Figures ES Addendum Changes
06c.3.3 Appendix 7.18(a) HVP08 Northern Entrance
06c.3.4 Appendix 7.21(a) HPV11 Western of the Park
06c.3.5 Appendix 7.27(a) VP02 A6 Entrance
06c.3.6 Appendix 7.37 (a) VP12 Footpath WES211 Punch Lane
[Document Ref. 20171214]
Appendix 7.38 (a) VP13 Pretoria Pit Memorial Broadway
[Document Ref. 20180108]
*All other Appendices remain unchanged from original ES
06c.4 Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 3bA: Other Assessment Figures,
prepared by various
06c.4.0
06c.4.1 Overview of Other Assessment Figures ES Addendum List
06c.4.2 Appendix 3.1(a) – Project Illustrative Masterplan
06c.4.3 Appendix 3.4(a) – Cut and Fill / Grading Plan
06c.4.4 Appendix 3.5(a) – Location of Proposed Bridges
06c.4.5 Appendix 3.13(a) – Hulton Trail (Comprising 6 Plans)
06c.4.6 Appendix 3.14(a) – Residential Parameters Plan
06c.4.7 Appendix 3.15 – Potential Offsite Woodland Planting and Management Area
Appendix 3.16 – Drainage Infrastructure (comprising 5 plans)
06c.4.8
06c.4.9 Appendix 10.1(a) – Phase 1 Habitat Survey
06c.4.10 Appendix 10.2(a) – Tree Loss
06c.4.11 Appendix 10.3(a) – Grassland Loss
06c.4.12 Appendix 10.6(a) – GVN Survey
06c.4.13 Appendix 10.7(a) – GCN Mitigation
06c.4.14 Appendix 10.9(a) – Habitat Creation Areas
06c.4.15 Appendix 10.10(a) – Ponds Created, Enhanced, Disturbed and Lost
06c.4.16 Appendix 10.13(a) – Air Pollution 2026 N Deposition with development
06c.4.17 Appendix 10.14(a) – Air Pollution 2026 N Deposition without development
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 153
Document No. Appeal Document
06c.4.18 Appendix 10.15(a) – Air Pollution 2040 N Deposition with development
06c.4.19 Appendix 10.16(a) – Air Pollution 2040 N Deposition without development
06c.4.20 Appendix 12.9(a) – 2026 Baseline N02 Concentrations
06c.4.21 Appendix 12.10(a) – 2040 Baseline N02 Concentrations
06c.4.22 Appendix 12.14(a) – 2040 with N02 Concentrations
Appendix 12.15(a) – 2026 with Development N02 Concentrations
*All other Appendices remain unchanged from original ES
06c.5 Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 4A: Technical Appendices,
prepared by various
06c.5.0 Overview of Technical Appendices ES Addendum List
06c.5.1 Appendix 3.1a (a) – Hulton Park Conservation Plan Volume 1: An Assessment of
the Heritage Significance
06c.5.2
Appendix 3.1b (a) – Hulton Park Conservation Plan Volume 2: Conservation
06c.5.3
Strategy
06c.5.4
Appendix 3.3(a) – Interim Event and Travel Management Plan (IE&TMP)
06c.5.5
Appendix 7.1(a) – Landscape and Visual Assessment Tables
06c.5.6
Appendix 9.3 – Historic Buildings Gazetter
06c.5.7
Appendix 10.2.1(a) – Phase 1 Habitat Survey, South of A6
06c.5.8
Appendix 10.3(a) – Tree Survey/Arboricultural Implication Assessment
06c.5.9
Appendix 10.11 – Breeding Bird Survey – survey completed north of A6 in 2017
06c.5.10
Appendix 10.12 – GMEU Consultation Response August 2017
06c.5.11
Appendix 10.13 – Potential Offsite Woodland Planting and Management Area
06c.5.12
(Gorse Wood)
06c.5.13
Appendix 12.3(a) – ADMIS Inputs
06c.5.14
Appendix 14.9 – Outline Lake De-Silting Feasibility Study and Strategy
Appendix 15.1(a) – Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy
Appendix 15.4(a) – Preliminary Water Framework Directive (WFD) Compliance
Assessment
*All other Appendices remain unchanged from original ES
06d Copies of all application plans and supporting documents submitted post-
validation and pre-determination by BMBC (Submitted February 2018)
06d.1 Golf Course
06d.1.1 General Arrangement Plans Site Wide, Drawing 4 of 19
[Drawing Ref. LUC_6628_LD_PLN_204 Rev F]
06d.1.2 Detailed Area; Golf and Academy Entrance
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-231 Rev C]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 154
Document No. Appeal Document
*Submitted 05 February 2018
06d.2 Academy
06d.2.1 Academy views, Sheet 1 [Drawing Ref. L(20)30C]
06d.2.2 Academy views, Sheet 2 [Drawing Ref. L(20)31C]
*Submitted 05 February 2018
06d.3 Landscape
06d.3.1 Illustrative Landscape Masterplan; Academy & Clubhouse
[Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-102 Issue E]
*Submitted 05 February 2018
06d.3.2 Detailed Area; Clubhouse [Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-229 Issue F]
*Submitted 06 February 2018
06d.3.3 Detailed Area; Golf Academy [Drawing Ref. LUC-6628-LD-PLN-230 Issue F]
*Submitted 05 February 2018
06d.4 Academy Entrance Visual [Drawing Ref. L(20)35A]
*Submitted 09 February 2018
06d.5 Revised Travel Plan Golf Resort, prepared by i-Transport (February 2018)
[Document Ref. VACE/SEE/dc/ITM10187-015 D]
*Submitted 08 February 2018
06d.6 Revised BREEAM and Sustainability, prepared by Sustainable Assessments
Limited (Revision C, February 2018)
*Submitted 15 February 2018
07a Additional plans and documents submitted during the call-in inquiry process
(Submitted 08 May 2019)
07a.0 Summary of Changes to Application Documents
07a.1 Updated Design and Access Statement, prepared by Land Use Consultants
(Version 7, April 2019)
07a.2 Updated Travel Plan – Residential, prepared by i-Transport (April 2019)
[Document Ref. VACE/SEE/dc/ITM10187-013B]
07a.3 Updated Travel Plan – Golf Resort, prepared by i-Transport (April 2019)
[Document Ref. VACE/SEE/dc/ITM10187-015B]
07a.4 Updated Outline Construction and Environmental Management Plan, prepared
by Turley (April 2019)
07a.5 Updated Interim Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, prepared by TEP
(April 2019)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 155
Document No. Appeal Document
07a.6 Hulton Park Trail: 507C-13 Rev A (New Additional Plan)
07b Supplemental Environmental Statement (Submitted 08 May 2019)
07b.1 Supplemental Environmental Statement Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary
(April 2019)
07b.2 Supplemental Environmental Statement Volume 2: Environmental Assessment
(April 2019)
Chapter 1: Introduction (Turley)
Chapter 2: Site Location and Description (Turley)
Chapter 3: Project Description (Turley)
Chapter 4: Response to Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion (Turley)
Chapter 5: EIA Methodology (Turley)
Chapter 6: Consideration of Alternatives (Turley)
Chapter 7: Supplemental Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (Land Use
Consultants)
Chapter 8: Supplemental Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (Peter de
Figueiredo)
Chapter 9: Supplemental Archaeology Assessment (Salford Archaeology)
Chapter 10: Supplemental Ecology and Arboriculture Assessment (TEP)
Chapter 11: Supplemental Traffic and Transportation Assessment (i-Transport)
Chapter 12: Supplemental Air Quality Assessment (Miller Goodall)
Chapter 13: Supplemental Noise Assessment (Miller Goodall)
Chapter 14: Supplemental Geology, Soils and Contamination Assessment
(Aecom)
Chapter 15: Supplemental Water Environment Assessment (Aecom)
Chapter 16: Supplemental Socio-Economics Assessment (Turley)
Chapter 17: Supplemental Environmental Management and Conclusions (Turley)
07b.3 Supplemental Environmental Statement Volume 3a: Landscape Figures
(April 2019)
*All Appendices remain unchanged from original ES and/or ES Addendum
07b.4 Supplemental Environmental Statement Volume 3b: Other Assessment Figures
(April 2019)
07b.4.1 Appendix 5.1(a) – Updated Location of Other Major Projects
07b.4.2 Appendix 12.8(a) – 12.16(a) – Updated Air Quality Figures
07b.4.3 Appendix 12.17 – 12.22 – New Air Quality Figures
07b.4.4 Appendix 13.11(a) – Updated Noise Contour Map
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 156
Document No. Appeal Document
*All other Appendices remain unchanged from original ES and/or ES Addendum
07b.5 Supplemental Environmental Statement Volume 4B: Technical Appendices
(April 2019)
07b.5.1 Appendix 3.1a (b) – Updated Conservation Plan Volume 1
07b.5.2 Appendix 3.1b (b) – Updated Conservation Plan Volume 2
07b.5.3 Appendix 3.2(b) – Updated Lighting Impact Assessment
07b.5.4 Appendix 3.3(b) – Updated Interim Event and Travel Management Plan
[Document ref. SEE/dc/ITM10187-016G]
07b.5.5 Appendix 3.4 – Updated Chapter 3 of the ES Addendum Jan 2018
07b.5.6 Appendix 7.1 (b) – Updated Landscape and Visual Assessment Tables
07b.5.7 Appendix 8.1 (a) – Updated Heritage Impact Assessment
07b.5.8 Appendix 11.1 – Consolidated Transport Assessment, prepared by i-Transport
[Document Ref. SEE/VACE/dc/ITM10187-012H]
07b.5.9 Appendix 12.3 (a) – Updated Air Quality ADMS Inputs
07b.5.10 Appendix 13.5a – Updated CadnaA Inputs
07b.5.11 Appendix 13.7a – Updated Road traffic Assessment Results
*All other Appendices remain unchanged from original ES and/or ES Addendum
07c Additional plans and documents submitted during the call-in inquiry process
(July – August 2019)
07c.1 Updated Financial Viability Assessment, prepared by Cushman & Wakefield (July
2019)
07c.2 Four Lane Ends Mitigation Scheme Newbrook Road / A6 Manchester Road / St
Helens Road / A6 Salford Road [Drawing Ref. ITM10187-SK-194 Rev D]
07c.3 Hotel General Arrangement Elevations North & South Ref L(20)08A
07c.4 Hotel General Arrangement Elevations East & West Ref L(20)09A
