PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item 7

Agenda Item 7

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date: 16 August 2018

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO CARRY OUT DEVELOPMENT OR TO DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENTS (PC 39/18)

Schedule by Head of Planning and Coastal Management Number of items: 6

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT, 1985 THE RELEVANT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF EACH ITEM IS THE PLANNING APPLICATION FILE, INCLUDING SUBMITTED PLANS, CONSULTATIONS AND LETTERS OF COMMENT, BUT EXCLUDING INFORMATION EXEMPTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND IDENTIFIED AS SUCH. ANY REPRESENTATIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS SCHEDULE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE REPORTED VIA THE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS REPORT CIRCULATED AT THE MEETING.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITEMS LISTED MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC SPEAKING.

SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS BE SUBJECT TO A SITE VISIT, THIS WILL NORMALLY TAKE PLACE ON THE SECOND MONDAY FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THE MEETING.

I N D E X

Item Page Case Application Address No No Officer No 1 2 SM DC/18/0086/FUL Bank House, 177 High Street, Aldeburgh, IP15 5AN 2 12 SM DC/18/0881/FUL Johnnygate, Beach Farm Road, Thorpeness, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe, IP16 4NZ 3 19 BW DC/18/2774/ARM Brightwell Lakes, Land South and East of Adastral Park, Martlesham 4 33 BW DC/18/2775/ARM Brightwell Lakes, Land South and East of Adastral Park, Martlesham 5 43 CB DC/18/1534/LBC Fishers Home Hardware, 39 High Street, Saxmundham, IP17 1AJ 6 48 RS DC/18/2273/FUL Land and building adjacent to 39 School Road, Sudbourne, IP12 2BE

1. ALDEBURGH – DC/18/0086/FUL – Demolition of existing outbuilding and garage. Erection of new dwelling (comprising basement and room-in-roof levels) with integral parking: Bank House, 177 High Street, Aldeburgh, IP15 5AN for Mr Richard Buss.

Case Officer: Stephen Milligan

Expiry Date: 27 July 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Full Planning Permission is sought for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of 177 High Street, Aldeburgh.

The development lies within Aldeburgh Conservation Area, within the physical limits of Aldeburgh as defined within the Local Plan, within Aldeburgh Town Centre and within the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB.

This item has come before members following consideration by the Delegation Panel, to enable the consideration of the issues of parking and impact upon Aldeburgh Conservation Area. The application is recommended for Approval.

The item was deferred by Planning Committee on 19 July 2018, to enable a Planning Committee Site Visit to take place. This visit took place on 30 July 2018.

A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), has been published since the application was considered at the July meeting (new version published 24 July 2018). The report below has been updated to take account of the contents of the new NPPF.

1. SITE DESCRIPTION 1.1. This application is for the erection of one dwelling on land to the rear of 177 High Street, Aldeburgh off The Terrace/Choppings Hill, Aldeburgh. The site contains a frontage wall and single garage.

1.2. This site lies within the physical limits of Aldeburgh, a Market Town as defined within the Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2013 (SCDLP) and within the wider AONB and Heritage Coast. The site is also within the Aldeburgh Conservation Area and nos. 175 and 175a High Street are listed buildings (Grade II).

1.3. The site is within the designated Aldeburgh Town Centre but not within the primary shopping area.

1.4. The site forms part of the steeply sloping rear curtilage of 177 High Street. The site slopes downwards by approx. 5m west to east and has a frontage to The Terrace of approx. 10.5m.

1.5. The Aldeburgh Conservation Area Appraisal (SPD) identifies the site and other curtilage areas to the rear of the properties on the western side of the High Street, in its Appraisal Map, as an 'important open/green/tree space.' It states (p18 and 19):

"Trees, hedges, boundaries and street greenery are important elements of the conservation area, not only in public places, but on private land as well. A large proportion of green space within the Aldeburgh Conservation Area is within the boundaries of the private gardens running along the Western edge. Views of the gardens are best appreciated from Church Walk, The Terrace and Champion Road. Most open spaces within the Conservation Area have views out towards the beach and sea and overlooking Aldeburgh's townscape, settings and important landmarks".

"Gardens below and east of The Terrace. Provides a green buffer at the rear of buildings on the west side of the High Street and seen from The Terrace which enhances the linear form of the development and supports several fine garden trees, which are sparse within the conservation area."

1.6. The site has an attractive brick boundary wall on its frontage to the Terrace and provides some views of the rear of properties in the High Street from the Terrace and space around a mature Sycamore tree which historically overhung the site from the curtilage of 179 High Street to the south. The tree has been subject to crown reduction and has been trimmed up to the boundary of the site.

2 THE APPLICATION 2.1 The application seeks Full Planning Permission for a five storey two bedroomed dwelling of contemporary design. The dwelling is proposed to be built into the sloping ground at the rear of the High Street with two single aspect basement levels and three stories above road level. The property is proposed to have a single integral garage space accessed from The Terrace. 2.2 The building was originally designed as a four bedroomed property with double integral garage. The design was amended to a two bedroomed design with single integral garage following an objection from the Highway Authority to the intensification of the use of a substandard access. 2.3 There is no relevant planning history.

3 CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Aldeburgh Town Council – Objects to this application stating: ATC Planning Committee does not support this application. The re-designation of rooms within the proposed development does not answer concerns expressed by the Planning Committee at its meeting on March 6 2018. At that meeting, the Planning Committee recognised the development was in a sensitive area for parking and believed the scale and mass of the proposed building was too large for the site and represented over-development. The Committee voted against this application UNANIMOUSLY.

The comments from the meeting of March 6 2018 states: A member of the public, who owns an adjoining property, addressed the Planning Committee and said that while he was in favour of the development, he had great concerns about road safety – with particular reference to a garage opening nearer to Choppings Hill. The Planning Committee recognises that the development is in a sensitive area for parking and believes the scale and mass of the proposed building is too large for the site and represents over-development. The Committee feels that while the design is interesting, it should be much reduced and more inkeeping with the area. The Committee also drew attention to drawings showing the gradient of the roadway which it believed were inaccurate. The Committee noted correspondence from Suffolk County Highways objecting to this application.

ATC Planning Committee unanimously OBJECTS to this application as it stads.

3.2 Suffolk County Council – Highway Authority: recommends that permission be refused, on the grounds of insufficient on site parking, leading to additional on-street parking, which may result in parking in unsuitable locations. The Suffolk Guidance for Parking requires two spaces per dwelling. If the Local Planning Authority is minded to approve, conditions relating to storage of refuse/recycling bins is recommended and for the turning and parking of vehicles.

3.3 SCDC - Head of Environmental Services and Port Health: No objections.

3.4 Aldeburgh Society : raise concerns about the proposal, stating that the amended scheme is in breach of the Conservation Area Policy and represents and unwelcome

and intrusive development in a sensitive location. The proposals is too big for the plot, and the scheme should be refused. Recommend a site visit is undertaken.

3.5 Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) : Do not raise concerns.

3.6 Third Party Representations:

Nineteen Letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:

 Impact upon the character of the area/Conservation Area,  Impact to highway safety,  Impact upon parking availability,  Poor design,  Overbearing impact/scale,  Privacy and outlook from neighbours,  There are springs/watercourses under terrace and construction will have deleterious impact upon neighbours,  Severe impact upon neighbourhood during construction work with road closure, impact upon parking availability, and noise,  Loss of views,  Loss of open space,  Impact upon important tree,  Property will be second home/investment vehicle and unavailable to those in need.

Third Party Representations: Six letters of support have been received raising the following matters:  The design is exciting architecture,  It will improve an unsightly plot,  It will provide employment during construction phase,  It will provide a much needed house.

4 RELEVANT POLICIES

4.1 NPPF (Framework)

4.2 NPPG

4.3 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan – Core Strategy and Development Management Development Plan Document (adopted July 2013) policies:

SP1a – Sustainable Development SP1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP15 – Landscape and Townscape SP19 – Settlement Policy SP22 – Aldeburgh DM7 – Infilling and Backland Development within Physical Limits Boundaries DM19 – Parking Standards DM21 – Design: Aesthetics

DM22 – Design: Function DM23 – Residential Amenity DM27 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM28 – Flood Risk

4.4 The Area Policies and Site Specific Policies Development Plan Document 2017. The relevant policies are: Policy SSP2 – Physical Limits Boundaries Policy SSP28 – Aldeburgh Town Centre

4.5 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents: Aldeburgh Conservation Area Appraisal

5 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of Development

5.1 The proposal is for the erection of a dwelling which lies within the physical limits of Aldeburgh, a Market Town as defined within the Local Plan. The site lies within Aldeburgh Town Centre and within Aldeburgh Conservation Area. The proposal is for consideration against Local Plan policies DM7 and SSP28. The primary issues relate to impact upon the Conservation Area; impact upon highway safety and parking and upon residential amenity.

Impact upon Conservation Area and Visual Amenity

5.2 A key consideration in assessing the proposed development will be the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and whether it will be preserved or enhanced. Paragraphs 192 and 126 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that account should be taken of the desiailit of e deelopet akig a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness'. Paragraph 200 of the NPPF also states that 'Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conseatio Aeas…..ad ithi the settig of heitage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance.'

5.3 The site has an attractive brick boundary wall on its frontage to The Terrace with views of the rear of properties in the High Street from The Terrace and space around a large mature Sycamore tree which historically overhung the site from the curtilage of 179 High Street to the south. The tree does make a significant contribution to the area. The tree has been subject to crown reduction and has been trimmed up to the boundary of the site.

5.4 The current application is for an interesting bespoke design. The proposals were the subject of pre-application advice (DC/PREAPP/17/2416) when the principle of development of the site for a dwelling was supported. It was acknowledged that this was a site specific response to a town centre constrained urban setting and the general layout and accommodation proposed was supported.

5.5 There are no important views either from or towards the site identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal, although the existing brick boundary wall to the frontage along The Terrace is noted as an important wall. The Appraisal also identifies the importance of the gardens that lie below and to the east of The Terrace, which:

…..provide a green buffer at the rear of buildings on the west side of High Street and seen from The Terrace which enhances the linear form of the development and supports several fine garden trees, which are sparse ithi the Coseratio Area’.

5.6 The site does not contribute as much to the character of the Conservation Area, as those areas further to the north, where there is a greater sense of openness and green space between The Terrace at higher level and The High Street at the lower level. Just to the north of the site this degree of openness is considerably reduced by the presence of the terrace of three cottages, which together with the addition of Gallery House adjoining the northern boundary of the site and a further dwelling between Gallery House and the cottages, currently under construction, have created a stronger degree of enclosure to The Terrace.

5.7 In addition, there are already some modern flat roofed outbuildings currently occupying the site including a garage fronting The Terrace, all in poor condition, which along with the disused garden land on the rest of the site have a negative impact on the character of the area. Development of the site therefore presents an opportunity to positively improve and enhance the appearance of the area.

5.8 Given the topography and sensitivity of the site, this is a challenging site and the design is a specific response to its context and constraints, particularly the existing topography, with living accommodation at street level and above and bedroom and ancillary accommodation at the lower levels, whilst still retaining useful areas of external open space.

5.9 It has successfully incorporated the existing brick boundary wall into the design, utilising the existing openings and retains the existing tree to the south. Revisions have been made to the design to address a number of issues previously raised including a slight reduction in height to ensure a degree of stepping down of the roof scape along The Terrace, with the proposed eaves and ridge set lower than the adjoining Gallery House.

