Public Document Pack
COMMITTEE: PLANNING
VENUE: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Corks Lane, Hadleigh
DATE/TIME: Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 9.30 a.m.
Members Melanie Barrett Derek Davis Nick Ridley Peter Beer Michael Holt David Rose Sue Burgoyne Adrian Osborne Ray Smith David Busby Lee Parker Stephen Williams Michael Creffield Stephen Plumb
A G E N D A
Members of the Public and Press attending the meeting are asked to note the following approximate timings below:
Paper R64 – the items in Paper R64 will be the first items to be considered, please arrive from 9am.
Paper R65 – consideration of the items in Paper R65 will not commence before 11.15am at the earliest. Please wait in the Reception area.
Paper R66 - consideration of the items in Paper R66 will not commence before 2pm at the earliest. Please arrive by 1.30pm and wait in the Reception area.
ITEM BUSINESS
The Council, members of the public and the press may record/film/photograph or broadcast this meeting when the public and the press are not lawfully excluded.
Any member of the public who attends a meeting and objects to being filmed should advise the Committee Clerk who will instruct that they are not included in the filming.
PART I
1 SUBSTITUTES AND APOLOGIES
Any Member attending as an approved substitute to report giving his/her name and the name of the Member being substituted.
To receive apologies for absence.
2 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.
3 MINUTES
To confirm and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2015 as a correct record (attached).
4 PETITIONS
The Head of Corporate Organisation to report, in accordance with Council Procedure Rules, the receipt of any petitions submitted to the Chief Executive.
5 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
The Chairman to answer any questions on any matters in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District and which fall within the terms of reference of the Committee of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.
6 SITE INSPECTIONS
In addition to any site inspections which the Committee may consider to be necessary, the Corporate Manager – Development Management will report on any other applications which require site inspections.
The provisional date for any site inspections is Wednesday 2 December 2015.
7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Paper Schedule of applications attached. R64
8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Paper Schedule of applications attached. R65
9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Paper Schedule of applications attached. R66
Note: A separate Addendum to each of Papers R64, R65 and R66 will be circulated to Members prior to the commencement of the meeting summarising additional correspondence received since the publication of the agenda but before 12 noon on the working day before the meeting, together with any errata.
10 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Please note that the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 9 December 2015 commencing at 9.30 a.m.
Notes: 1. Where it is not expedient for plans and drawings of the proposals under consideration to be shown on the power point, these will be displayed in the Council Chamber prior to the meeting.
2. The Council has adopted a Charter for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. A link to the full charter is provided below.
Charter for Public Speaking at Planning Committees
Those persons wishing to speak on a particular application should arrive in the Council Chamber early and make themselves known to the Officers. They will then be invited by the Chairman to speak when the relevant item is under consideration. This will be done in the following order:
Parish Clerk or Parish Councillor representing the Council in which the application site is located Objectors Supporters The applicant or professional agent / representative
Public speakers in each capacity will normally be allowed 3 minutes to speak.
For further information on any of the Part 1 items listed above, please contact Linda Sheppard on (01473) 826610 or via email at [email protected]
Z:\DOCS\Committee\AGENDAS\2015\251115-Planning.docx
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, CORKS LANE, HADLEIGH ON WEDNESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2015
PRESENT: Peter Beer - Chairman
Melanie Barrett Adrian Osborne Simon Barrett Lee Parker Sue Burgoyne Nick Ridley David Busby David Rose Michael Creffield Ray Smith Derek Davis Stephen Williams Alastair McCraw
The following Members were unable to be present:
Michael Holt and Stephen Plumb.
56 SUBSTITUTES AND APOLOGIES
It was noted that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No.5, substitutes were in attendance as follows:-
Alastair McCraw (substituting for Stephen Plumb) Simon Barrett (substituting for Michael Holt)
57 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
None declared.
58 MINUTES
RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2015 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
59 PETITIONS
None received.
60 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
None received.
61 SITE INSPECTIONS
The Corporate Manager – Development Management requested a site inspection in respect of Application No B/15/01043/FUL (application for residential development at Fleetwood Caravans Ltd, Hall Street, Long Melford).
Page1 1
Planning Committee 28 October 2015
Reason for site visit:-
To assess road safety issues in relation to the existing access from Hall Street.
Prior to asking Members to vote on the request the Chairman asked the Case Officer to make a brief presentation with photographs to enable them to decide whether they considered it necessary to visit the site.