07c.5 Hotel Sections A-A B-B Ref L(20)10A
07c.6 Updated Design and Access Statement (Version 8, July 2019)
08 A list of all plans, drawing and documents (stating drawing/document
references, revision numbers and submission dates)
08.1 List of all plans, drawing and documents (stating drawing/document references,
revision numbers and submission dates) (Dated 06/08/19)
09 Consultation Responses
09.1 Statutory Consultee Responses
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 157
Document No. Appeal Document
09.2 Summary of Third Party Consultation Responses (including consultation
responses), prepared by Turley (June 2019)
09.3 Supplemental Environmental Statement and Updated Documents Consultation
Statement (including consultation responses), prepared by Turley (July 2019)
*Submitted to BMBC, Planning Inspectorate & HEART 16 July 2019
09.4 Letters of Support for Hulton Park Proposals, comprising letters from:
09.4.1 Greater Manchester Combined Authority (dated 09 May 2018)
09.4.2 Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership (dated 26 April 2018)
09.4.3 Wigan Council (dated 07 February 2018)
09.4.4 Market Manchester (dated 30 April 2018)
09.4.5 Manchester Inward Investment Agency (dated 24 April 2018)
09.4.6 Confederation of British Industry North West (dated 10 June 2019)
09.4.7 The University of Bolton (dated 26 April 2018)
09.4.8 England Golf (dated 13 February 2018)
09.4.9 Sport England (dated 26 January 2018)
09.4.10 The Golf Foundation (dated 04 June 2019)
09.4.11 Greater Sport (dated 03 May 2018)
09.4.12 North West Business Leadership Team (dated 06 August 2019)
09.4.13 The University of Manchester (dated 13 August 2019)
10 Key Correspondence
10.1 Bolton Council Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion Letter
(Dated 16 January 2017)
10.2 Secretary of State ‘Call-in’ Letter, Planning Casework Unit, MHCLG
(Dated 31 July 2018)
10.3 Bespoke timetable for the Public Inquiry
10.4 Letter from Planning Inspectorate (Helen Skinner) confirming HEART Rule 6
Status (Dated 19 October 2018)
10.5 Applicant letter notifying BMBC of Supplemental and Updated Documents
Consultation (Dated 08 May 2019)
10.6 Applicant letter notifying PINS of Supplemental and Updated Documents
Consultation (Dated 08 May 2019)
10.7 Campaign to Protect Rural England Lancashire letter in response to Application
(Dated 27 July 2017)
10.8 Campaign to Protect Rural England Lancashire letter in response to call in (Dated
26 March 2018)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 158
Document No. Appeal Document
10.9 Campaign to Protect Rural England Lancashire letter to Secretary of State
requesting a Call-in (Dated 20 October 2018)
10.10 Applicant letter notifying BMBC of Amendments to Hotel Plans (Dated 06 August
2019)
10.11 Applicant letter notifying PINS of Amendments to Hotel Plans (Dated 06 August
2019)
10.12 Applicant letter notifying HEART of Amendments to Hotel Plans (Dated 06
August 2019)
11 Policy Documents
11.1 Bolton’s Local Plan Local Development Scheme, April 2019
11.2 The Bolton Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011)
11.3 The Bolton Allocations Plan (Adopted December 2014)
11.4 Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan (Adopted April 2013)
11.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
11.6 Relevant extracts of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), comprising:
11.6.1 Appeals (Published March 2014)
11.6.2 Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Updated September 2018)
11.6.3 Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (Updated February 2019)
11.6.4 Viability (Updated May 2019)
11.6.5 Historic Environment (Updated July 2019)
11.6.6 Natural Environment (Updated July 2019)
11.6.7 Green Belt (Updated July 2019)
11.7 Bolton Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (February 2013)
11.8 Bolton Accessibility, Transport and Road Safety Supplementary Planning
Document (October 2013)
11.9 Bolton General Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2015)
11.10 Bolton Infrastructure and Planning Contributions Supplementary Planning
Document (July 2015)
11.11 Bolton Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document
(October 2016)
11.12 The Bolton Economy: Our Strategy for Growth 2016-2030 (Bolton Council, 2016)
11.13 Emerging Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (Consultation Draft January
2019)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 159
Document No. Appeal Document
11.14 Golf in Historic Landscapes – The Planning System and Related Guide (English
Heritage, 2007)
11.15 Golf in Historic Parks and Landscapes – Understanding Historic Park Designs
(English Heritage, 2008)
11.16 Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places (English
Heritage, 2012)
11.17 Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2, Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in
the Historic Environment (Historic England, March 2015)
11.18 Advisory Note on the Reconstruction of Heritage Assets – Consultation Draft
(Historic England, 2016)
11.19 Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3, The Setting of Heritage Assets (Second
Edition) (Historic England, December 2017)
11.20 Historic England Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, Historic England (2008)
11.21 The Planning System in England and the Protection of Historic Parks and Gardens
(The Gardens Trust, 2016)
11.22 The Greater Manchester Strategy, comprising
11.22.1 Stronger Together: The Greater Manchester Strategy (GMCA and AGMA, 2013)
11.22.2 Our People, Our Place: The Greater Manchester Strategy (GMCA (GMCA, 2017)
11.23 Greater Manchester Housing Strategy 2019 - 2024 (GMCA, April 2019)
11.24 The Greater Manchester Strategy for the Visitor Economy 2014 – 2020
(Marketing Manchester, 2014)
11.25 Greater Manchester Moving, comprising:
11.25.1 The Blueprint for Physical Activity and Sport in Greater Manchester (June 2015)
11.25.2 #GMMoving – The Plan for Physical Activity and Sport 2017-21
11.26 Northern Powerhouse Strategy (HM Treasury, November 2016)
11.27 Building more homes, House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs
(July 2016)
11.28 Autumn Budget 2017, HM Treasury (November 2017)
11.29 Fixing our broken housing market, Department for Communities and Local
Government (February 2017)
11.30 Economic value of sport in England, Sport England (July 2013)
11.31 Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation (HM Government, Cabinet
Office, December 2015)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 160
Document No. Appeal Document
11.32 Sporting Future: First Annual Report (HM Government, Cabinet Office, February
2017)
11.33 Sporting Future: Second Annual Report (HM Government, Cabinet Office,
January 2018)
11.34 Sporting Future Annual Report 2019: Written statement - HCWS1311
(HM Government, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 07 February
2019)
11.35 Transcript of Speech by Mims Davies (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Sport and Civil Society) at UK Sport’s Future Funding Strategy Launch (Delivered
12 February 2019)
11.36 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 1:
Course Layout and Density, 2007
11.37 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 2:
Landform, 2007
11.38 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 3:
Buildings, Car Parks and Circulation, 2007
11.39 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 4:
Trees and New Planting, 2007
11.40 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 5:
Furniture, Paths and Lighting, 2007
11.41 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 6:
Bunkers, 2007
11.42 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 7:
Grassland Management, 2007
11.43 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 8:
Water Bodies and Irrigation, 2007
11.44 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 9:
Landscape Management, 2007
11.45 Historic England: Golf in historic parks and landscapes: Detailed Guideline 10:
The wider historic landscape character, 2007
11.46 Historic England The Setting of Heritage Assets (consultation draft 2017)
11.47 Historic England Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, Historic England
(consultation draft 2017)
11.48 Planning for Sport Guidance, Sport England (June 2019)
11.49 Tourism Sector Deal, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (28 June 2019)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 161
Document No. Appeal Document
11.50 Industrial Strategy – Building a Britain fit for the Future, HM Government
(November 2017)
11.51 Bolton 2030 – A Vision for Bolton’s Future, Vision Summary (Bolton Vision
Partnership, July 2017)
11.52 Greater Manchester Local Industrial Strategy (June 2019)
11.53 Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan
11.54 The National Adaptation Programme and the Third Strategy for Climate
Adaptation Reporting (July 2018)
11.55 Rural Landscapes – Register of Parks and Gardens Selection Guide, Third edition
(Historic England, December 2017).