5.10 There is now a clear separation between the proposed dwelling and Gallery House so that it reads as a detached building, in character with the cluster of adjacent dwellings. The form of the building with a pitched roof, relates well to the surrounding character and along with a traditional slate roof, the façade incorporates a distinctive timber cladding with superimposed timber rain screen cladding, with the tones and colours of external materials being from a restricted palette.

5.11 It is considered that it is a high quality, distinctive design which has positively responded to the site and its context. It will be a positive addition to the rich and varied townscape of Aldeburgh which will enhance the appearance of the site and the

Conservation Area, subject to approval of external materials and detailed design of external elements.

5.12 The specialist advice of the Design and Conservation Officer is that the proposal will enhance the appearance of the site and the Conservation Area.

5.13 The proposal does not need to be considered against para 134 of the NPPF and it is judged that the proposal would provide a level of public/community benefit which would outweigh any (less than substantial) harm to the Conservation Area.

Highway safety and parking

5.14 Whilst impact upon the Conservation Area is one of the principal considerations/issues, there are also issues in respect of highway safety/parking and impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties which determine whether overall the development is a sustainable development. The Highway Authority recommends refusal because the proposal involves a single garage space.

5.15 The scheme shows a single car parking space. The existing garage, which presumably served a property in the High Street would be lost and the level of parking provision for both the original High Street property and that now proposed would be below the minimum standards required under the current SCC parking standards. There is an acknowledged on-street parking problem in The Terrace and the level of under- provision would exacerbate this acknowledged problem.

5.16 However, the site does lie within the Town Centre, which is served by public transport opportunities. The current proposal is identified as a two bedroomed dwelling with parking standards being two spaces required, representing under provision by a single space. On balance in a town centre location such under provision is not considered to be of a magnitude to justify the refusal of planning permission.

5.17 The access and garage would not have on site turning and cars will either need to reverse into the garage or reverse out. Whilst this arrangement does give rise to safety concerns given its relationship to Choppings Hill and the junction of the Terrace with Hartington Road, the proposal replaces an existing single garage where this access arrangement was no different. The arrangement will be the same as existing and is not considered to intensify the use of a substandard access.

Residential Amenity

5.18 The close relationship to other flats/properties to south and east may be considered to result in adverse impact upon the privacy and light of these units, where there may as a result, be conflict with the requirements of DM23 of the Local Plan. No objections have been received from flats above properties in the High Street, the resident of Bank House supports the proposal. On balance it is not considered that a refusal is justified contrary to DM23. However, it is considered appropriate to remove Permitted Development Rights to safeguard the amenity of residents of adjoining properties.

Other matters

5.19 Concern has been raised with regard to the presence of springs within the cliff between the High Street and Terrace. These are not known to be present on the application site and this is not a reason to justify the refusal of planning permission in this instance.

5.20 There is an existing tree which has been subject to crown reduction which lies immediately south of the proposed dwelling. This tree had been consented for removal by SCDC but has not been removed. It is considered that care will be required at construction phase to avoid serious impact upon roots of the tree and the tree protection work will need to be made a condition of planning permission if approved.

5.21 The dwelling will be CIL liable.

Conclusion

5.22 The location of the dwelling within the physical limits and within the Town Centre is a sustainable location. The proposed development is considered to have a positive impact upon the character of the Conservation Area.

5.23 There is sufficient separation to neighbours to limit impact upon light/enclosure and privacy.

5.24 An objection has been received from the Highway Authority because of inadequate parking, but the site is located within Aldeburgh Town Centre where the sustainability of the location justifies a relaxation of parking standards in this instance.

5.25 The planning balance is in favour of the dwelling and it is considered to be a sustainable development and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions to include:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with Drawing Nos 212 08 Rev F; 09 Rev F; 10 Rev G and 13 Rev B received on 23.04.2018 and 11 Rev B received on 09.01.2018 unless otherwise consented by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. No development shall commence until details of the roof, wall materials and finishes to be used have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity.

4. The use shall not commence until the area within the site shown on Dwg No Rev F for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area shall be retained and used for no other purposes. Reason: To ensure that sufficient space for the on site parking of vehicles is provided and maintained in order to ensure the provision of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety to users of the highway.

5. The areas to be provided for storage of Refuse/Recycling bins as shown on Dwg No Rev F shall be provided in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose. Reason: To ensure that refuse recycling bins are not stored on the highway causing obstruction and dangers for other users.

6. No development shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS); which term shall include: i) methods of tree protection in accordance with BS 5837:1991 and a plan submitted to the Local Planning Authority, ii) method of construction within 10m radius of the trees to be retained including details of excavation, service trenches, building foundations and tree protective fencing and iii) a schedule of proposed remedial tree surgery works to be undertaken), has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Work shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS. Reason: To ensure that the works undertaken in the vicinity of the adjacent tree protected by Conservation Area legislation are carried out in a way that minimises/prevents damage to it.

7. No development shall commence, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: a. The proposed route for access to the site by plant, operatives and delivery vehicles; b. Loading and unloading of plant and materials; c. Storage of plant and materials used in the construction of the development; d. Materials/plant delivery times; e. Construction times; f. Parking for construction workers and visitors; g Wheel washing facilities; measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; h. A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. Reason: In the interests of amenity, highway safety and the protection of the local environment, given the restricted nature of the site, close proximity of neighbours.

DETERMINATION:

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Ref No DC/18/0086/FUL.

Committee Date: 16 August 2018

Site Visit: 30 July 2018

2. ALDRINGHAM CUM THORPE – DC/18/0881/FUL – Rebuilding of No 1 Old Homes Road ancillary to Johnnygate at Johnnygate, Beach Farm Road, Thorpeness, Aldringham-Cum- Thorpe, IP16 4NZ for Dr Deborah Kearns.

Case Officer: Stephen Milligan

Expiry Date: 26 July 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Full Planning Permission is sought for the erection of a building attached to 2 Old Homes Road, Thorpeness for use for garaging, gallery and studio space ancillary to the property Johnnygate.

The development lies on the edge of Thorpeness Conservation Area, within the physical limits of Thorpeness as defined within the Local Plan and close to the Coastal Change Management Area.

This item has come before members following consideration by the Delegation Panel of SCDC because the issues of residential amenity. The application is recommended for Approval.

The item was deferred by Planning Committee on 19 July 2018, to enable a Planning Committee Site Visit to take place. This visit took place on 30 July 2018.

1 SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1. The property lies within the physical limits of Thorpeness, as defined within the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and within the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

1.2. The site lies outside Thorpeness Conservation Area with the boundary of Thorpeness Conservation Area following the south-west and north-western boundaries of the property. The Local Plan identifies a Coastal Change Management Area and this lies in the vicinity of the proposed building and appears to encompass the eastern part of the proposed building.

1.3. The property has a neighbour 2 Old Homes Road which is an end terrace dwelling, two stories in height.

2 THE APPLICATION

2.1 The proposal is to build a part two storey part single storey building attached to No 2 Old Homes Road, in order to provide accommodation incidental to Johnnygate. The accommodation comprises a garage, gallery and studio spaces including wc and shower room. 2.2 The building is a replica of 1 Old Homes Road, a dwelling which formerly existed at the site.

3 CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Aldringham cum Thorpe Parish Council: raise no objections, stating:

“The Parish Council believe the proposal to rebuild No 1 in the style and size of the original property, using similar materials and conforming where possible to the original street scenes the most appropriate proposal for this site. However, we consider the use of planting and trellis on the balcony as screening to prevent overlooking of No 2 could be viewed as a temporary expedient and request that a more permanent solution should be adopted. We would also like assurance that the proposals to mitigate the risk of potential flooding are acceptable and will not require any changes to the heights or elevations of the building to comply with regulations before we can give an informed opinion on this application.

3.2 Suffolk County Council – Highway Authority: Raise no Objection, recommending a condition relating to the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles.

3.3 SCDC - Head of Environmental Services and Port Health: raise no Objections

3.4 Third Party Representations: Five Letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:

 Impact upon privacy of neighbour from window and roof terrace.  Impact upon the character of the area/Conservation Area.  Access is likely to be an issue.  If this is truly ancillary to Johnnygate surely an extension would make more sense.  Building adjoining to Old Homes could compromise the footings of the neighbouring property and the entire row.  The proposal would make No 2 a mid terraced property.  Overdevelopment of site.  This will be yet another second home.

4. RELEVANT POLICIES

4.1 NPPF (Framework)

4.2 NPPG

4.3 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan – Core Strategy and Development Management Development Plan Document (adopted July 2013) policies:

SP1a – Sustainable Development SP1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP12 – Climate Change SP15 – Landscape and Townscape SP18 - Infrastructure DM6 – Residential Annexes DM19 – Parking Standards DM21 – Design: Aesthetics DM22 – Design: Function DM23 – Residential Amenity DM28 – Flood Risk

4.4 The Area Policies and Site Specific Policies Development Plan Document 2017, policies:

SSP2 – Physical Limits Boundaries SSP42 – Coastal Change Management

4.5 Supplementary Planning Document – Thorpeness Conservation Area Appraisal – June 2010

5. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of development

5.1 The proposal is for a building for use ancillary to the host property Johnnygate. The proposal is for consideration against Local Plan policies DM6 and DM21. The building is however attached to 2 Old Homes Road and replicates the former property No 1 Old Homes Road where the primary issues relate to impact upon the Conservation Area; impact upon residential amenity and Coastal Change Management.

Impact upon Conservation Area and Visual Amenity

5.2 A key consideration in assessing the proposed development will be the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and whether it will be preserved or enhanced. Paragraphs 192 and 126 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that aout should e take of the desiailit of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness'. Paragraph 200 of the NPPF also states that 'Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new deelopet ithi Coseatio Aeas…..ad ithi the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance.'

5.3 The proposal has been considered by the Interim Design & Conservation Support Officer of SCDC who confirmed that the site was previously occupied by no 1 Old Homes Road, which formed the end property of the terrace (nos 1-6 Old Homes Road), but has since been demolished and this area now forms part of the curtilage of Johnnygate.

5.4 The oigial teae of fou C9 fisheas ottages as eteded ith a galed addition at either end, to create a symmetrical terrace of six properties during the early C20 by Glencairn Stuart Ogilvie, as one of the first projects within the planned seaside resort village of Thorpeness. The photographic evidence submitted illustrates the four original cottages and the terrace of six, taken in 1912 after extension.

5.5 It is not clear when no 1 was demolished, but the end wall of no 2 is now rendered and painted and reads as a rather stark and blank façade on the boundary of the conservation area, having a negative impact on its character and appearance. The original terrace is two storeys of brick and flint pebble construction with a pantiled roof, contrasting with the black weatherboarding of the later extension.

5.6 The Conservation Area Appraisal for Thorpeness notes that the terrace makes a good contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5.7 Key considerations in assessing the impact of the proposed development are whether the character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved or enhanced. The proposed development is intended to mirror the front elevation of no 6 and to be of a similar scale and form to the previous no 1.

5.8 The overall scale and form of the proposed extension has been informed by the character of the terrace and the previous addition. The design has been revised with

the whole of the front gable to the north-east now being in black weatherboarding to match the existing gable at the opposite end of the terrace.