11.56 Guidance on Golf in historic parks and landscapes (English Heritage, Consultation
Draft July 2005)
12 Other Documents
12.1 Report on the Examination into the Bolton Core Strategy Development Plan
Document, 17 December 2010
12.2 Bolton Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2007, Final Report, August
2008
12.3 Bolton Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Final Report 2008, prepared by
David Couttie Associates on behalf of Bolton Council, 2008
12.4 Bolton Council Brownfield Land Register December 2017
12.5 Bolton’s Authority Monitoring Report 2017/18: Volume 2 Housing Land
Requirements and Supply, Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
12.6 Bolton Housing Delivery Plan (April 2019)
12.7 GMSF Housing Topic Paper, comprising:
12.7.1 GMSF Housing Topic Paper (GMCA, January 2019)
12.7.2 Greater Manchester Housing Land Supply Statement (GMCA, January 2019)
12.8 Greater Manchester Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Greater Manchester
Combined Authority (January 2019)
12.9 Greater Manchester Green Belt Assessment: Final Report, LUC (July 2016)
12.10 Revised Draft GMSF: Representations by the Peel Group (April 2019),
comprising:
12.10.1 Paper 1: Summary of the Representations
12.10.2 Paper 2: Response to Consultation Questions
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 162
Document No. Appeal Document
12.10.3 Paper 3: Planning for Growth
12.10.4 Paper 4: Critique of the Housing Land Supply
12.10.5 Paper 5: Safeguarded Land Requirements
12.10.6 Paper 6: Critique of the Integrated Assessment
12.10.7 Paper 7: Site Specific Representations
12.10.8 Site Specific Summary Framework Documents (Hulton Park)
12.10.9 Site Specific Development Frameworks (Hulton Park)
12.11 Greater Manchester Independent Prosperity Review – Reviewers’ Report
(March, 2019)
12.12 Manchester Independent Economic Review (2009) – “Understanding Labour,
Markets, Skills and Talent”
12.13 Housing Delivery Test: 2018 Measurement, Ministry of Housing, Communities
and Local Government (19 February 2019)
12.14 Bellway Homes (Manchester Division) vs Bolton MBC [2019], Land at Bowlands
Hey / The Fairways, Westhoughton, Bolton (Appeal Ref.
APP/N4205/W/18/3207361) – Report of the Inspector
12.15 Hunston Properties Limited v (1) Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government and (2) St Albans City and District Council [2013] EWHC 2678
(September 2013) – Report of the Inspector
12.16 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v (1) Gallagher Estates Limited and (2)
Lioncourt Homes [2014] EWCA Civ 1610 (17 December 2014) – Report of the
Inspector
12.17 Homeowners’ Housing Aspirations Show Signs of Optimism (Lloyds Bank, 3
September 2016)
12.18 Glossop, C. (2008) Housing and economic development: Moving forward
together (Centre for Cities and Housing Corporation Centre for Research and
Market Intelligence)
12.19 Barker, K. (2004) Review of Housing Supply - Delivering Stability: Securing our
future housing needs (HM Treasury)
12.20 Regeneris Consulting and Oxford Economics. (2010) The role of housing in the
economy
12.21 Romer, P. (1990) Human Capital and Growth: theory and evidence. Carnegie-
Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy (32), p.251 – 286
12.22 CURDS. (2007) ‘The Economic Role of Mobile Professional and Creative Workers
and their housing and residential preferences: Evidence from North East
England’. (University of Newcastle upon Tyne)
12.23 Lee, P and Murie, A. (2004) ‘The role of housing in delivering a knowledge
economy’. Built Environment, (30), p.244 – 245
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 163
Document No. Appeal Document
12.24 Frontier Economics. (2016) Assessing the productivity benefits of improving
inter-city connectivity in Northern England - A report prepared for the National
Infrastructure Commission.
12.25 The Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (The Institution of Highways
and Transportation, 2000)
12.26 Closer to Home: Next steps in planning and devolution (Institute of Public Policy
Research, 2016)
12.27 Local Plans and the National Planning Policy Framework: Compatibility Self-
Assessment Checklist, Local Government Association Planning Advisory Service
12.28 A Landscape Character Appraisal of Bolton, October 2001
12.29 Wigan: A Landscape Character Assessment: Undulating Enclosed Farmland
Landscape Type description extract (Wigan Council, 2009)
12.30 Greater Manchester Urban Historic Landscape Characterisation Project: Bolton
District Report (2008)
12.31 Hulton Park Statement of Significance (Lancashire Gardens Trust, January 2017)
12.32 Farrer, W. & Brownbill, J (eds.) The Victoria History of the County of Lancashire
Vol 5 (1911)
12.33 Documents from Lancashire Archives, comprising:
12.33.1 DDHU/37/9 Quitclaim referring to the early park at Hulton 16 Jul 1312
12.33.2 DDHU/41/5-7 Lease, quit claim & deed of entail each referring to early park at
12.33.3 Hulton Nov 1333-April 1335
12.33.4 DDHU/ACC8410/249 Plan of Hulton Park early-19th century
12.33.5 DDHU/ACC8410/253 Plan of Hulton Park 1808
12.33.6 DDHU/acc9350/X42 Plan of Hulton Park mid-19th century
12.33.7 DDHU/ACC8410/250 Sketch of a Weir 1824
12.33.8 DDHU42/25 Bill from William Emes c.1765
Lancashire Archives DDHU Archives Calendar Hulton Family of Hulton Park 1190-
1998
12.34 Documents from Bolton Reference Library, comprising:
12.34.1 BN/ZAL/362 Rough Ground Plan at Hulton Hall Stables 16 Sept 1808
12.34.2 BN/ZAL/379 Plan of House & Demesne at Hulton Park 1772
12.34.3 BN/ZAL/1226 Plan of House & Demesne at Hulton Park 1772
12.34.4 BN/ZAL/373 Rough Plan of Wm Hulton Esq’s Demesne at Hulton 1808
12.35 Ordnance Survey County Series (25” to 1 mile):
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 164
Document No. Appeal Document
Lancashire Sheets XCIV.7; XCIV.8; XCIV.11; XCIV.12 1st, 2nd & Revised Editions
1888- 1938
12.36 Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11 2011
12.37 Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, LI & IEMA
2013
Only available in hard copy format; Rebecca Knight to provide a reference copy
during the Inquiry (as confirmed by email 19/08/19)
12.38 Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessment for Cultural World Heritage Properties,
ICOMOS 2011
12.39 Cantor, Leonard The Mediaeval Parks of England: A Gazetteer (1983)
12.40 Croston, James, County Families of Lancashire and Cheshire (1887), p.284
12.41 British Library Royal MS 18 D III f.80.
12.42 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online William Emes (1729/30-1803),
landscape designer and gardener
12.43 Chambers, J.D. & Mingay, G.E. The Agricultural Revolution 1750-1880 (1966)
Only available in hard copy format; Christopher Gallagher to provide a reference
copy during the Inquiry (as confirmed by email 16/08/19)
12.44 McDonagh, Briony A.K. Women, Enclosure and Estate Improvement in
Eighteenth-Century Northamptonshire in Rural History Vol.20,2, pp.143-162
12.45 Horn, Pamela An Eighteenth-Century Land Agent: The Career of Nathaniel Kent
(1737–1810) in The Agricultural History Review, vol. 30 (1) 1982, pp.1–16
12.46 Gallagher, C. & Ashmead Price Kedleston Hall Derbyshire: Parkland Conservation
Plan (2013)
12.46 Gallagher, C. & Ashmead Price Kedleston Hall Derbyshire: Parkland Conservation
Plan (2013)
12.47 Gallagher, C. Chirk Castle: A Survey of the Landscape (1996)
12.48 British Library Maps C.23.c.11 (1818)
12.49 British Library 2” to 1 mile ‘Outline Drawings’ Maps 176 n.89 Sheets SE 89: D3,
E3, E4, D4 (1841)
12.50 Baines, E., History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster Vol.3 (1836)
12.51 Britain from Above: EPW019351, Hulton Park, Over Hulton (1927)
12.52 Bolton and Leigh Railway Wikipedia Page -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolton_and_Leigh_Railway
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 165
Document No. Appeal Document
12.53 Durham Mining Museum Hulton Colliery Co. Ltd.
http://www.dmm.org.uk/company/h1005.htm.
12.54 Clarke, Pam The Coal Mines of Westhoughton Compiled by Pam Clarke for
Westhoughton Local History Group… p.20 (2013).
12.55 List of collieries in Lancashire since 1854 Wikipedia Page -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collieries_in_Lancashire_since_1854
12.56 Historic England The National Heritage List: Hulton Park, comprising:
12.56.1 Full Text
12.56.2 Map
12.57 Hulton Estate’s proud Scouting Legacy, The Bolton News (Vesty, H)
https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/17544483.hulton-estates-proud-
scouting-legacy/#gallery7
12.58 £8.5m for a piece of Manchester’s bloodied history, Manchester Evening News
(Thompson, D).
12.59 Historic Hulton estate is sold to property firm, The Bolton News (30/09/2010).
12.60 Semple Kerr, James The Conservation Plan (6th Edition, 2004)
12.62 European Institute of Golf Course Architects (EIGCA) & English Heritage Golf
Courses as designed landscapes of historic interest (abridged in 2007 from more
extensive report by EIGCA).
12.63 Extracts of Edgbaston Golf Club Website - https://www.edgbastongc.co.uk/ -
including ‘Home’ and ‘Course’ page.
12.64 Bolton Council Cabinet Report on the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF)
Development of Business Case (Dated 21 January 2019)
12.65 Appeal Decision APP/N4205/W/18/3212602, Land at Eldercot Road, Bolton,
Report of the Inspector
12.66 Parkhurst Road v SSCLG & LBI, Judgement by Mr Justice Holgate (Case No.
CO/3528/2017), 27th April 2018
12.67 How a war of words over housing erupted between the mayor and ministers,
Manchester Evening News. (Williams, J).
12.68 ‘Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance’,
MHCLG, October 2018
12.69 ‘Government response to the technical consultation on updates to national
planning policy and guidance’, MHCLG, February 2019
12.70 The Cherkley Campaign Ltd v. Mole Valley DC Case, comprising:
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 166
Document No. Appeal Document
12.70.1 Cherkley Campaign Case – Summary
12.70.2 Cherkley Campaign Case – Full Case Report
12.70.3 Cherkley Campaign Case – Full Official Transcript
12.71 Why Greater Manchester's long-term housebuilding plan could be delayed YET
AGAIN, Manchester Evening News, 23 July 2019 (Williams, J).
12.72 Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd v First Secretary of State [2006] 1 P. &
C.R. 10
12.73 Turner v SSCLG [2016] EWCA CIV 466
12.74 Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) V North Yorkshire County Council,
comprising:
12.74.1
R. (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)) v North
Yorkshire CC [2017] EWHC 442 (Admin); [2017] 3 WLUK 161 (High Court)
12.74.2
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire CC [2018] EWCA Civ
489; [2018] 3 WLUK 394 (CA)
12.75 Goodman Logistics v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 947 (Admin); [2017] 4 WLUK 510;
[2017] J.P.L. 1115
END OF CORE DOCUMENTS LIST
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 167
APPENDIX C
DOCUMENTS HANDED UP DURING THE INQUIRY
Doc 1 List of Appearances on behalf of the Applicant.
Doc 2 Notification letters dated 3 September 2019 and 12 September
2019 and list of those notified.
Doc 3 Site notice and photographs.
Doc 4 Applicant’s Opening Submission.
Doc 5 Opening Submissions on behalf of the Council.
Doc 6 Opening Submissions on behalf of Hulton Estate Area Residents
Together (HEART).
Doc 7 Hulton Park Scenario Analysis Summary Schedule and various
scenario outputs, submitted by the Applicant.
Doc 8 Draft section 106 agreement- draft dated 24 September 2019,
submitted by the Applicant.
Doc 9 Submission of Mr Garry Croft.
Doc 10 Submission of Dr Paul Richardson on behalf of Leigh Ornithological
Society.
Doc 11 Submission of Ms Elaine Taylor.
Doc 12 Submission of Troy Planning on behalf of Over Hulton
Neighbourhood Forum.
Doc 13 Submission of Mrs Sandra Hesketh.
Doc 14 Submission of Cllr Bullock.
Doc 15 Submission of Cllr Toby Hewitt.
Doc 16 Submission of Cllr Diane Parkinson.
Doc 17 Submission of Mr John Roberts.
Doc 18 Submission of Mr Phil Wood
Doc 19 Amstel Group Corporation v SoS MHCLG and North Norfolk District
Council [2018] EWHC 633 (Admin), submitted by the Applicant.
Doc 20 Note of plans supporting the evidence of Mr Francis Hesketh.
Doc 21 List of persons wishing to speak at Public Speaking Sessions on 2
October 2019 and 10 October 2019.
Doc 22 Draft section 106 agreement- draft dated 7 October 2019,
submitted by the Applicant.
Doc 23 Draft section 106 agreement- draft dated 7 October 2019 with
tracked changes, submitted by the Applicant.
Doc 24 Agreed schedule of all application plans and drawings.
Doc 25 Statement of Mr Richard Knight, submitted by the Applicant.
Doc 26 Briefing note on Over Hulton Neighbourhood Forum: Consultation
exercise May 2019, submitted by Troy Planning.
Doc 27 Email from Mr Jack Taylor, Woodland Trust to Mr Tom Popplewell
dated 6 June 2019, submitted at Inspector’s request.
Doc 28 Note on visualisations submitted on behalf of the Applicant.
Doc 29 Note on ‘The Tilted Balance’ submitted by the Council and the
Applicant.
Doc 30 Note of Alex Allen regarding historic mining maps, submitted by the
Applicant.
Doc 31 Submissions of Mr Brian Jones.
Doc 32 Submissions of Mr Graham White.
Doc 33 Submissions of Cllr Christine Wild.
Doc 34 Submissions of Miss Sylvia Fewtrell.
Doc 35 Submissions of .
Doc 36 Submissions of Ms Dorothy Syddall.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 168
Doc 37 Submissions of Mr Geoff Hamlett.
Doc 38 Submissions of Mr Michael Partington.
Doc 39 Submissions of Dr Des Brennan.
Doc 40 Submissions of Mr Peter German.
Doc 41 Submissions of Mr Barrington Upton.
Doc 42 Submissions of Mr Peter Chadwick.
Doc 43 Further submissions of Mrs Elaine Taylor.
Doc 44 Submissions of Mr Stephen Taylor.
Doc 45 Submissions of Ms Wilcox Buffey.
Doc 46 Submissions of Ms Nykola Taylor on behalf of Troy Planning.
Doc 47 Submissions of D A Dean.
Doc 48 Submissions of Mr M J Hurst.
Doc 49 Applicant’s note on the Ryder Cup Clause.
Doc 50 Statement of Common Ground Ecology and Arboriculture- Erratum.
Doc 51 Note for Inspector on Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid made by
Bolton Council.
Doc 52 Appeal Decision APP/N4205/W/15/3139219: Land at Lee Hall,
Westhoughton.
Doc 53 Clarification of Park and Ride Traffic Flows submitted by i-Transport
on behalf of the Applicant.
Doc 54 Montagu Evans Briefing Note on OS Maps dated 14 October 2019.
Doc 55 Note Regarding Existing Tenancies prepared by Mr Richard Knight
on behalf of the Applicant.
Doc 56 Briefing Note on Traffic Delays at Four Lane Ends Junction prepared
by i-Transport on behalf of the Applicant.
Doc 57 English Indices of Deprivation 2019; Mapping Resources, note
submitted by the Applicant.
Doc 58 Note on design objectives Eighteen Hole Golf Course etc, submitted
by the Applicant.
Doc 59 Corrected representation submitted by Dr Des Brennan.
Doc 60 Erratum to JC1.
Doc 61 Closing Submissions on Behalf of Hulton Estate Area Residents
Together.
Doc 62 Closing Submissions of the LPA.
Doc 63 Applicant’s Closing Submissions.
Doc 64 Executed s106 agreement dated 5 November 2019.
Doc 65 Conditions Schedule discussed at roundtable session on 16 October
2019.
Doc 66 Final amended conditions schedule submitted by Applicant on 23
October 2019.
PLANS
A Set of plans for insertion into section 106 agreement, submitted by
the Applicant.
B Various site visit plans, prepared by the Applicant and agreed by all
parties.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 169
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN THE EVENT THAT PLANNING PERMISSION
IS GRANTED
General Conditions applying to all parts of the development
1) The development hereby approved shall not be begun until a phasing
scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The phasing scheme shall identify the proposed phasing
of the development hereby approved, including the following:
• the Golf Resort development;
• the residential development;
• the phased implementation and opening of the Hulton Trail; and
• the heritage restoration works across the site.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved phasing scheme.
2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the objectives, parameters, works, commitments and other relevant details
set out in the following approved plans and documents:
• Site Location Plan (dated 28:03:17);
• Updated Conservation Plan Volume 2: Conservation Strategy
(May 2019), including the provisions for regular monitoring and
review;
• Public Right of Way Strategy (Version 4.0, May 2017; 6628-LD-
REP-800);
• Crime Impact Statement (February 2017); and
• Updated Design and Access Statement (Version 8, July 2019).
3) That part of the development hereby approved in full, as defined on
drawing “LUC-6628- LD-PLN-000 Issue E” (hereafter referred to as the
“Golf Resort Development”), shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this planning permission.
4) No phase of the development hereby approved in outline (hereafter
referred to as the “Residential Development”) the extent of which is defined
on drawing “LUC-6628-LD-PLN-000 Issue E”), shall be begun until details of
all of the reserved matters for that phase (appearance, landscaping, layout,
scale and access (in part)) have been submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority.
Applications for the approval of all reserved matters in respect of the first
phase of the Residential Development shall be submitted no later than
three years from the date of this permission. Applications for the approval
of reserved matters for all other phases of the Residential Development
shall be submitted no later than eighteen years from the date of this
permission.
The first phase of the Residential Development shall be begun before the
expiration of five years from the date of this planning permission or two
years of the date of the final reserved matters approval in respect of that
phase, whichever is the later. Each subsequent phase of the Residential
Development shall be begun before expiration of two years from the date of
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 170
approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved in respect of
that phase. Each phase of the Residential Development shall thereafter be
implemented in accordance with the approved reserved matters in respect
of that phase.
5) No more than 1,036 dwellings shall be constructed as part of the
Residential Development.