5.9 Overall, subject to deletion of the flue and replacement with a simple, traditionally detailed brick chimney, the conclusion is that the proposed development will enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, especially through screening of the existing blank wall with its current harmful visual impact.

5.10 Revised plans have been received which propose a brick chimney stack as required by the Design and Conservation Officer. The subsequent design is considered to have a positive impact upon the character of this part of the village and is in compliance with policy DM21.

Flood/erosion Risk

5.11 The application site lies within Environment Agency Flood Zone 1 and is not identified as being at risk of flooding. The proposal is however in close proximity of the Coastal Change Management Area subject of policy SSP42. SSP42 states that:

All other new development, redevelopment, extensions to existing property and development or intensification of land uses will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated through the submission of a Coastal Erosion Vulnerability Assessment (CEVA) that it will result in no increased risk to life or significant increase in risk to property.

5.12 The application has been considered by the Senior Coastal Engineer of East Suffolk who confirms that the relevant parts of Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) 7, i.e. maps in Appendix C, Annexe 1, Adopted Policy, map 11 shows that the application property extent may be affected by erosion in epochs 1 and 2. However by epoch 3 the SMP predicts there will be significant erosion of the curtilage of Johnnygate, albeit not extending as far inland as the site of the development proposed by this application. If a 30m risk zone is added to the SMP erosion extents the proposed development site is within the 100 risk zone and may also be within the 50 year zone.

5.13 Looking to the future, forecast coastal erosion and current coastal management policy is predicted to require that Johnnygate is demolished and removed. The implication of the ancillary use of the development is that the proposed development would also be removed at that time as it is an integral part of the Johnnygate property and not an independent property that might be retained and occupied beyond the life of Johnnygate. Removal of the development as part of the Johnnygate removal process is recommended to be made a condition of the application approval.

Residential Amenity

5.14 The proposed building includes both a roof terrace and a full height window at first floor level facing south. The window would permit views into the rear garden of No 2 Old Homes Road.

5.15 The property already is overlooked by first floor windows in 3 Old Homes Road and the level of additional overlooking in this context is not considered to result in serious additional impact so as to justify the refusal of planning permission. The Agent has hoee ofied that the ido ill e osue glazed to head height to mitigate a ogoig oes aout oelookig.

5.16 The roof terrace has trellis privacy screens which restrict overlooking into the rear gade of No . The Aget ofis that the appliat is pepaed to ake this a solid timber panel with wires for planting, if this helps demonstrate that we do not want to oelook ou eighous gade. A solid pael ould pelude sigifiat oelookig from the roof terrace. The retention of the screens can be made a condition of planning permission.

5.17 Cars currently park cars in the location of the proposed garage. By enclosing parking, with the garage entrance directed away from the boundary, this will reduce noise disturbance to the resident of No 2.

Other Matters/Considerations

5.18 In respect of foundation design, the agent confirms that they have employed a structural engineer to advise on a cantilevered foundation solution to keep away from the existing foundations of No.2 Old Homes Road. He has approached a party-wall surveyor to ensure that proper and appropriate precautions are taken to protect No.2 Old Homes Road during the works.

5.19 It is also confirmed that access to No.1 Old Homes Road will be from Johnnygate. It will not impact on parking in Old Homes Road. This applies during construction and when completed.

5.20 The proposal would increase the level of residential floorspace in excess of 100sqm. It is therefore liable under the Community Infrastructure Levy.

Conclusion

5.21 On balance the creation of a replica of 1 Old Homes Road is considered beneficial to Thorpeness Conservation Area.

5.22 Impact upon the neighbour is limited by design, privacy screens and fact that there is already limited privacy as a result of the relationship between Nos 2 and 3 Old Homes Road.

5.23 There is no issue with flood risk. The risk posed by coastal erosion is greater for the host property Johnnygate and appears limited for the proposed lifetime of the development. The demolition of Johnnygate when necessary as a result of coastal erosion, will necessitate the removal of this building.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with Drawing Package Rev A received on 02.05.2018 unless otherwise consented by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity

4. The development shall not be used other than for gallery, studio and garage, ancillary and incidental to the existing dwelling. Reason: The local planning authority would not approve the development other than for domestic purposes associated with the existing dwelling.

5. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on Proposed Ground Floor Plan for the purpose of the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided. Thereafter the area(s) shall be retained and used for no other purpose. Reason: To ensure that sufficient space for the on site parking of vehicles is provided and where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety to users of the highway.

6. The building hereby permitted shall be demolished and the site shall be restored within six months of the demolition of the host property Johnnygate as a result of coastal erosion. Reason: To ensure the removal of the whole property when demolition of the property is necessary as a result of coastal erosion, in the interests of safety and amenity.

DETERMINATION:

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Ref No DC/18/0881/FUL.

Committee Date: 16 August 2018

Site Visit: 30th July 2018

3. MARTLESHAM – DC/18/2774/ARM – Brightwell Lakes, Land South and East of Adastral Park, Martlesham – Application for Reserved Matters Approval of Site Entrance and Boulevard comprising the detail of the following elements: The new junction with the A12; The entrance to the site, including the new entrance feature / acoustic bund along the A12 boundary; The new boulevard from the site entrance to the junction with the Eastern Spine Road; The new Western Spine Road and new Junction with the Ipswich Road, incorporating measures required by condition 43 of DC/17/1435/OUT; The Landscaping to the entrance and zone along the boulevard / spine road; The new Drainage to the boulevard and spine road, including pumping station off the Ipswich Road, in the Valley Corridor; The new incoming utility supplies along the route of the boulevard and spine road - In respect of Outline Planning Permission DC/17/1435/OUT for Carlyle Land Ltd and CEG

This site falls within the parishes of Martlesham, Brightwell and Waldringfield

Expiry Date: 1st October 2018

DC/18/2774/ARM – Brightwell Lakes, Land South and East of Adastral Park, Martlesham

DO NOT SCALE SLA100019684 ‘epodued fo the Odae “ue appig ith the peissio of the Cotolle of He Majests “tatioe Offie © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the approval of Outline Planning Permission for a new 2000 home community on this site on 10th April 2018, this application seeks reserved matters approval for initial highway and drainage infrastructure. These early proposals seek to establish key infrastructure to support the delivery of the first phase of 500 homes off the A12 and Ipswich Road.

This item, along with DC/18/2775/ARM, has come before members because of their relationship with the recently approved outline permission (which was EIA development) and because these applications are the first detailed submissions for this site.

1. SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 The application site comprises 113.3 hectares of land to the south and east of Adastral Park, Martlesham. The site falls within the boundaries of three parishes; Martlesham, Waldringfield and Brightwell. The majority of the site lies within Martlesham parish, the southernmost section lies within Brightwell parish and a small part of the most eastern edge of the site lies within Waldringfield parish.

1.2 A detailed description of the existing comprehensive site and its surroundings is set out in the Planning Committee Report PC01-18 (15th January 2018). This reserved matters application relates to parts of the western half of the site across the areas shown in red below.

1.3 This area largely consists of relatively recent areas of sand and gravel extraction. Towards the eastern area of the reserved matters area, this is an area of historic extraction which leads down to the lake and is a mix of grass and shrubs. The far western end of the site area covers an area of agricultural land which has not been subject to extraction and remains as set-aside agricultural land. This area, alongside the A12 also includes the existing roadside bund.

2 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MASTERPLAN

2.1 The area covered by this application for reserved matters approval is entirely consistent with the alignment of the main spine road (Boulevard) indicated on the masterplan of the outline planning permission. It is also consistent with the

asteplas alignment of the Ipswich Road west road, which connects to the Boulevard and with the alignment of the proposed bund and SANG area adjacent to the A12. These aspects of the masterplan were generally fixed in their location through the Access and Movement and Land Use Parameter Plans included in the Environmental Statement for this development.

3 PROPOSALS

3.1 As part of the planning permission for this site, consented through Outline Planning Permission DC/17/1435/OUT, this application seeks reserved matters approval in respect of layout, appearance, scale and landscaping for the following elements of the first phase of this site:  The new junction with the A12  The entrance to the site, including the new entrance feature / acoustic bund along the A12 boundary  The new boulevard from the site entrance to the junction with the proposed Ipswich Road East Road  The new Ipswich Road West Road and new Junction with the Ipswich Road, incorporating measures required by condition 43 of DC/17/1435/OUT  The Landscaping to the entrance and zone along the boulevard / spine road  The new Drainage to the boulevard and spine road.  The new incoming utility supplies along the route of the boulevard and spine road.

3.2 This site is likely to be delivered through a master developer, who will provide key elements of infrastructure to serve serviced housebuilder parcels of housing. It is essential that this type of submission is made early in order to build an infrastructure framework for the site which can then dictate how housebuilder parcels will be served, including access points off the boulevard.

3.3 Largely the proposed submission is infrastructure related and it takes the masterplan of the outline submission to a level of detail and specification to demonstrate how the spine roads will be constructed and laid out. In particular it shows how pedestrian and cycle routes will be accommodated alongside the vehicular highway and how landscaping, tree planting and drainage will be incorporated within this key aspect of the site.

3.4 This application and the accompanying DC/18/2775/ARM submission provide extensive drainage details in order to ensure that surface water drainage from both the roads and housebuilding areas of the first phase areas are comprehensively itigated. This iludes poposals fo oadside sales hih ill eithe allo diet infiltration or create a conduit to a strategic drainage basin within the SANG valley area (detailed within DC/18/2775/ARM).

3.5 The outline planning permission approved the vehicular access onto the A12 and Ipswich Road (west) in full and plans for those accesses are listed as approved plans. This submission does not seek approval of the junctions again, however the roads within the site which connect to them are part of this detailed submission. Therefore submitted plans include those access junction details again. The plans also deal with 21

the landscaping around those junctions and the pedestrian and cycle routes which lead to them. As part of the overall layout of the A12 junction, the proposed roadside frontage of the site is also detailed in full within this submission. This includes the roadside bund, wall and fencing proposed to attenuate noise from the A12 and also required to ensure a well designed public frontage to the site.

3.6 The detailed plans covering the junctions also show greater detail on the off-site layout of parts of the A12 and Ipswich Road. These work were also approved as part of the outline permission, however this submission does not seek further approval of works to the highway. The next stage of approval of those works is through agreements with the Highway Authority under section 278 of The Highways Act. That process will follow on from the determination of this application and is highly technical in nature.

3.7 In parallel with the reserved matters applications, a number of details contained within those submissions and in accompanying reports seek to discharge or address conditions on the outline approval. This report does not deal with those conditions specifically as they are to be determined under delegated powers, however much of the detail is integrated within the reserved matters detail also.

3.8 This submission also starts to set out greater detail about the levels that will be created across the first phase of the site. The site is undergoing sand and mineral extraction and therefore consists of very changeable levels and the calculations and strategy for spreading a more consistent platform for a development site are very complex. From the earliest commencement on the site there will be substantial earth oeet takig plae ad i siple tes this is desied as ut hee ateial is eaated to eate a leel, ad fill hee ut ateial is plaed ad opated to build up a level. Overall this will create more gentle gradients across the site and it should avoid any significant changes in levels and unnecessary bunds on the edges of the site.

4 CONSULTATIONS

A full consultation was undertaken for three weeks commencing on 9th July 2018. The following responses had been received four weeks after the consultation commencing. Some responses are still awaited pending updated details and plans.