The Hulton Trail & Public Rights of Way
6) No more than 499 dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until the
Public Right of Way infrastructure referred to as the “Hulton Trail”, shown
on drawings “507C 08 to 12 Revision C”, has been completed and opened
to the public. The development of the residential development area referred
to in the “Updated Design and Access Statement” (Version 8, July 2019) as
“Park End Farm” shall not be begun until a specification and route in
respect of the part of the Hulton Trail which is reserved, as identified on
approved drawing “507C 12 Revision C”, has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The Hulton Trail shall
be completed in accordance with the approved details, including the
phasing scheme approved pursuant to Condition (1).
7) No phase of the Hulton Trail, as referred to in Conditions (1) and (6), shall
be begun until details of the following, in respect of that phase, have been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
i) surfacing materials; and
ii) any appropriate measures to be installed to restrict access by motor
vehicles, in broad accordance with the proposals illustrated on
approved drawing “Hulton Trail Access Restriction Proposals”
(reference: 507C 13 Revision A); and
iii) the specification for and design of public art and interpretative
material to be provided along the route of that phase (as defined by
the phasing scheme approved pursuant to Condition 1), in broad
accordance with Section 5.15 of the approved “Updated Design and
Access Statement” (Version 8, July 2019).
Each phase of the Hulton Trail shall thereafter be implemented in full in
accordance with the approved details for that phase prior to its use by
members of the public.
8) The development hereby approved shall not be begun until a scheme to
secure works to the following Public Rights of Way (PRoW) for the purposes
of providing connections to the Hulton Trail has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall
include the following:
i) Construction of a 2m-wide rolled stone path where necessary in
respect of PRoW ATH28;
ii) A new footpath connection between PRoW ATH28 and Spa Road;
iii) Construction of a 2m-wide rolled stone path where necessary in
respect of PRoW WES127;
iv) Widening of the footpath at the Greendale Road subway link to 5.5m
and associated landscape improvements;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 171
v) Installation of associated signage along Spa Road;
vi) Associated vegetation clearance, edging and drainage; and
vii) A programme for its implementation and completion prior to the
opening of the Hulton Trail.
All surfacing works shall comprise a non-slip material. The works shall
thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.
Construction management applying to all parts of the development
9) No demolition, ground works, construction works, or restoration works shall
take place outside the following hours: 0800 to 1800 hours on Mondays to
Fridays and 0900 to 1400 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no such work
on Sundays or Public or Bank Holidays.
10) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun until a
Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) in relation to
that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority. Each CEMP shall be in accordance with the “Outline
Construction Environmental and Management Plan” dated April 2019 and
include details of the following:
• Temporary boundary treatments/hoardings to be erected on all
boundaries and retained throughout the construction period of
each particular phase of development;
• Site access proposals;
• A Traffic Management Plan;
• Construction vehicle parking and workers parking;
• Operatives access;
• Off-street parking provision for the delivery of plant and
materials;
• Wheel washing facilities;
• Signage arrangements;
• Hours of construction and deliveries;
• Publicity arrangements and a permanent contact / Traffic
Manager once development works commences to deal with all
queries and authorised by the developer / contractors to act on
their behalf;
• Details of the measures to be employed to control and monitor
noise and vibration;
• Construction routes within the site; and
• Compound locations within the site.
Development of that phase shall thereafter only be carried out in
accordance with the approved CEMP for that phase.
11) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun including
any tree felling or excavation works, until details of the methods to be
employed to minimise noise disturbance during construction of that phase
have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. Those details shall include the measures detailed in “Table
13.32: Recommended Construction Phase Mitigation Measures” of Chapter
13 of the “Environmental Statement Volume 2: Environmental
Assessments” (May 2017). The approved details shall thereafter be
implemented in full prior to the commencement of any demolition or
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 172
construction works and shall be retained throughout the demolition and
construction periods.
12) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun until a
scheme for the management of dust or windblown material associated with
the construction of that phase has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall:
• be prepared in broad accordance with the details provided in the
“Updated Outline Construction and Environmental Management Plan”
(April 2019);
• include proposals for dust deposition, dust flux and/or real time PM10
continuous monitoring locations;
• specify that baseline monitoring of dust emissions shall begin at least
three months before the construction of that phase is begun; and
• require that that phase shall not be begun until all monitoring data
has been provided to the local planning authority.
The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to commencement
of any demolition or construction works on that phase of the development
and shall be retained throughout the demolition and construction periods.
Drainage-applying to all parts of development
13) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a
scheme for the management of foul and surface water from that phase has
been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
The details shall be prepared in broad accordance with the following:
i) Drainage Strategy Report dated January 2018;
ii) Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-ACM-XX-
XX-DR-CE-00117 Revision F),
iii) Academy Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-
ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00108 Revision P3),
iv) Clubhouse Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-
ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE- 00107 Revision P3),
v) Maintenance Building General Arrangement drawing (reference: PSAM-
ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-00106 Revision P3) and
vi) Hotel / Car Park Drainage General Arrangement drawing (reference:
PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE- 00105 Revision P4).
The submitted details shall include:
• A hydraulic model of the proposed surface water drainage scheme
for that phase;
• A programme for the delivery of the foul and surface water
drainage scheme for that phase; and
• A management and maintenance plan for the foul and surface
water drainage scheme for that phase, including arrangements for
either a) adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory
undertaker or b) management and ongoing maintenance by an
appropriate management company.
Each phase of the development shall be constructed in full in accordance
with the approved scheme for that phase, prior to the occupation of any of
the dwellings within that phase.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 173
14) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a
scheme for the provision of Water Framework Directive (WFD) mitigation
and enhancement within that phase has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme(s) shall be prepared
in accordance with the recommendations of the “Preliminary Water
Framework Directive (WFD) Compliance Assessment” (March 2017).
Thereafter, the relevant phase of the development shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved scheme for the phase.
Ground Conditions applying to all parts of the development
15) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until the
following information in respect of that phase has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
i) a preliminary risk assessment to determine the potential for that
phase to be contaminated;
ii) prior to any physical site investigation, a methodology for undertaking
an assessment to determine the nature and extent of any
contamination affecting that phase and the potential for off-site
migration;
iii) provision of a comprehensive site investigation and risk assessment
examining identified potential pollutant linkages in the approved
“Preliminary Risk Assessment”; and
iv) where necessary a scheme of remediation to remove any unacceptable
risk to human health, buildings and the environment.
Following the approval of the above information by the local planning
authority, each phase of the development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved scheme of remediation (where necessary) for that
phase. The local planning authority shall be notified regarding the presence
of any additional or unforeseen contamination encountered during the
development of any phase as soon as practicably possible and a scheme of
remediation to deal with such unforeseen contamination shall be submitted
to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and thereafter
implemented in full in accordance with the approved details.
Upon completion of the approved remediation schemes for each phase, and
prior to the occupation of that phase, a completion report demonstrating
that the scheme of remediation for that phase has been appropriately
implemented and the site for that phase is suitable for its intended end use
shall be submitted to the local planning authority.
Transport- all parts of the development
16) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or
operated until the following off-site highway works have been completed
and are open to traffic:
• Improvements at the A58 Snydale Way / Chequerbent
roundabout junction, as shown and identified as “additional third
lane to be created on approach” at Snydale Way and “lane
markings to be amended” at A6 West on drawing “ITM10187-SK-
199 Revision A”;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 174
• Improvements at the A58 Snydale Way / M61 Junction 5 junction,
as shown on drawing “ITM10187-SK-192 Revision C”;
• Improvements at the A6 Manchester Road / Newbrook Road
junction, as shown on drawing “ITM10187-SK-194 Revision D”;
and
• Improvements at the A58 Park Road / B5235 Leigh Road junction,
as shown on drawing “ITM10187-SK-193”.
17) No phase of the development hereby approved, shall be begun until details
of the design, construction, specification, lighting and drainage of all
internal access roads within that phase have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling within each
phase shall be occupied until the internal access roads to serve that phase
have been constructed to at least base course level in accordance with the
approved details. The internal access roads for each phase shall thereafter
be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the
occupation of the final dwelling within that phase.
Landscaping- all parts of the development
18) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a
detailed planting specification in respect of the soft landscaping works to be
provided within that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority. Each scheme shall be prepared pursuant
to, and in broad accordance with, the detail identified by the “Indicative
Planting Schedule & Specification” (reference: 6628-LD-SCH-705; dated
April 2017) and the associated drawings; and shall also include details of
the programme for implementing and completing the planting. No phase of
the development shall be occupied unless the soft landscaping works have
been completed in accordance with the approved scheme for that phase.
19) All soft landscape works for each phase of the development hereby
approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved
pursuant to Condition (18) for that phase and shall comply with the
relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other
recognised Codes of Good Practice. Any trees or plants that, within a period
of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of
the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be
replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size
and number as originally approved, or with alternative species, size and
number as approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Heritage and Archaeology- all parts of the development
20) The development hereby approved shall not be begun until, a scheme for
investigation of the landscape history of the Registered Park and Garden,
written analysis and interpretation of that history, and timescales for their
publication, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. Development shall thereafter be implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
21) No phase of the development hereby approved shall be begun until a
Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for undertaking archaeological
assessment and recording work within that phase has been submitted to,
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 175
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall
be submitted and approved in advance of the demolition of any buildings or
above ground structures within that phase.