4.1 Waldringfield Parish Council:

The new junction with the A12 as required by condition 34 of DC/17/1435/OUT We do not have the necessary expertise to make pertinent comments regarding the safety issues of such a complicated junction, but we are pleased that this junction is to be fully operational prior to occupation of the first dwelling.

The new Western Spine Road and new Junction with the Ipswich Road, incorporating measures required by condition 43 of DC/17/1435/OUT Coditio of the outlie plaig peissio euied a desig stateg to reduce traffic using this access, through traffic calming or steet desig i ode to distiute taffi aoss the othe aesses ad to al the effet of taffi o that jutio i ode to aitai the ual haate of Ipsih ‘oad. ou ephasis.

We do not believe that the proposed design (drawing 42862/2003/102 Rev P2) satisfies this condition.

We understand that the two narrower, 3.4m width, restrictions comply with the Dept of Taspots Maual fo “teets, ad that suh estitios a at as a disincentive when choosing to use a particular road as well as serving as a means of traffic calming.

However, there is a fundamental flaw in the proposed design as the 3.4m restrictions are located only at the northern section of what is now called the Western Spine Road. Both of these width restrictions are to the north of three of the feeder roads into the rest of the development. We understand that approximately 200 houses will be served by two of these feeder roads and the extension to Brightwell Barns will be served by the third.

Drivers entering/exiting the Western Spine Road via these three feeder roads will almost certainly choose to enter/exit the development via the unrestricted access to the Ipswich Rd rather than negotiate two width restrictions to reach the designated pia aess oute via the Boulevard and the new A12 junction.

The proposed layout will therefore have the opposite effect to that required by oditio to edue taffi usig this aess.

In addition, we understand that the 4.6m width restriction is no longer included in this application. We would agree that it should be removed. However, we feel very stogl that i ode to eet the euieets of oditio to al the effet of traffic on that junction in order to maintain the rural character of Ipswich ‘oad, a alternative traffic calming measure must be introduced within the southern section of the Western Spine Road. An additional 3.4m width restriction in the southern section would achieve the desired traffic calming effect when approaching the Ipswich Road junction as required by condition 43. If there are concerns about having a 3.4m width restriction too close to the Brightwell Barns feeder road we would suggest that this feeder road could be relocated some distance to the north. We feel that it is important that the conditions are met in full, and suggest that this can easily be achieved with, at this early stage, a minor re-design of this area. We are sure that ith the oied skills of “CDC Plaig, “CC Highas ad the deelopes consultants the design of the Western Spine road can be modified to meet in full condition 43.

4.2 Martlesham Parish Council: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.3 Brightwell, Foxhall and Purdis Farm Parish Council: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.4 Suffolk County Council - Flooding Authority: Due to ongoing discussions over technical details in relation to drainage proposals a response is due to be provided following the submission of further amendments and details.

4.5 Suffolk County Council – Archaeological Service In this case, as the overarching conditions/obligations on outline consent DC/17/1435 consent secure archaeological work I would not have any comment on the design details of the proposal for these particular works in relation to below ground archaeology, but would point out that the overall conditions/requirements should be borne in mind, particularly in relation to construction management. It would be useful to have an overlay of the proposals on top of Orio Heitages Figue fo the archaeological WSI, which confirms the layout - from an initial review, the works covered by this application may impact slightly on areas identified for archaeological work, but are mainly away from them. It would also be useful to confirm whether design elements are relevant to other conditions/obligations relating to designated and non-designated assets.

4.6 Suffolk County Council - Highway Authority: Due to ongoing discussions over technical details in relation to road construction and design, to enable future adoption, a response is due to be provided following the submission of further amendments and details.

4.7 SCDC - Head of Environmental Services and Port Health: Initial feedback indicates that noise mitigation measures are acceptable; however a response is due to be received once the final design of the A12 bund, wall and fence has been submitted.

4.8 Highways England: No Objection

4.9 Historic England: Thank you for your letters of 9 July 2018 regarding the above application for Reserved Matters Approval. As we have discussed in previous correspondence we are broadly supportive of the wider scheme and do not object in principle to the Reserved Matters items as listed in the two applications. As you are aware there are a number of designated and non-designated heritage asset within the redline boundary and in the area immediately surrounding the development that we have discussed at previous meetings and in correspondence. We have agreed a way forward to preserve and enhance these assets as part of the final scheme and I would be grateful if you can confirm that the applicant has put in place a strategy for managing these assets during these proposed works. This would be in order to protect them against any inadvertent damage whilst these reserved matters construction works are taking place. We consider that something like a heritage management strategy would be appropriate and that this would need to include heritage exclusion zones, as well as fencing and demarcation of the designated and non-designated assets. We would also like confirmation that these pre-works would also be subject to any archaeological mitigation as recommended by your archaeological advisors, in accordance with a brief and appropriate WSI.

4.10 Suffolk Wildlife Trust: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.11 Natural England: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.12 Third Party Representations: One letter of objection has been received raising the following material planning considerations:  The entrance doesn't look attractive. More like the entrance to an open prison or industrial estate.  Why have the name of the estate emblazoned on the entrance wall? This is signage is totally out of keeping with exiting developments in the area.  The boulevard will act as a wind tunnel especially with easterly winds (common in winter). High sided vehicles (i.e. Tesco delivery lorries, etc.) on A12 will be in danger of being pushed over at the site entrance causing a hazard to all around.  Pine trees proposed on the frontage may lead to pine cones being blown onto the A12 which will cause a major nuisance and possible danger to A12 traffic.  An indication of house height behind the "entrance walls" would have been useful to establish whether the houses could be seen from the A12.  I aot see a sigage o the A idiatig the Bightell Lakes deelopet entrance.  I assume that the existing National Cycle Route that runs alongside the A12 is dieted ito the e deelopet alog the east side of the Bud. I also assue that this route is also shared with pedestrians.

5 RELEVANT POLICIES

5.1 Legislative Considerations

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 2004 in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations). The outline planning application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement. It is not necessary for reserved matters applications to also be accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Instead the reserved matters applications need to confirm with the Environmental Statement of the outline and the parameters put in place by that statement, its plans and documents. It is confirmed that this submission conforms with the outline planning permission and its environmental statement. Therefore, for EIA screening purposes, the proposals submitted do not require an Environmental Statement in themselves or any revision to the previously submitted Environmental Statement.

outline planning permission and therefore no further consideration is necessary in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment or the effects on European sites. It remains important to ensure that reserved matters proposals comply with the mitigation included within the outline planning application and assessed under the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process. In particular the quantity and quality of SANG provision. This application includes an are of SANG behind the A12 bund and therefore compliance with the SANG principles will form part of the consideration of this application.

The Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) This is the main legislation for protection of wildlife in Great Britain. The Act deals with protection of wildlife. Species are offered varying levels of protection by the Act under different schedules. Protected species are present on the site and therefore this act must be considered in relation to the impacts of the development and the mitigation proposed. The proposals considered under this application are not deemed to directly affect protected species in any way which was not originally considered at outline stage. The submission is accompanied by an Environmental Action Plan Part 2 which is required by condition to ensure compliance with the outline permission.

Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 The setio of the At etitled Natue Coseatio stegthes ad suppleets the Wildlife and Countryside Act legislation for protected species and SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest). The site contains a SSSI but it is significant distance from any part of the site included within this application.

National Policy

5.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Since the approval of the outline planning permission the NPPF has been revised (July 2018). This revision does not affect the status of the consent in place, however a number of paragraphs and policies of the revised NPPF do relate to design, highways and drainage matters and therefore apply to consideration of specific detail within this submission. Following a review of the revised NPPF it is concluded that there are no changes in the revision which significantly alter the way that proposals for this site should be considered.

Local Policy

5.3 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies July 2013 – The following policies are relevant to this reserved matters application: Policy SP1 - Sustainable development Policy SP10 - A14 and A12 Policy SP11 - Accessibility Policy SP12 – Climate Change Policy SP14 – Biodiversity and geodiversity

Policy SP15 – Landscape and townscape Policy SP17 - Green space Policy SP18 - Infrastructure Policy SP20 – Eastern Ipswich Plan Area Policy DM21 - Design Aesthetics Policy DM22 – Design Function Policy DM23 – Residential Amenity Policy DM26 - Lighting Policy DM27 – Biodiversity and geodiversity Policy DM28 - Flood risk

5.4 Suffolk Coastal Site Allocations and Area Specific Policies January 2017 Policy SSP32: Visitor Management – European Sites

5.5 Martlesham Neighbourhood Plan – Made June 2018 The Neighbourhood Plan does not extend to the application site, however it will be relevant to off-site connections proposed and the future development of the wider community. This reserved matters application seeks to deliver the key pedestrian and cycle route to Barrack Square and the proposed footway and cycleway for that road. This ties into the Neighbourhood Plan area and the connectivity that plan seeks to achieve.

6 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Due to the technical nature of this submission and the specific relevance to infrastructure delivery, the considerations are best dealt with by addressing each element of the proposal, rather than each material consideration.

6.2 As acknowledged in earlier sections, the proposals contained within this submission broadly comply with the proposals and illustrative detail within the outline application. The technical design and specification is now essential to ensure that the outline proposal is implemented and maintained as a high quality sustainable development.

The Boulevard (Main Spine Road)

6.3 Thanks to the level of detail provided to support the outline application, through a detailed Design and Access statement, setting a range of character bands and design principles, the street design of the boulevard has previously been illustrated.

6.4 As the main route through the entire site, a consistent width, approach to walking and cycling provision and tree planting scheme is necessary to give it a robust and legible identity. This submission succeeds in maintaining that and the design principles of the outline submission. The success in the design of this route will also depend on the scale and design of proposed dwellings fronting the route. This application does not propose those building but sets out the space in front of them and the locations of housing blocks. Overall this creates a suitable framework for a well designed primary route through the site.

6.5 The Boulevard has a number of roles to achieve, those being:

 Minimum of 17.8 metre width between plots on both sides.  6.8 metre wide road.  3 metre width combined pedestrian and cycle route on one side of the road  2 metre width pedestrian route on the other side of the road.  Planting strips separating the pedestrian/cycle routes and road of between 2.5 and 3.5 metres wide.  The integration of sustainable drainage measures (SUDS) and drainage infrastructure.  Street lighting.  The integration of trees along the whole route on both sides of the road  The provision of service routes underneath the pedestrian/cycle route for ease of accesses and adaption.  The inclusion of side access roads to secondary streets and housing parcels along its length.  The provision of bus stop/shelters at appropriate location.  Crossing points at key crossing locations/nodes.  Identifiable character areas through changes in surface treatment. (eg. Secondary Local Centre) including some layby parking provision.

6.6 In respect of the important pedestrian and cycle routes, these are well laid out and of suitable widths to encourage safe and convenient walking and cycling along the Boulevard. It wont be the only walking and cycling route as the SANG links around the edges and through the western area will provide attractive landscaped off road routes. The Boulevard will be the most direct central route through the whole community and therefore it should have a strong pedestrian and cycling emphasis which is apparent in the submitted design. The proposal also addresses the crossovers on secondary routes off the Boulevard and these have been safely designed to avoid conflicts between cars and cyclists. It should also be noted that the Boulevard will not include any private residential drives/accesses and therefore there will be no vehicles crossing over footways and cycle lanes. A number of crossing points have also been designed in to ensure that getting from one side of the Boulevard to the other is safe in areas where there will be the greatest desire to move across it. This will include a change in road surface treatment at key crossing points to seek to reduce vehicle speeds. As per the outline approval, there will be a signalised toucan crossing over the Boulevard close to the A12 junction, allowing safe crossing of the north-south route running behind the bund.

6.7 All of the above are integrated into the detailed design and it has been a challenge to ensure all can be accommodated without compromising one another. A particular challenge has been the integration of extensive tree planting. It is necessary to locate trees along the whole route to achieve a design quality expected of a primary route and to soften the built form. These trees have to compete with the design standards expected by the Highway Authority who will eventually adopt this road. The Highway Authority are reluctant to adopt trees which bring maintenance costs in the long term and specific width and height requirements to the spread of trees would normally be dictated by adoption requirements, which could lead to very compromised and small trees. To avoid this the applicants have agreed to implement a management agreement for the trees to ensure that they are maintained as part of the comprehensive landscaping and open space provision across the site. This will enable 28

more trees of a greater size and spread to be included. The placement of trees is also carefully designed around the drainage provision and road structure to avoid root impacts.

6.8 The full length of the route will accommodate landscaped strips beside the road of varying widths. In many locations this will include swales to provide a sustainable approach to surface water drainage. Depending on whether these are positioned on areas where the underlying ground consists of cut or fill. In areas of fill, due to the compaction of material, the ground will not be so permeable and therefore localised direct infiltration methods will not be possible. Instead a wider site strategy will be implemented to pipe surface water to an attenuation basin, essentially a second lake, in the SANG valley area. This proposal is detailed in the accompanying reserved matters application. In areas of cut, the underlying sand and gravel beds of the site will be exposed, and subject to the addition of an appropriate layer of topsoil, these areas should drain freely and allow swales with direct infiltration methods. Overall, the approach to strategic drainage across this western first phase area is sound and subject to agreement on specific detail from the Lead Local Flood Authority, the proposed drainage strategy is acceptable.

6.9 A final detail which is not marked on current plans is the location and form of bus stops and shelters provided along the Boulevard. It is sensible to reserve this detail for a later stage to enable it to respond to housing layouts and the bus service providers needs. This can be secured by a condition.

Ipswich Road West

6.10 This road follows a very similar pattern in its design to the boulevard. It is a main access route for the site but it is secondary in nature to the Boulevard. The vehicular highway is therefore mostly 5.5 metres wide compared to 6.8 metres on the Boulevard. It includes a spacing beside the road and the same mix of pedestrian and cycle route provision to the boulevard. It also incorporates trees, drainage and landscape strips. The design of the access onto Ipswich Road is very much the same as was approved at outline stage and need not be reconsidered in this submission. As per the Boulevard proposals, the detail of this road also shows secondary streets leading off it to both housebuilding parcels and the proposed business expansion area which is adjacent to Brightwell Barns.

6.11 Based on the phasing and layout, it is expected that approximately 200 dwellings would be directly accessed off this road and those residents would perceive it to be their most direct route to leave the site. This would particularly be the case if those residents were heading south down the A12 or west along Foxhall Road. If those residents were instead heading north along the A12 it is more likely that they would leave the site via the Boulevard. Equally this applies in a similar way to those residents entering the site. This is consistent with expectations within the outline application and as part of the traffic modelling of that application an assessment was made that 15% of traffic generated on the site would use this access road.

6.12 A key request of Waldringfield Parish Council was to reduce the intensity of use of this access, particularly to avoid the desire of residents on the site to use Ipswich Road to

reach the A12 instead of using the main A12 access. Instinctively, the A12 access is the most logical route to take for the majority of the site. Recognising this concern, the applicants agreed, through a condition, to incorporate measures in the design of this road to make the route less attractive to residents of the wider site. It was always anticipated that the measures would not dissuade residents who directly access onto it to use it as a route. To comply with this requirement, the design of this road includes two road build outs which mean that a priority situation is introduced in one direction at each build out. This will restrict the ability for cars to freely move north or south along its full length without needing to wait at or at least acknowledge the two priority situations. This is likely to cause some inconvenience, waiting and slight journey delay to residents taking this route. This should dissuade unnecessary use of this route, maintaining the Boulevard as the preferred route of travel for wider site residents.

6.13 Waldringfield Parish Council remain concerned that even 200 homes would have direct access onto this route. The route is considered safe and appropriately designed to ensure that it both flows appropriately but also makes it less attractive and more of a burden to use to most residents of the site. The impact of the 200 dwellings directly accessing it is not considered to change the conclusions of the Transport Assessment or result in a situation which is different than was expected when imposing the condition on the outline approval.

A12 Frontage

6.14 Because the application designs the surroundings of the approved access onto the A12 it also comprehensively seeks approval of the entire frontage of the site and the noise attenuation measures required for this edge. This is an encouraging first step to ensure that the proposed housing is both protected from noise but also well designed around a pre-planned frontage and landscaping.

6.15 It was recognised from early on in the pre-application masterplan design process that the site frontage onto the A12 would need to form both a prominent gateway but also avoid an overly engineered appearance. The approved Design and Access Statement sets Design Principles to ensure that this is a high quality element of the site. The outline planning application Planning Committee report stated: The CGI of the A12 frontage indicates an attractive and inspiring vertically planted wall. This may not be the most practical solution in the long term but it sets a design standard to aspire to i the future resered atters appliatios.

6.16 The approach now taken moves away from the vertically planted wall to instead propose a bespoke wall with terraced planting. The wall would be of high quality design and would constructed with layered concrete to reflect the layered geology which is present in the SSSI cliff on the site and in the edges of the quarried areas. If executed well this finish will be a very attractive form of boundary for the entrance to the site. To ensure this it will be necessary for a construction method statement to be agreed prior to construction and a sample section should be created for prior approval. The wall design is also proposed at the northern end of the bund to give equally high status to the key pedestrian and cycle access into the site, off Barrack Square.

6.17 Between the two sections of wall, two thirds of the frontage would instead need to utilise a more economical boundary treatment. Again, this needs to be robust, resilient and effective in noise attenuation. The applicants have proposed a timber acoustic fence. This very solid form of fencing is made of thick horizontal tongue and groove boards and it will have a more utilitarian appearance. It will be two metres high above a two metre high bund and within this section of the frontage significant attention will instead need to be given to the implementation of high quality landscaping through wildflower planting, mature shrubs and trees and some climbing plants for the fence. Through effective landscaping this visual effect of the fence will be mitigated.

6.18 Subject to the outcome of the Traffic Regulation Order process, to reduce the A12 speed limit, the height of the fence may be reduced and/or the bund height may be raised. The TRO consultation, due to commence soon, will seek a 40 mph limit across the site frontage. The acoustic properties of the boundary are designed to mitigate the noise from a possible 50mph speed limit. The proposals are consistent in form with what was expected at outline stage and there is no indication that the proposed attenuation will cause any increase in noise levels on the west side of the A12. Similarly, the distance of separation will avoid any impact on residential amenity to those neighbours.

6.19 The northernmost area of the A12 boundary may involve attenuation deeper into the development site or on highway land adjacent to the A12. It is sensible to design that part at the same time as housing is proposed in that area due to the possible close relationship of the attenuation and housing designs.

7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 This reserved matters application covers the very first forms of development which will need to be delivered on the site. It is encouraging that this has been submitted swiftly after the outline planning approval and demonstrates the willingness of the site owner/master developers to bring this strategic housing site and new community forward. It is essential that the Council works with the developers of this site to ensure that we balance the delivery of homes and the creation of a sustainable and well designed development.

7.2 At the time of writing this report the proposals as submitted are in the process of some further technical amendments and additional supporting detail has been requested. This is likely to be submitted in time for the Planning Committee and will not alter the proposals to an extent that would require reconsultation. At the time of writing this report a three week consultation period had also completed, however some statutory consultation responses are still pending based on the awaited information and amendments. Those include responses from the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority which are both very relevant to these proposals. Based on discussions that have taken place, working closely with those consultees, it is expected that no objections will be received. There are no significant issues with the proposals and requested amendments and detail are technical due to very detailed nature of highway and drainage elements proposed.

7.3 Therefore, in publishing this report the Local Planning Authority is confident that the proposals are broadly acceptable. In the interests of efficient determination of this reserved matters application and ensuring that it comes before members due to the importance of this site, an early recommendation in favour of the application is made.

RECOMMENDATION: Authority to APPROVE and finalise the detail of proposals subject to the receipt of responses of no objection from the Local Highway Authority, Lead Local Flood Authority and Environmental Protection Officers. The approval would include the following conditions, along with any considered necessary as result of consultation responses:

1. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 2. Prior to the commencement of development to create the A12 bund or wall, a Construction Method Statement and sample Panel of the wall shall be submitted and provided on site and agreed. 3. Prior to the occupation of any dwellings on the site a design scheme for the provision of bus stops and shelters on the roads contained within this application area shall be submitted and agreed. The submission shall provide details to enable agreement of the timing of implementation in line with the commencement of the bus route into the site.

DETERMINATION:

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Ref No. DC/17/1435/OUT and DC/18/2775/ARM

Committee Date: 16th August 2018

4. MARTLESHAM – DC/18/2775/ARM – Brightwell Lakes, Land South and East of Adastral Park, Martlesham – Application for Reserved Matters Approval of Green Infrastructure comprising the detail of the following elements: Main Green Infrastructure – SANG; SANG Valley Corridor; SANG Links to Southern Boundary; Allotments and Community Orchards to area 5b - In respect of Outline Planning Permission DC/17/1435/OUT for Carlyle Land Ltd and CEG

This site falls within the parishes of Martlesham, Brightwell and Waldringfield

Expiry Date: 1st October 2018

DC/18/2774/ARM – Brightwell Lakes, Land South and East of Adastral Park, Martlesham

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the approval of Outline Planning Permission for a new 2000 home community on this site on 10th April 2018, this application seeks reserved matters approval for initial green infrastructure areas. These early proposals seek to establish essential open space and landscaping to support the delivery of the first phase of 500 homes off the A12 and Ipswich Road.

This item, along with DC/18/2774/ARM, has come before members because of their relationship with the recently approved outline permission (which was EIA development) and because these applications are the first detailed submissions for this site.

1. SITE DESCRIPTION

the southernmost section lies within Brightwell parish and a small part of the most eastern edge of the site lies within Waldringfield parish.

1.2 A detailed description of the existing comprehensive site and its surroundings is set out in the Planning Committee Report PC01-18 (15th January 2018). This reserved matters application relates to parts of the central and western parts of the site across the areas shown in blue below.

1.3 This area largely consists of existing greenfield areas of the site. The southern strip currently consists of a bund surrounding an extraction area and a grass strip containing a bridleway. The central area on the southern edge of the site is a shallow valley area which contains a workshop building and is largely overgrown shrubs and grass. This area will soon be subject to sand and gravel extraction as part of the quarry on site and is the last remaining extraction area on this side of the site. The large central area contains the existing lake and a large area of historic extraction which was filled and is now scrubby grass/set-aside. This area is bounded by the BT fence on the west and the extraction grading area on the east.

2 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MASTERPLAN

2.1 The area covered by this application for reserved matters approval is entirely consistent with the layout of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) areas indicated on the masterplan of the outline planning permission. It is also consistent with the Land Use Parameter Plan and the contribution it makes to the full amount of

SANG space dictated as necessary within the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and the Environmental Statement for this development.