The archaeological assessment and recording work for each phase shall be
undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of Chapter 9 of the
“Environmental Statement Volume 2: Environmental Assessments” (May
2017), including:
• a programme and methodology of investigation and recording to
include historic building surveys (Historic England Level 1-3), an
archaeological evaluation through trial trenching and geophysics,
and targeted area excavation and/or a watching brief;
• a programme for post-investigation assessment, including
analysis of the site investigation records and finds, production of
final reports on the significance of the archaeological and historic
interest, and deposition of the final reports with the Greater
Manchester Historic Environment Record;
• publication of the results of the archaeological assessment and
recording work; and
• provision for the archive deposition of the results of the
archaeological assessment and recording work, including the final
reports.
Each phase of the development hereby approved shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved WSI for that phase.
B. Conditions relating to the Full Planning Permission ONLY (i.e. the Golf
Resort Development)
22) The Golf Resort Development hereby approved shall be carried out in
accordance with the following approved plans:
• Landscape Masterplan Site Wide (Full Development) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_103 Issue H);
• Demolition Plan (reference: 6628-LD-PLN-010 Issue E);
• Restoration Plan (reference: 6628-LD-PLN-011 Issue A);
• The Dovecote (Grade II Listed): Elevations and Masonry Repairs
(reference: dov/lbc/001);
• The Dovecote (Grade II Listed): Plans & Sections (reference:
dov/lbc/002);
• Golf Grading Overview (reference: 1263.405.01 Revision H);
• Golf Grading 1 of 3 (reference: 1263.405.02 Revision C);
• Golf Grading 2 of 3 (reference: 1263.405.03 Revision B);
• Golf Grading 3 of 3 (reference: 1263.405.04 Revision B);
• Golf Grading Analysis (reference: 1263.415.01 Revision G);
• General Arrangement Overview Plan (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_200 Issue B);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (1 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_201 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (2 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_202 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (3 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_203 Revision E);
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 176
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (4 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_204 Revision F);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (5 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_205 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (6 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_206 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (7 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_207 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (8 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_208 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (9 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_209 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (10 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_210 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (11 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_211 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (12 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_212 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (13 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_213 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (14 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_214 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (15 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_215 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (16 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_216 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (17 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_217 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (18 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_218 Revision E);
• General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (19 of 19) (reference:
LUC_6628_LD_PLN_219 Revision E);
• Detailed Area; Golf and Academy Entrance (reference: LUC-6628-
LD-PLN-231 Issue C);
• External Lighting Layout (reference: 3023-(97)-EX-01 Rev P5);
• Clubhouse Lower Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan
(reference: L(20)24A);
• Clubhouse Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)25A);
• Clubhouse Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)26A);
• Clubhouse General Arrangement Elevations (reference:
L(20)32A);
• Clubhouse Section A-A (reference: L(20)15A);
• Clubhouse Views, sheets 1 and 2 (reference: L(20)33A and 34A);
• Academy Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)27A);
• Academy Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)28B);
• Academy General Arrangement Elevations (reference: L(20)29B);
• Academy Sections A-A B-B C-C (reference: L(20)19A);
• Academy views, sheets 1 and 2 (reference: L(20)30C and 31C);
• 9 Hole Adventure Golf & 9 Hole Ryder Cup Course;
• Hotel Views, sheets 1 to 4 (reference: 7433-L(00)141B to 144B);
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 177
• Hotel Lower Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)01);
• Hotel Ground Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)02);
• Hotel First Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)03);
• Hotel Second Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)04);
• Hotel Third Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)05);
• Hotel Fourth Floor General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)06);
• Hotel Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)07);
• Hotel General Arrangement Elevations North & South (reference:
L(20)08A);
• Hotel Elevations East & West (reference: L(20)09A);
• Hotel Sections A-A B-B (reference: L(20)10A);
• Maintenance Shed General Arrangement Plan (reference:
L(20)20);
• Maintenance Shed General Arrangement Elevations & Sections
(reference: L(20)21);
• Maintenance Building Views (reference: 7433-L(00)149);
• Halfway House General Arrangement Plans & Elevations
(reference: L(20)22);
• Starters Hut General Arrangement Plans & Elevations (reference:
L(20)23);
• Bridge 1 (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.001-1D);
• Bridge A (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.004-1D);
• Bridge B (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.005-0D);
• Bridge C (reference: 60484817-DR-BD-03.006-1D);
• Underpass North & South Ramps (reference: PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-
DR-CE-00115 Revision P3);
• Detailed Area; Hotel and Pleasure Grounds, drawings 1 to 4
(reference: LUC-6628-LD-PLN-225 to 228 Issue C);
• Detailed Area; Clubhouse (reference: LUC-6628-LD-PLN-229
Issue F);
• Detailed Area; Golf Academy (reference: LUC-6628-LD-PLN-230
Issue F); and
• Proposed Clubhouse, Hotel and Academy Accesses from A6
Manchester Road (reference: ITM10187–SK–197 Rev B).
23) Notwithstanding the approved plans, the Golf Resort Development hereby
approved shall not be begun until details of the following have been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
• all materials to be used on all external elevations;
• all materials to be used in respect of hard landscaping works,
including boundary treatments and surfacing materials;
• any materials to be imported to the site for the purpose of
constructing the golf course;
• the colour of the materials to be used to surface buggy paths;
• the location, scale and appearance of direction signs, tee
markers, hole flags and other golf course furniture required for
the operation of the golf resort;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 178
• a detailed scheme in respect of the golf buggy underpass, to be
prepared in broad accordance with the “Illustrative Golf Buggy
Underpass Sections” (reference: PSAM-ACM-XX-XX- DR-CE-00002
Revision P3); and
• details of the existing and proposed site levels and finished floor
levels of the buildings and the level of the proposed roads,
footpaths and other landscaped areas relative to above ordnance
datum points, the location of which has previously been approved
by the local planning authority.
The Golf Resort Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance
with the approved details.
24) The adventure golf course hereby approved as shown on drawing “9 Hole
Adventure Golf & 9 Hole Ryder Cup Course”, shall not be begun until details
of its layout, appearance, scale and landscaping have been submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The adventure golf
course shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the
approved details prior to its first use.
Heritage-Golf Resort only
25) The Golf Resort Development hereby approved shall not be begun until a
detailed specification for the restoration of historic structures and features
identified within the Historic Structures: Condition/Repair Issues Report
(March 2017) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The specification shall be prepared in accordance with
the Historic Structures: Condition/Repair Issues Report (March 2017) and
shall include:
i) a detailed condition survey of all historic structures and features
identified in that report, including all lakes, streams, dams and
cascades;
ii) a schedule of restoration works for each structure and feature;
iii) the method of restoration works for each structure and feature; and
iv) a programme for the implementation of the proposed restoration
works for each structure and feature.
The Golf Resort Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance
with the approved specification and in accordance with the approved
timescales.
26) Prior to the de-silting of the Ornamental Lakes hereby approved, a Lake
Desilting and Restoration Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. This shall be based on the Outline
Lake De-Silting Feasibility Study and Strategy (January 2018), and shall
include:
i) a programme for implementation;
ii) a method statement for protection of fish species;
iii) a water and materials management plan; and
iv) details of the proposed haul routes, which shall be via the existing
driveway from Newbrook Road in respect of the works at the Back O’
th’ Lawn Lake and via the construction route for the 13th golf hole in
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 179
respect of the works at the Mill Dam Lake as defined by drawings
PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-0031 and PSAM-ACM-XX-XX-DR-CE-0032 ,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
The de-silting works shall be completed in accordance with the approved
Lake Desilting and Restoration Plan prior to the first operation of the Golf
Resort Development hereby approved.
27) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development hereby
approved, a programme of public access events in the Registered Park and
Garden shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The programme shall identify the frequency, timings
and other organisational details of such events, and shall thereafter be
implemented in accordance with the approved details. As a minimum the
programme shall provide for at least 50 such events per annum for the
lifetime of the development, including:
i) guided walks along and through the historic drive, the pleasure
grounds and the Mill Dam Lake and stream;
ii) heritage open days and/or visits/tours around the Registered Park and
Garden;
iii) talks/presentations/lectures about the history and/or heritage value of
the Registered Park and Garden;
iv) nature and ecology tours of the Registered Park and Garden; and/or
v) visits to the Registered Park and Garden by schools and other local
organisations.
28) Prior to operation or occupation of each phase of the development within
the Registered Park and Garden, the specification for and design of
interpretative signage and other material to be provided in that phase shall
be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
The approved scheme for each phase shall be completed prior to first
operation or first occupation of that phase.
29) Prior to the demolition of Hulton Cottage, details of the relocation of the
blue heritage plaque presently mounted on Hulton Cottage shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
details shall include a programme for relocation of the plaque. The blue
heritage plaque shall be displayed in accordance with the approved details
and thereafter permanently retained in that position.
Ecology and Landscaping-Golf resort only
30) Prior to the operation of the Golf Resort Development hereby approved, the
detailed design of 5(no.) ‘bat hotels’ shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The bat hotels shall thereafter be
installed in the locations identified on drawing G6471.06.001 (within
Appendix H of the Bat Management Strategy within the Updated Interim
Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019)) prior to the
operation of the Golf Resort Development.
31) Prior to the demolition of any of the buildings at Home Farm, a barn owl
method statement in respect of each of those buildings shall be submitted
to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The method
statement shall be prepared in broad accordance with the details provided
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 180
in Appendix G Barn Owl Management Strategy of the Updated Interim
Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019). The demolition
works shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved
method statement.