3 PROPOSALS

3.1 As part of the planning permission for this site, consented through Outline Planning Permission DC/17/1435/OUT, this application seeks reserved matters approval in respect of layout, appearance, scale and landscaping for Green Infrastructure comprising of the following first phase elements of the site:  Main central SANG area around the lake and leading towards Spratts Plantation.  SANG valley corridor including new lake as part of surface water drainage proposals.  SANG Links to the southern boundary including allotments and community orchards. All of the above areas are proposed to include the play equipment and trim trail provision which is fundamental to the quality of the green spaces for recreational use.

3.2 This site is likely to be delivered through a master developer, who will provide key elements of infrastructure to serve serviced housebuilder parcels of housing. It is essential that this type of submission is made early in order to build a green infrastructure framework for the site which can establish early and be available in phased form for occupations on the site.

3.3 The masterplan and Design and Access Statement detail submitted for the outline submission was comprehensive to ensure that the visions for these areas could be implemented. The proposals now submitted are therefore unsurprisingly largely consistent with those and continue that vision with plans, detail and specifications to demonstrate how the landscaping will be implemented.

3.4 This application and the accompanying DC/18/2774/ARM submission provide extensive drainage details in order to ensure that surface water drainage from both the roads and housebuilding areas of the first phase areas are comprehensively itigated. This iludes poposals fo oadside sales hih ill eithe allo diet infiltration or create a conduit to a strategic drainage basin within the SANG valley area forming part of this application. This additional surface water attenuation pond/lake feature is a new addition to this area of the site but it will also have a strong landscaping role due to its presence in an area of SANG.

3.5 In parallel with the reserved matters applications, a number of details contained within those submissions and in accompanying reports seek to discharge or address conditions on the outline approval. This report does not deal with those conditions specifically as they are to be determined under delegated powers, however much of the detail is integrated within the reserved matters detail also.

3.6 This submission also starts to set out greater detail about the levels that will be created across the first phase of the site. The site is undergoing sand and mineral extraction and therefore consists of very changeable levels and the calculations and strategy for spreading a more consistent platform for a development site are very

complex. From the earliest commencement on the site there will be substantial earth oeet takig plae ad i siple tes this is desied as ut hee ateial is eaated to eate a leel, ad fill hee ut ateial is plaed ad opated to build up a level. Overall this will create more gentle gradients across the site and it should avoid any significant changes in levels and unnecessary bunds on the edges of the site.

4 CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Waldringfield Parish Council: Made no comments in relation to this application (comments were made on DC/18/2774/ARM).

4.2 Martlesham Parish Council: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.3 Brightwell, Foxhall and Purdis Farm Parish Council: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.5 Suffolk County Council – Archaeological Service In this case (as for DC/18/2774), as the overarching conditions/obligations on outline consent DC/17/1435 consent secure archaeological work, am I right in thinking that the reserved matters would not require further conditions? I may have missed the plan showing which areas the application covers, but it would be useful to have an overlay of the poposals o top of Oio Heitages Figue fo the ahaeologial W“I, which confirms the layout. It would also be useful to confirm whether design elements are relevant to other conditions/obligations relating to designated and non-designated assets, and I would also highlight that the overall conditions/requirements should be borne in mind, particularly in relation to construction management.

4.7 SCDC - Head of Environmental Services and Port Health: A response to both current applications is due to be received once the final design of the A12 bund, wall and fence has been submitted. There will be limited influence on the green infrastructure proposals from this consultation.

4.8 Highways England – No Objection

4.9 Historic England – Thank you for your letters of 9 July 2018 regarding the above application for Reserved Matters Approval. As we have discussed in previous correspondence we are broadly supportive of the wider scheme and do not object in principle to the Reserved Matters items as listed in the two applications. As you are aware there are a number of designated and non-designated heritage asset within the redline boundary and in the area immediately surrounding the development that we have discussed at previous meetings and in correspondence. We have agreed a way forward to preserve and enhance these assets as part of the final scheme and I would be grateful if you can confirm that the applicant has put in place a strategy for managing these assets during these proposed works. This would be in order to protect them against any inadvertent damage whilst these reserved matters construction works are taking place. We consider that something like a heritage management strategy would be appropriate and that this would need to include heritage exclusion zones, as well as fencing and demarcation of the designated and non-designated assets. We would also like confirmation that these pre-works would also be subject to any archaeological mitigation as recommended by your archaeological advisors, in accordance with a brief and appropriate WSI.

4.10 Suffolk Wildlife Trust: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.11 Natural England: No comments received at the time of writing this report.

4.12 Third Party Representations: One email of objection has been received raising the following material planning considerations:

The objection is from an adjacent land owner with desires to bring their land forward for further housing growth off this site. Concern is raised that proposed layout does not allow for connections with adjacent sites and prejudices the ability for future expansion. They request that linkages should be planned from the outset. They also believe that the current traffic arrangement will become both disruptive to flow on the A12 and a substantial safety issue.

5 RELEVANT POLICIES

5.1 Legislative Considerations

with the Environmental Statement of the outline and the parameters put in place by that statement, its plans and documents.

It is confirmed that this submission conforms with the outline planning permission and its environmental statement. Therefore, for EIA screening purposes, the proposals submitted do not require an Environmental Statement in themselves or any revision to the previously submitted Environmental Statement.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Given the location of the various European designated nature sites in the District, consideration has been given to the application of these Regulations. The outline application was subject to a Habitats Regulations screening process which dictated that it was not necessary to undertake an Appropriate Assessment due to the mitigation proposals avoiding likely significant effects on European sites. Recent European Court of Justice case law has altered the approach that has to be taken in Habitats Regulations Screening. This case law post dates the approval of outline planning permission and therefore no further consideration is necessary in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment or the effects on European sites. It remains important to ensure that reserved matters proposals comply with the mitigation included within the outline planning application and assessed under the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process. In particular the quantity and quality of SANG provision. This application includes an are of SANG behind the A12 bund and therefore compliance with the SANG principles will form part of the consideration of this application.

National Policy

5.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Since the approval of the outline planning permission the NPPF has been revised (July 2018). This revision does not affect the status of the consent in place, however a

number of paragraphs and policies of the revised NPPF do relate to design, highways and drainage matters and therefore apply to consideration of specific detail within this submission. Following a review of the revised NPPF it is concluded that there are no changes in the revision which significantly alter the way that proposals for this site should be considered.

Local Policy

5.3 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies July 2013 – The following policies are relevant to this reserved matters application:

Policy SP1 - Sustainable development Policy SP10 - A14 and A12 Policy SP11 - Accessibility Policy SP12 – Climate Change Policy SP14 – Biodiversity and geodiversity Policy SP15 – Landscape and townscape Policy SP17 - Green space Policy SP18 - Infrastructure Policy SP20 – Eastern Ipswich Plan Area Policy DM21 - Design Aesthetics Policy DM22 – Design Function Policy DM23 – Residential Amenity Policy DM26 - Lighting Policy DM27 – Biodiversity and geodiversity Policy DM28 - Flood risk

5.4 Suffolk Coastal Site Allocations and Area Specific Policies January 2017 Policy SSP32: Visitor Management – European Sites

5.5 Martlesham Neighbourhood Plan – Made June 2018 The Neighbourhood Plan does not extend to the application site, however it will be relevant to off-site connections proposed and the future development of the wider community. This reserved matters application seeks to deliver the key pedestrian and cycle routes which lead to Barrack Square and the proposed footway and cycleway for that road. This ties into the Neighbourhood Plan area and the connectivity that plan seeks to achieve.

6 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Due to the technical nature of this submission and the specific relevance to green infrastructure delivery, the considerations are best dealt with by addressing each element of the proposal, rather than each material consideration.

The main SANG area

6.3 Due to the extensive and well illustrated detail included within the outline submission, the general approach to layout, landscaping and play provision across this area has already been approved. This submission conforms with the outline approach and sets out how the landscaping will be implemented, the planting specification, levels, materials and specific play and recreation equipment.

6.4 The outline intentions of creating a high quality natural recreational space are fulfilled by these proposals. The focus on the lake is successfully imbedded in the design, with a unique beach area and overhanging deck included as attractive draws towards this area. Surrounding the lake, the play equipment provision would be a strong family draw and the inclusion of multiple area of trim trail equipment will make this an successful space for recreational routes for young and old. The amount and specific types of equipment is generally consistent with outline expectations, however further detail and some additional changes have been requested to ensure that all ages and abilities are well provided.

6.5 The planting specification is also of a generally acceptable and suitable form although some minor changes may be included in this prior to a decision being issued. The overall approach will enhance this existing lake area to balance space for recreation, landscaping and habitat creation/preservation.

6.6 The full central SANG area is included in this submission though this it will be delivered in a phased manner. In particular a part of the western edge will need to come forward at the same time as adjacent phase 3 housing due the substantial level changes across that area.

6.7 The southern part of this area overlaps with plans for the boulevard and its road design. The submissions effectively demonstrate how these two forms of infrastructure will relate. The levels in this area allow for a high quality route to be created past the open space with views over the lake. The road design and boulevard tree planting would be compatible and not detrimental to the natural character of this SANG area. The road proposals also introduce a defined crossing point over to the SANG valley area which also provides an area of focussed landscaping to emphasise the importance of this linkage. The proposals represent good quality design.

The SANG valley

6.8 This area is also largely consistent as an overall space provision with the outline application. It does now include two new additions - a surface water drainage lake and a pumping station. These two additions dictated by engineering and drainage needs could potentially have a detrimental effect on the space without a carefully considered approach. To avoid this, pre-application discussions have encouraged a landscape led approach, which has been taken on board. This has enabled the new lake area to be a positive addition to the space, with an element of permanent water within it and deeper banks to accommodate storm flows. The lake incorporates natural planting and gradual edges to avoid an engineered appearance. It also incorporates two decking

walkways to allow a further interesting and accessible route through this space and natural visual interest. It is considered that this compliments the SANG status rather than compromising it.

6.9 The proposed pumping station at the southern end of this space is below ground but requires a security fence. In order to avoid a negative effect on the space it will include hedge and shrub planting around it and overall it is considered a minor intervention in this space.

6.10 This area will form one of the earliest open spaces on the site and therefore it is essential that it provides a good mix of recreational and natural space. A good quality provision of play and trim trail equipment is proposed for all ages and this has been well designed into a landscaped area which will also be well observed by future housing.

Southern SANG link and allotments

6.11 The majority of the site will be surrounded by SANG links, creating the circuit of routes around the site for walking, running cycling and dog walking. Most SANG links also contain existing bridleways or footpaths so should largely remain accessible through the development process, though their enhancement and landscaping will occur as each adjacent housing parcel is built. In this submission the proposal details the southern SANG link which will abut the first phase 500 homes on the site and connect the SANG valley with the A12 frontage SANG link.

6.12 Again, this submission provides detail which is largely consistent with the outline application. SANG links are not intended to be heavily landscaped but should be natural edges of between 10-25m wide. They will provide space for recreation and informal play and off-road pedestrian and cycle links. In this case the proposed landscaping is acceptable and the effectiveness of these spaces will also be down to the quality of development and spaces which face onto them within housing parcels. The site boundary edges have been appropriately addressed by retaining existing trees and hedges and adding further where required, such as locations where fences need to be screened. This area may also be subject to some further minor changes prior to determination but overall it is an acceptable landscaping proposal.

6.13 A further element of this space is the first phase of community allotments, these remain of the size and position set out in the outline application and have been designed appropriately with low fencing and hedging. The plots are indicative at this stage and it is expected that the plot layouts and sizes will be community led. The area also includes orchard tree planting to complement the food growing emphasis of this area.

7 CONCLUSIONS

forward. It is essential that the Council works with the developers of this site to ensure that we balance the delivery of homes and the creation of a sustainable and well designed development.

7.2 At the time of writing this report the proposals as submitted are in the process of some further technical amendments and additional supporting detail has been requested. This is likely to be submitted in time for the Planning Committee and will not alter the proposals to an extent that would require reconsultation. At the time of writing this report a three week consultation period had also completed, however some statutory consultation responses are still pending based on the awaited information and amendments. Those include responses from the Lead Local Flooding Authority which are both very relevant to these proposals. Based on discussions that have taken place, working closely with those consultees, it is expected that no objections will be received. There are no significant issues with the proposals and requested amendments and detail are technical due to very detailed nature of landscape and drainage elements proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: Authority to APPROVE and finalise the detail of proposals subject to the receipt of responses of no objection from the Lead Local Flooding Authority and Environmental Protection Officers. The approval would include the following conditions, along with any considered necessary as result of consultation responses:

1. Plans/drawings considered/approved

DETERMINATION:

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Ref No DC/17/14355/OUT and DC/18/2774/ARM

Committee Date: 16th August 2018

5. SAXMUNDHAM – DC/18/1534/LBC – Replacement of an existing shop window: Fishers Home Hardware, 39 High Street, Saxmundham, IP17 1AJ for Mr Mark Fisher

Case Officer: Charlie Bixby

Expiry Date: 29 July 2018 (16 August 2018 extension of time)

DC/18/1534/LBC- Fishers Home Hardware, 39 High Street, Saxmundham, IP17 1AJ

DO NOT SCALE SLA100019684

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Listed Building Consent is sought for the replacement of an existing shop window.

This item has come before members because the applicant is related to an elected councillor at Suffolk Coastal District Council.

The application is recommended for approval.

1. SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1. The application property is a Grade II Listed Building. The site itself is within the physical limits boundaries, Saxmundham Town Centre and Saxmundham Conservation Area.

1.2. The property fronts both onto the High Street and Market Place and is part of a group of uildigs that fo a Islad lok. Thee is a ue of Gade II Listed Buildigs i close proximity.

1.3. To the south lies 7 Market Place, a Grade II Listed Building adjacent to the development site and separated by a small alleyway.

1.4. Under the applicants same ownership is 11 Market Place which adjoins onto the development property, beyond that lies Grade II Listed 9-15 Angel Yard which contains flats.

1.5. To the east where the existing window to be replaced fronts onto High Street. It lies opposite nos 32, 34 and 36, none of which are listed.

2. PROPOSALS

2.1. This application seeks Listed Building Consent for replacement of the existing curved shop window, the proposed replacement window will be a replacement with the similar glazing pattern.

3. CONSULTATIONS

3.1. Saxmundham Town Council: Uaiousl suppoted

3.2. Third Party Representations: No third party representations have been received.

4. RELEVANT POLICIES

4.1 NPPF

4.2 NPPG

4.3 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan – Core Strategy and Development Management Development Plan Document (adopted July 2013) policies: SP1a – Sustainable Development SP1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP15 – Landscape and Townscape SP19 – Settlement Policy DM21 – Design: Aesthetics DM23 – Residential Amenity

4.4 The Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan - Site Allocations and Area Specific Policies Document (January 2014):

- SSP2 – Physical Limits Boundaries - SSP29 – Saxmundham Town Centre

4.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents:

- Saxmundham Conservation Area Appraisal (Supplementary Planning Document) - Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 13: Historic Buildings: Repairs, Alterations and Extensions

5 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Historic/Listed Building Impact

5.1 As stated in the recently published NPPF paragraph 193; when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the assets conservation and the greater the weight the more important the asset.

5.2 The designated heritage asset is a Grade II Listed Building in the historic core of Saxmundham, and within Saxmundham Conservation Area, which is also a designated heritage asset. The proposal is to replace a historic window that contributes significantly to the historic nature of the heritage asset. Therefore the proposal would have an impact upon the heritage assets that are the Listed Building and the Conservation Area.

5.3 Paragraph 194 states; any harm to or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

5.4 The existing window is in bad condition and has been repaired several times before, whilst it would be preferable to repair rather than replace the window, there is sufficient evidence and justification that the window is beyond repair. Therefore the principle of a replacement window is considered acceptable, and to not result in significant harm to the heritage assets, providing it is a like for like replacement, which includes the use of single-glazing.

5.5 However, it would be appropriate to include a condition requiring the submission of further details of the existing and proposed window detailing including cill, head, pilasters, glazing bars etc, as the current submission does not include sufficient details to esue the poposal ould e like fo like. The uetl suitted daigs of the window also do not accurately reflect the window which exists on site. For example they do not include the pilasters, the window head, or the support bracket beneath the projecting cill.

5.6 Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposed development would therefore accord with local plan policies SP15 and DM21 of the Core Strategy, Paragraphs 193 and 194 of the recently published NPPF, and the aims and objectives of the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPG13 and Saxmundham Conservation Area Appraisal).

Conclusions

5.7 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the relevant policies, the application will not result in substantial harm to the historic character of the listed building. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORITY to APPROVE subject to the following controlling conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with site location plan, two annotated photographs received on 16 April 2018, drawings 01 and 02 received 4 June 2018. Reason: For avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence until the following details have been submitted and agreed by the local planning authority: a) Full details of the existing window: i) shape, size and profile of all mullions (vertical glazing bars), transoms (horizontal glazing bars) and associated beading, ii) shape, size and profile of the outer frame including the projecting element above the glazing, d the pilasters on either side and the cill, iii) depth of reveal/projection of the window cill, head and glazed elements in relation to the wall in which it is currently located. iv) details of flashig o siila details o the oetio poit etee the top of the frame and the wall, v) details of any projecting support brackets on the underside of the window, vi) size of all glazed panes, and vii) full details of proposed materials, colour and finish of all of the elements listed above. b) Full details of the proposed window: i) shape, size and profile of all mullions (vertical glazing bars), transoms (horizontal glazing bars) and associated beading, ii) shape, size and profile of the outer frame including the projecting element above the glazing, d the pilasters on either side and the cill, iii) depth of reveal/projection of the window cill, head and glazed elements in relation to the wall in which it is proposed to be located. iv) details of flashig o siila details o the oetio poit etee the top of the frame and the wall, v) details of any projecting support brackets on the underside of the window, vi) size of all glazed panes, and vii) full details of proposed materials, colour and finish of all of the elements listed above. Thereafter, the scheme shall be implemented in its entirety in accordance with the appoed poposed ido details, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To esue that the e ido is a like fo like eplaeet ad that the detailing and materials of the new window will not harm the traditional/historic

character of the Listed Building. The application does not include the necessary details for consideration.

DETERMINATION:

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Ref No DC/18/1534/LBC

Committee Date: 16 August 2018

6. SUDBOURNE – DC/18/2273/FUL – Demolition of redundant agricultural buildings. Erection of new energy efficient & sustainable 3 bed short term holiday let: Land and building adjacent to 39 School Road, Sudbourne, IP12 2BE for Mr and Mrs Wartenberg.

Case Officer: Rachel Smith

Expiry Date: 25th July 2018 (Extension agreed until 17th August 2018)

DC/18/2273/FUL – Land and Building Adjacent to No. 39, School Rd, Sudbourne

DO NOT SCALE SLA100019684

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s

prosecution or civil proceedings.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Planning Permission is sought for the demolition of existing barn and its replacement with a new dwelling to be occupied as a short term holiday let. It is also proposed to change the use of a small part of the adjoining agricultural land to curtilage associated with the property. This item has come before members because the proposal is contrary to Policy SP8 in that the site is not located within a sustainable location. Despite this, the application is recommended for approval as it is considered that the development would contribute to the Tourism offer within the district and provide a unique design of property in a rural location which is considered desirable for such a use.

1. SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 The site is located on the southern side of School Road to the east of the village of “udoue. “udoue is lassified as a Othe Village i the Loal Pla ad as suh has no physical limits boundary and is therefore considered to be countryside in planning terms. The core of the village is located along Snape Road to the east of the site however there is some linear development along School Lane. Most of the 48

development along School Lane is located to the north of the road however the site lies adjacent to a pair of residential properties also on the southern side. It is located within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

1.2 The site comprises an early Victorian, single-storey brick barn fronting the highway and it has a range of more modern additions to its rear. To the east of the site is an agricultural field and the proposal involves the change of use of a small proportion of this field to residential curtilage in order to provide a vehicular access to the site.

1.3 It is thought that the building was originally used as a blacksmiths but most recently was used by its previous owners (the residents of 37 and 39 School Road) for ancillary purposes such as a stable, potting shed and storage. The building is now in a state of neglect with rotting timbers, blown brickwork and broken or missing rooftiles. The building is also encroached by ivy which has resulted in the building becoming structurally unsound.

2. PROPOSALS

2.1 The proposal involves the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and its replacement with a new three bedroom property to be occupied for short-term holiday lets. It is proposed that the brick barn be re-built re-using as many of the existing bricks and roof tiles as possible. At the rear, it is proposed to erect a new timber clad wing of a similar size to the existing. The existing lean to would be removed which would expose more of the original rear wall of the barn and be replaced with a modest link to the proposed new wing.

2.2 The applicants are architects with a particular interest in energy efficient, sustainable design and Mrs. Wartenberg is a certified Passivhaus designer. They state that the completed building will be innovative and of high-quality, durable construction as well as highly energy efficient.

2.3 It is also proposed to change the use of a strip of land to the east of the site which currently forms part of the adjoining arable field. This relatively small area of land would enable the provision of a vehicular access and sufficient space to provide off road parking.

3. CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Sudbourne Parish Council: object to the application stating: The Parish Council Strongly Objects to the above mentioned planning application. Sudbourne Parish Couil reogise that “udoure’s status in the current Suffolk Coastal Local Plan settlement hierarchy will usually restrict opportunities for development of new properties in the village. However, the Parish Council are generally supportive of applications for development which:  Increase the amount of genuinely affordable housing in appropriate locations within the village;  Increase opportunities for local people to remain the village when their circumstances change;  Are sensitive to our rural location and lack of amenity, and are of high quality,

sustainable design.

On the other hand, they are not generally supportive of applications for development which:

 Increase the number of non-residential, limited occupation second home or holiday lettings, unless by exception they are closely linked to an existing residential property (for example an annexe development);  Reduce the amount of residential property available for full-time members of the local community. The Parish Council understands neither of these lists is comprehensive or exclusive, but they indicate the Parish Councils general position on new development going forward. The Parish Council wish to see Sudbourne continue developing into a vibrant, progressive, self-help community despite our formal lack of local amenities, and will therefore take these principles into account in determining an approach to ay appliatio oered y these riteria.

3.2 Natural England: comments to be included via the updates sheet if received.

3.3 Suffolk County Council - Fire and Rescue Service (Water Office): comments in relation to access, fire fighting facilities and water supplies.

3.4 Suffolk County Council - Highway Authority: have recommended standard conditions.

3.5 SCDC - Head of Environmental Services and Port Health: no further survey work is required. Suggests conditions.

3.6 SCDC – Economic Development: support the application because it would strengthen the accommodation offer in this location, thus supporting the visitor economy of the wider area.