32) Prior to the construction of the Clubhouse hereby approved, a planting
specification and maintenance plan for the areas of green roof shown on
the Clubhouse Roof General Arrangement Plan (reference: L(20)26A) shall
be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
The planting specification should include a wildflower species mix. The
green roof shall be installed prior to the first use of the Clubhouse in
accordance with the approved details. Thereafter it shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved maintenance plan.
33) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the Golf Resort
Development shall not be begun until a scheme for the soft landscaping
works adjacent to the proposed 13th hole and fairway, including the
proposed bridge crossing over the Mill Dam Stream has been submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall
be prepared pursuant to, and in broad accordance with, the detail
illustrated by the drawing “General Arrangement Plans Site Wide (15 of
19)” (reference: LUC-6628-LD_PLN_215 Issue E) and labelled “HOLE 13
REFINEMENT: ILLUSTRATIVE LAYOUT SHOWING REDUCED AREA OF
EXISTING WOODLAND REMOVAL & INCREASED AREA OF PROPOSED
WOODLAND”. The Golf Resort Development shall not be open to the public
until the approved scheme has been carried out and completed in full.
Highways and access-Golf Resort only
34) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no passing
places shall be provided along the historic driveway running within the site
between Newbrook Road and the hotel complex, such that its maximum
width along its whole length does not exceed 3m (excluding the adjacent
grasscrete surface or similar shown on the approved plans). Prior to the
first operation of the hotel complex within the Golf Resort Development, a
scheme for traffic control measures, including appropriate signage, which
imposes a one-way traffic system along the historic driveway, shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
scheme shall be implemented in full, in accordance with the approved
details prior to the first operation of the hotel complex within the Golf
Resort Development and permanently retained thereafter.
35) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development, a Travel Plan for
the Golf Resort Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority. The Travel Plan should be consistent with
the objectives, targets, governance arrangements and monitoring schedule
set out in the Updated Golf Resort Travel Plan (April 2019). The Golf Resort
Development shall be operated at all times in accordance with the approved
Travel Plan.
Environmental Health-Golf Resort Development only
36) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development, a Noise
Management Plan (NMP) containing details of the methods to be employed
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 181
to prevent noise disturbance during the operating hours of the Golf Resort
Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first
operation of the Golf Resort Development and shall thereafter be operated
in accordance with the approved NMP.
37) Prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development, a scheme for
the provision of electric vehicle charging points within the Golf Resort
Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be prepared in accordance with the
Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance and comprise the
provision of one charging point per 1,000sqm of floorspace. The charging
points shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme prior to
the first operation of the Golf Resort Development and permanently
maintained thereafter.
38) Prior to the first operation of the clubhouse, academy building, and hotel
complex within the Golf Resort Development, a scheme for the installation
of equipment to control the emission of fumes and smells/odours from the
respective buildings shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the
local planning authority. No building shall be occupied until the equipment
to control the emission of fumes and smells/odours in that building, has
been installed in accordance with the approved scheme. The equipment
shall thereafter be operated and maintained at all times in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions.
39) Prior to the installation of any external lighting within the Golf Resort
Development, a scheme for that external lighting shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
prepared in broad accordance with the details and parameters provided in
the Updated Lighting Impact Assessment (April 2019) and illustrated on
drawing 3023-(97)-EX-01 Rev P5.
The submitted scheme shall include details regarding the protection of key
features of importance for barn owls and bats as identified in Appendix G
Barn Own Management Strategy and Appendix H Bat Management Strategy
of the Updated Interim Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April
2019). With the exception of temporary external lighting installed for the
purposes of staging a golf tournament pursuant to Condition (47), the
external lighting shall:
i) be designed to an illumination value of 5 lux at the nearest residential
property; and
ii) achieve a beam angle below 70 degrees and be fitted with spill shields
where it is directed towards any potential observer.
With the exception of temporary external lighting installed for the purposes
of staging a golf tournament pursuant to Condition (48), no external
lighting within the Golf Resort Development shall be provided otherwise
than in accordance with the approved scheme.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 182
40) The operational hours of the Golf Resort Development shall be limited as
follows:
The Academy
i) The Academy shall only be open to patrons between 0600 hours and
2200 hours daily.
ii) External lighting used for the operation of the driving range shall be
not be switched on between 2200 hours and 0600 hours daily.
iii) Grass cutting at the Academy site shall only take place between the
hours of 0800 hours to 2000 hours daily.
iv) Between the 2200 hours and 0100 hours daily any ball collector used
must not exceed background noise levels when such levels are
measured at the boundaries of the site.
v) No deliveries shall be taken at, or despatched from, the Academy
building other than between 0700 hours and 2200 hours Monday to
Saturday, and not at any time on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.
The Golf Course
vi) The Golf Course shall only be open to patrons between 0600hours and
2200 hours daily.
vii) Maintenance of the Golf Course shall only be undertaken between
0500 hours to 2330 hours daily, with the exception of mowing of the
5th fairway which shall only take place between 0800 hours and 2000
hours daily and mowing of the 10th fairway which shall only take place
between the hours of 0600 to 2300 daily.
The Clubhouse
viii) The Clubhouse shall only be open to patrons between 0600 hours and
2300 hours daily, except during the staging of a golf tournament.
ix) Use of the rooftop terrace of the Clubhouse shall only take place
between the hours 0800 to 2200 at all times.
41) The noise rating level (LAeqT), as determined by the methodology given in
BS4142:2014 Methods for Rating and Assessing Industrial and Commercial
Sound, from all sources associated with the Golf Resort Development
covered under the scope of BS4142:2014, when operating simultaneously
or individually, shall not exceed the background sound levels (LA90) that
are specified in the Environmental Statement (May 2017), Chapter 13,
Table 13.21 (daytime) and Table 13.22 (night time), when assessed
4metres from the boundary of any noise sensitive receptor covered under
the scope of BS4142:2014.
42) The Academy hereby approved, shall not be brought into use until a 1.8
metre-high, close-boarded acoustic fence has been erected in the location
identified by drawing LUC-6628-LD-PLN- 230 Revision F. The fence shall be
retained thereafter and shall be erected in accordance with details which
have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority.
43) Grass cutting of the Golf Academy site and at the 5th hole of the golf
course shall be restricted at all times to the use of lower powered grass-
cutting machinery with a sound level of 101dB or lower.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 183
Ground Conditions (Coal Authority)- Golf Resort Only
44) The Golf Resort Development hereby approved, shall not be begun until the
following information in respect of the Golf Resort Development has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:
i) a scheme of intrusive site investigations of the relevant land for the
mine entries and shallow coal workings, including gas monitoring;
ii) a report of findings of the intrusive site investigations undertaken
pursuant to (i) above;
iii) a scheme of treatment and/or mitigation measures/remedial works for
the mine entries and/or shallow coal workings, including a programme
for the implementation and maintenance of those works.
The Golf Resort Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
Sustainability-Golf Resort Only
45) The Golf Resort Development shall achieve the Golf Environmental
Organisation (GEO) Certified® Development ‘Sustainable Golf’
accreditation. The Golf Resort Development shall not be begun until a GEO
Certified® pre-construction report setting out the means by which the Golf
Resort Development will be implemented in order to secure the
accreditation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority.
Within six months of the completion of the Golf Resort Development, a GEO
Certified® completion report identifying the extent to which the Golf Resort
Development has been undertaken in accordance with the approved pre-
construction report and certifying that the Golf Resort Development has
achieved the GEO Certified® Development ‘Sustainable Golf’ accreditation
shall be submitted to the local planning authority.
46) The Clubhouse, Academy building and Hotel complex within the Golf Resort
Development shall achieve a ‘very good’ Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating under BREEAM
Communities 2012. The Golf Resort Development shall not be begun until
an Interim Certification of the stipulated BREEAM rating of the Clubhouse,
Academy Building and Hotel complex has been submitted to the local
planning authority. Within six months of the completion of the Clubhouse,
Academy Building and Hotel complex, a Final Certificate certifying that that
those buildings have achieved the stipulated BREEAM rating shall be
submitted to the local planning authority.
Tournament Staging-Golf Resort Only
47) No temporary facilities associated with any golf tournament to be held at
the Golf Resort Development shall be erected or installed until details of
their scale, landscaping, access, appearance and layout, and details of any
associated works relating to their installation including the removal of such
facilities and restoration of the land upon which the temporary facilities are
to be erected, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the
local planning authority. The temporary facilities shall be erected and
installed in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with an
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 184
approved timetable which shall include a timetable for removal of all
temporary structures and facilities and any reinstatement provisions.
48) Prior to staging any golf tournament at the site, an Event and Travel
Management Plan (ETMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority. The ETMP shall be prepared in accordance
with the principles set out in the Updated Interim Event and Travel
Management Plan (April 2019) and shall include:
i) measures relating to the management of impacts on ecology, which
shall include details concerning the protection of bluebells following the
completion of a bluebell survey to be undertaken in the month of May
preceding the relevant tournament and in line with the details
provided in Appendix B Bluebell Management Strategy of the Updated
Interim Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019); and
ii) a strategy for the installation of temporary external lighting, which
shall include details concerning a) the protection of features of
importance for bats as identified in Appendix H Bat Management
Strategy of the Updated Interim Landscape and Habitat Management
Plan (April 2019), and b) a programme for the removal of the
temporary lighting after its installation.
No golf tournament shall be held otherwise than in accordance with the
approved ETMP.