3.7 Third Party Representations: 1 Letter/email of Objection has been received raising the following points: a. The applicant may seek to remove the holiday letting restriction further down the line, b. The area is over-developed with holiday lets and the demand is not as high as what it is generally thought to be, c. It would result in the loss of another historical building from Sudbourne, d. The occupiers will have little input in or involvement with the local community, e. The design and appearance would be out of character, f. Infrastructure is inadequate.

3.8 2 Letters/emails of Support have been received raising the following points:

a. It is good to bring the building back into use whilst retaining the character and structure of the brick barn, b. Innovative and thoughtful design, c. Re-use of existing building.

4. RELEVANT POLICIES

4.1 NPPF

4.2 NPPG

4.3 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan – Core Strategy and Development Management Development Plan Document (adopted July 2013) policies: SP1a – Sustainable Development SP1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP8 – Tourism SP12 – Climate Change SP14 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity SP15 – Landscape and Townscape SP19 – Settlement Policy SP28 – Other Villages SP29 – The Countryside DM3 – Housing in the Countryside DM8 – Extensions to Residential Curtilages DM21 – Design: Aesthetics DM23 – Residential Amenity DM24 – Sustainable Construction DM27 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity

4.4 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan – Site Allocations and Area Specific Development Plan Document (adopted 2017) Policies:

SSP2 – Physical Limits Boundary

5. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of development

5.1 The site lies in the countryside which is generally protected for its own sake in accordance with Policy SP29, however there are some exceptions to this where certain development may be supported. In this case, Policy SP8 in relation to tourism is the most relevant. This policy and the supporting text to it, highlights the important contribution that tourism has on the local economy and is generally supportive of development that promotes the tourism offer in the district. The policy sets out the type of development that is appropriate in different areas of the district. Within the Aea of Outstadig Natual Beaut AONB, it states that deelopet in the form of conversions, improvements/minor extensions to existing facilities and small scale new development in unexposed areas will be acceptable within sustainable locations where a landscape assessment shows these could be accommodated with no adverse ipat.

5.2 Although this proposal seeks to re-create the design and appearance of the existing barn on the highway frontage, as it would be a re-build, it cannot be considered to be a conversion however the policy does allow for small scale new development in

unexposed areas. The site is modest in size and adjacent to an existing residential dwelling to the west. The existing agricultural field to the south and east of the site is open. However, the only public view points of the site are from School Road to the north and the building is not dominant in any long distance views. The proposal includes a new hedge to the eastern boundary adjacent to the agricultural field which would also help to screen the development. It is therefore considered that the site should ot e osideed to e ithi a eposed pat of the AONB.

5.3 Policy SP8 states that tourist development in the AONB will be acceptable within sustainable locations. The site is located on the edge of the village of Sudbourne, which is a Othe Village. Hoee, as these settleets do ot hae a phsial liits boundaries, they are, in effect, Countryside. Given that the site is 3.5km to the nearest settlement with services and facilities (Orford), the site cannot be considered to be in a sustainable location as there are very few services and facilities that would be accessible to users of the property without access to a private car. The proposal is therefore contrary to this element of the policy.

5.4 Although the site is not located within a sustainable settlement, it is considered in this case that it can be supported. The countryside and rural environment of the district is a particular draw to tourists and therefore a quiet, countryside location is considered to be part of the attraction of such a site. Providing an attractive tourism offer which encourages visitors to the area is what then contributes to the economic benefits that touists ig. The poposed dellig ould e desiged to Passihaus stadads ad therefore be an energy efficient design reducing the impact on the environment and the use of fossil fuels where possible. Given the attraction of the countryside to visitors and the additional sustainability benefits in the design of the property, it is considered in this case that the provision of a single unit of holiday accommodation in the countryside should be supported.

Design and Visual Impact

5.5 The poposed popet ould e desiged to Passihaus stadad hih ould ensure a high quality of design and construction and significantly reduced energy osuptio. The ke eleets of the Passihaus stadad ae:

 High levels of insulation with no thermal bridging (to avoid condensation and mould),  Airtight building envelope,  Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery,  Maximise solar gain in winter,  Triple glazing.

5.6 The proposal involves the rebuilding of the barn at the front of the site with the existing rear wing and lean-to to be demolished and replaced with a new rear wing. The existing barn, although relatively modest in size and scale is not an unattractive part of the streetscene in this location and due to its close proximity to the highway is prominent on School Lane. Although the proposal is for a re-build rather than a conversion, as the proposal is to re-build the barn element to approximately the same size and appearance as the existing (with the addition of insulation) using as many of

the existing materials as possible, the appearance of the site from the public view points on School Lane would remain relatively unchanged.

5.7 To the rear, it is proposed to replace the existing structures with a new element of accommodation. This would have a more modern design and appearance being connected to the barn element by a modest link and extend to the rear at an angle. The proposed extension element would provide the main area of living accommodation and be timber clad. It would have a similar volume to the existing rear element to be demolished. The main volume of this extension element would be clad in black stained timber as the existing building is. The link element will be clad in unstained, natural, weathered timber to separate it visually from the barn and the rear wing.

5.8 It is considered that the proposed design and appearance of the resulting building will be of a high standard of design and an interesting and attractive addition to the edge of this village without harming the surrounding countryside or wider landscape of the AONB.

Change of Use of Land

5.9 Part of the application proposes the change of use of a strip of land to the east of the existing building from agricultural use to residential curtilage. The strip of land is a maximum of five metres wide and would provide pedestrian and vehicular access to the site, including a parking and turning area. Without this extra area of land, there would not be any vehicular access to the site and is therefore likely to result in parking on the roadside verge which would likely cause an obstruction to other roadside users.

5.10 The property currently has a modest curtilage and the proposed extension would not increase this in size significantly but add a useful addition to the eastern side of the property. Moving the boundary of the adjoining agricultural land slightly to the east would have little impact on the character or appearance of the wider countryside as all of the site area would be well related to the property.

5.11 There is not currently a clearly defined boundary between the barn site and the neighbouring field. The proposal involves a new boundary hedge along the eastern side boundary which would be in keeping with the countryside location and help to improve biodiversity and habitats in the immediate vicinity. It is therefore considered that there is no objection to the proposed change of use of land.

Ecology

5.12 An ecological survey was submitted with the application. However, no evidence of protected species were found on the site and it was also not considered that it had any potential to support protected species in the future in its current state.

5.13 It also states that given the small scale of development, the impact on nearby designated sites is unlikely and the impact on on-site habitats is also negligible. Although no further surveys are required, a condition requiring the appropriate timing of the removal of ivy in respect of protecting nesting birds is suggested.

5.14 As the proposal would result in the likely increase in numbers of visitors to the nearby Natura 2000 sites, Natural England have been consulted. Their response has not been received to date however it is considered likely that they will request that a contribution is made to the Suffolk Coast and Estuaries Recreational Disturbance and Avoidance Mitigation Strategy in order to conclude within an Appropriate Assessment that there would be no significant effect on the designated sites.

Viability

5.15 The application is unique in that it proposes a new permanent building to be used for holiday accommodation where the applicant does not have any other local connection (e.g. by owning neighbouring land or property nearby). Although this application is for holiday accommodation and not a permanent residential property, concern was raised that the proposal may lead to an application for the use of the property without a holiday occupancy restriction, especially as it is not uncommon for the local planning authority to receive such applications seeking to remove holiday occupancy restrictions for properties, on the basis that independent consultants have confirmed the holiday use is unviable.

5.16 The applicant was therefore asked to provide a viability assessment of their proposal to show that they had fully considered the potential costs of the works and the resulting value and potential income. Although the applicants claim that the proposal will be different fo othe holida lets i that it ill poide the ith a adet fo their work (as architects designing to Passivhaus standard) and therefore an increased market, the application must be determined on the facts of the proposal given that the personal circumstances of the applicant could change. Although a number of assumptions had to be made, an assessment by Officers of the information submitted is considered to be a reasonable forecast for the development and future use of the site and the conclusion is that it would be viable.

Conclusions and Planning Balance

5.17 Although the proposal is contrary to policy in so far as the site is not located in a sustainable settlement, the Local Plan as a whole is supportive of tourism development. The high quality desig ad Passihaus piiples iopoated ito the scheme would provide a unique property which is considered to be attractive to tourist uses and would therefore benefit the local economy. The resulting appearance of the site is not considered to be harmful to the character or appearance of the site nor the wider landscape of the AONB.

5.18 On balance it is therefore considered that the positive aspects of the proposal outweigh the fact that the site is located in an unsustainable location. In this case it is considered that an exception to policy should be made and the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORITY to APPROVE subject to the consideration of comments from Natural England and subject to the following controlling conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with Drawing Nos. 040/001, 040/002, 040/003, 040/004, 040/101, 040/102, 040/103, 040/104 and 040/105, Design and Access Statement and Ecological Appraisal by The Landscape Partnership all received 29 May 2018 and Phase I Environmental Report received 9 July 2018. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. The materials, detailing and finishes to be used shall match the existing and thereafter retained, unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interest of visual amenity

4. The premises herein referred to shall be used for holiday letting accommodation and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended). The duration of occupation by any one person or persons shall not exceed a period of 56 days in total in any one calendar year, unless prior application is made to and approved by the local planning authority. The owners/operators of the holiday units hereby permitted shall maintain an up-to-date Register of all lettings, which shall include the names and addresses of all those persons occupying the units during each individual letting. The said Register shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is occupied only as bona-fide holiday accommodation, having regard to the tourism objectives of the Local Plan and the fact that the site is outside any area where planning permission would normally be forthcoming for permanent residential development.

5. No removal of ivy that may be used by breeding birds shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed hek of egetatio fo atie ids ests iediatel efoe the egetatio is leaed and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting birds interest on site. Any such written confirmation shall be submitted to the local planning authority within seven days of the date of the report. Reason: To ensure that there is no harm to nesting birds as a result of the development.

6. Prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied, the vehicular access onto the highway shall be properly surfaced with a bound material for a minimum distance of five metres from the edge of the metalled carriageway. Reason: To secure appropriate improvements to the vehicular access in the interests of highway safety.

7. The use shall not commence until the area within the site shown on Dwg No 040 / 102 for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area shall be retained and used for no other purposes. Reason: To ensure that sufficient space for the on site parking of vehicles is provided and maintained in order to ensure the provision of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety to users of the highway.

8. Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Dwg No 040 / 101 and thereafter retained in the specified form. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction over 0.6 metres high shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow within the areas of the visibility splays. Reason: To ensure vehicles exiting the drive would have sufficient visibility to enter the public highway safely and vehicles on the public highway would have sufficient warning of a vehicle emerging in order to take avoiding action.

9. The hawthorn hedge as shown on Drawing No 040/102 along the eastern site boundary shall have a minimum of four plants per linear metre. Planting shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following commencement of the development (or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for a period of five years. Any plant material removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the first available planting season and shall be retained and maintained. Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory site boundary in the interest of visual amenity.

10. The advice set out in the approved Phase I Environmental Report with regards to the safe removal of the Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) shall be carried out in full and any and all ACM on site shall be removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner. Reason: In the interest of public health and safety.

11. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety. An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

Following completion of the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

DETERMINATION

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Ref No DC/18/2273/FUL

Committee Date: 16th August 2018