Waste Management-Golf Resort Only
49) Prior to the Golf Resort Development first being brought into use, a scheme
which details the design, location and size of facilities to store refuse and
waste materials for the Clubhouse, Academy Building, maintenance building
and Hotel complex shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the
local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full
prior to the first operation of the Golf Resort Development and permanently
retained thereafter.
C. Conditions relating to the Outline Planning Permission (i.e. the
Residential Development)
50) The Residential Development hereby approved shall be implemented in
accordance with the following approved plans:
• Parameters Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500 U);
• Demolition Plan (reference: 6628-LD-PLN-010 Issue E);
• Residential Design Code Character Area 5: Park End Farm
(January 2018);
• Residential Design Code Character Area 6: Dearden's Park
(January 2018);
• Proposed Residential Access to Dearden’s Farm Parcel from A6
Manchester Road (reference: ITM10187–SK–145 Rev D);
• Proposed First Phase Residential Access to Western Fields from A6
Manchester Road (reference: ITM10187–SK–146 Rev D);
• Proposed Residential Access from Broadway (reference:
ITM10187–SK–191 Rev C); and
• Proposed Residential Access from Woodlands Drive (reference:
ITM10187–SK–208 Rev A).
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 185
51) Prior to the commencement of each phase of the Residential Development,
details of the existing and proposed levels of the buildings, roads, footpaths
and other landscaped areas throughout the phase and finished floor levels
of all dwellings on that phase (defined relative to a datum or datum points
the location of which has previously been approved) shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Each phase of the
Residential Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details for that phase.
52) Reserved matters submission/s in relation to appearance for each phase of
the Residential Development shall include details of all boundary
treatments to be carried out on all the perimeter boundaries on that phase
and details of any boundary enclosures to be erected or grown within that
phase. The approved details of perimeter boundary treatment shall
thereafter be carried out and completed within each phase of development
prior to any dwelling within that phase being first occupied and the
boundary treatment relating to individual plots shall be carried out and
completed on each respective plot prior to its first occupation.
53) The reserved matters layout submission in relation to each phase of the
Residential Development shall include a scheme and programme for
implementation for the provision of the open space and children’s play
facilities within and/or for that phase which shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall
specify scale, type and design of the open space and children’s play
facilities to be provided within and/or for that phase. No dwelling within
each phase of the Residential Development shall be occupied until the open
space and children's play facilities have been completed in accordance with
the approved scheme for that phase.
54) Prior to the commencement of each phase of the Residential Development,
a detailed crime prevention scheme for that phase shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall
be prepared in broad accordance with the details and parameters provided
in the Crime Impact Statement (February 2017). Each phase of the
Residential Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme for that phase.
Local Centre-Residential Development Only
55) The maximum floorspace of the Local Centre as defined on the Parameters
Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500 U) shall not exceed 1,382 square metres
(gross).
The Local Centre shall not comprise uses outside of the following Use
Classes, as defined by The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order
1987 (as amended): A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and/or D1.
No individual unit for A1 uses within the Local Centre shall exceed 500
square metres (gross).
Premises and units within the Local Centre shall only be open to customers
between the following hours: 0700 to midnight daily.
The Local Centre shall not be first occupied unless and until its associated
car parking has been constructed, drained, surfaced and is available for use
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 186
in accordance with details which shall be first submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and the car parking spaces shall
thereafter be retained for the purposes of car parking at all times in the
future.
Environmental Health-Residential Development Only
56) Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling within each phase of the
Residential Development, a scheme for the provision of electric vehicle
charging points within that phase shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be prepared in
accordance with Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) Guidance and
comprise the delivery of one charging point per dwelling, with dedicated
parking or one charging point per 10 car parking spaces where there is not
allocated parking. No dwelling shall be occupied until the charging point(s)
to serve that dwelling has/have been provided and commissioned in
accordance with the approved scheme for that phase. The charging points
shall be permanently retained and maintained in full working order
thereafter.
57) The reserved matters details submitted in respect of each phase of the
Residential Development shall be accompanied by:
• A noise impact assessment for that phase. No dwellings within
that phase shall be occupied until any recommended noise
attenuation measures to be incorporated into that phase have
been completed in accordance with the approved details, which
shall be retained thereafter; and
• A detailed external lighting plan for that phase. The plan shall be
prepared in broad accordance with the details and parameters
provided in the Updated Lighting Impact Assessment (April 2019)
and illustrated on approved drawing 3023-(97)-EX-01 Rev P5.
The external lighting plan shall include details regarding the
protection of key features of importance for barn owls and bats as
identified in Appendix G Barn Own Management Strategy and
Appendix H Bat Management Strategy of the Updated Interim
Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (April 2019).
No dwelling within each phase of the Residential Development shall be
occupied until any recommended noise attenuation measures in the
approved noise impact assessment for that phase have been completed.
Such measures shall be retained permanently thereafter.
Each phase of the Residential Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved lighting plan for that phase and there shall
be no additional external lighting on the public areas without the prior
written consent of the local planning authority.
58) Prior to commencement of construction of any residential properties that
are proposed to contain basements, the results of a further assessment of
groundwater assessment, including identification of any necessary
measures required to prevent the flooding of the basements of those
residential properties, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 187
Ground Conditions-Residential Development Only
59) Prior to the commencement of any phase of the Residential Development
hereby approved, the following information in respect of that phase of the
Residential Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the local planning authority:
i) A scheme of intrusive site investigations of the relevant land for mine
entries and shallow coal workings, including gas monitoring;
ii) A report of findings of the intrusive site investigations undertaken
pursuant to (i) above.
The reserved matters layout submission in relation to each phase of the
Residential Development shall include:
iii) A drawing which identifies appropriate zones of influence for the mine
entries on the relevant land and the definition of any necessary ‘no
build’ zones;
iv) A scheme of treatment and/or mitigation measures/remedial works for
the mine entries and/or shallow coal workings, including a programme
for the implementation and maintenance of those works.
Each phase of the Residential Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details for that phase.
Drainage-Residential Development Only
60) No demolition or constructions works shall take place within the Residential
Development until a scheme has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority for the following:
i) the provision and management of a minimum 8 metres wide
undeveloped buffer zone along the whole length of Chanters Brook;
ii) the protection of all existing local wildlife sites running along river
corridors; and
iii) a 4-metre buffer along the unnamed western tributary.
The buffer zone scheme shall be free from all built development including
lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping. The scheme shall
include:
• plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone along all
waterbodies bisecting the site;
• details showing how riparian local wildlife sites will be protected and
integrated in new scheme design;
• details of any new soft landscaping including a planting schedule based
on native species;
• details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during
development, and managed and maintained;
• details of new drainage scheme associated with the development
within the buffer zone and/or tying in with the retained stream
corridor;
• details of any proposed footpaths, fencing and/or lighting within the
buffer zone; and
• details of any interlinking and/or retained ponds.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 188
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme.
Highways and Transport- Residential Development Only
61) Prior to the occupation of the 276th dwelling hereby approved, the
westernmost highway access to the area of the Residential Development
referred to on the Updated Design and Access Statement (July 2019) as
Western Fields shall be constructed and open to traffic in accordance with
the relevant details submitted and approved pursuant to Condition (4).
62) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling in each phase of the Residential
Development, a Travel Plan for that phase shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The Travel Plan should
be consistent with the objectives, targets, governance arrangements and
monitoring schedule set out in the Updated Residential Travel Plan (April
2019). Each phase of the Residential Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved Travel Plan for that phase.
63) No dwelling shall be first occupied unless and until its associated car
parking has been constructed, drained, surfaced and is available for use in
accordance with details which shall be first submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The car parking spaces associated
with each dwelling shall thereafter be retained for the purposes of car
parking at all times in the future.
64) No development within the areas of the Residential Development referred
to on the approved drawings as “Dearden’s Farm” and “Park End Farm”
shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision of a Zebra or signalised
Puffin / Pelican crossing across Newbrook Road has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority and it has been
implemented in accordance with the approved details. The crossing shall be
located on Newbrook Road between the junctions of Low Green and Green
Hall Close, and it shall facilitate a pedestrian link between Public Rights of
Way PFWES126a and PF16.
Landscaping- Residential Development Only
65) The Residential Development hereby approved shall cumulatively provide
new landscape planting equivalent to:
• 2,600 no. specimen trees and 7,253sqm of woodland, in
accordance with the minimum requirements and specification set
out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (December 2017)
and as shown on the Parameters Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500
U); and
• 4,150m of hedgerows, in accordance with the minimum
requirements and detail illustrated on the drawing Hedges
Created, Lost and Retained (reference: G5136.069) and as shown
on the Parameters Plan (reference: 15191 (Pl) 500 U).
A plan for the phased implementation of this new landscape planting across
the Residential Development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the local planning authority alongside the first reserved matters
application for the Residential Development. The landscape planting shall
thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved phasing plan.
END OF (65) CONDITIONS
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 189
www.gov.uk/mhclg
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the
legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or
making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or
contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division,
Strand,London,WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of
State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only
if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow
that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court
under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in
applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may
be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on
the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have
not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must
be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act
Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289
of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the
Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission.
Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days
of the decision, unless the Court extends this period.
SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS
A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a
decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if
permission of the High Court is granted.
SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision
has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the
Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If
you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at
the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter,
quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice
should be given, if possible.