Following the presentation it was agreed to hold a site inspection.
RESOLVED
(1) That a site inspection be held on Wednesday 4 November 2015 in respect of the above application prior to its consideration by the Committee.
(2) That a Panel comprising the following Members be appointed to inspect the site:
Peter Beer Adrian Osborne Sue Burgoyne Lee Parker David Busby Stephen Plumb Michael Creffield Nick Ridley Derek Davis Ray Smith Michael Holt Stephen Williams Alastair McCraw
62 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Members had before them an Addendum to Paper R58 (circulated to Members prior to the commencement of the meeting) summarising additional correspondence received since the publication of the Agenda, but before noon on the working day before the meeting, together with errata.
Details of further representations from Hadleigh Town Council in respect of Item 1 of Paper R58 were reported to the meeting and taken into account before a decision was made on the item. Members noted that the applicant for Item 2 is related to a Member, as stated in the Addendum, not a member of staff.
RESOLVED
That subject to the imposition of conditions or reasons for refusal (whether additional or otherwise) in accordance with delegated powers under Council Minute No. 48(a) (dated 19 October 2004) decisions on the items referred to in Paper R58 be made as follows:-
Page2 2
Planning Committee 28 October 2015
(a) HADLEIGH
Application No. B/15/00763/FHA Erection of tool shed (retention of). Paper R58 – item 1 Erection of a potting shed and greenhouse. Relocation of oil tank and insertion of an ornamental archway, Coram Farm, Coram Street. RESOLVED
That planning permission be granted.
(b) HINTLESHAM
Application No. B/15/01254/FHA Erection of detached double garage Paper R58 – Item 2 in rear garden, Oak Cottage, Duke Street.
RESOLVED
That subject to the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues regarding materials the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:
Standard time limit Development to be implemented in accordance with the approved plans Details of the manufacturer and types and colours of the external facing and roofing materials to be used in construction are to be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works.
Note:- Following consideration of the above applications, reference was made to the current system whereby applications from persons related to a Councillor or a member of staff were referred to Committee for a decision. Members were advised that this would be the subject of further consideration through the Planning Redesign Board.
63 PLANNING PERFORMANCE – 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2015
Christine Thurlow, Corporate Manager – Development Management, introduced Paper R59, which provided an overview of performance against various measures for the quarter 1 July 2015 – 30 September 2015. She referred to an error on page 3, where the second footnote should read “including applications subject to a planning performance agreement” and not “excluding”.
In response to questions from Members, the Corporate Manager – Development Management explained the increase in percentage of delegated decisions quarter on quarter, the reduction in the proportion of major applications determined on time and provided an update on pre-application charging. She also mentioned the new measures for assessing performance in the recent Bill, relating to the need to ensure that 50% or more of major cases are determined on time and that on appeal Page3 3
Planning Committee 28 October 2015
(with major cases only) not more than 20% in total should be allowed. The Corporate Manager – Development Management also advised that the format and content of the report would be changing so as to include these new measures to include information on delivery of new dwellings.
RESOLVED
That the information contained within Paper R59 and as reported at the meeting be noted.
The business of the meeting was concluded at 10.35 am.
...... Chairman
Z:\DOCS\Committee\MINS\Year2015\Planning-281015 GB.doc
Page4 4
Agenda Item 7
R64
BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE 25 NOVEMBER 2015
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Item Page Application No. Location Officer Decision No.
APPLICATIONS REQUIRING REFERENCE TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
PINEWOOD – Belstead House 1. 5-33 B/14/01377/OUT SS Sprites Lane
B/14/01375/FUL PINEWOOD – Belstead House 2. 34-54 SS B/14/01376/LBC Sprites Lane
Christine Thurlow Corporate Manager - Development Management
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\251115-ApplicationList1.docx
Planning Committee Page 5 25 November 2015 1
BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS MADE UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, AND ASSOCIATED LEGISLATION, FOR DETERMINATION OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
This Schedule contains proposals for development which, in the opinion of the Corporate Manager - Development Management, do not come within the scope of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers adopted by the Council or which, although coming within the scope of that scheme, she/he has referred to the Committee to determine.
Background Papers in respect of all of the items contained in this Schedule of Applications are:-
1. The particular planning, listed building or other application or notification (the reference number of which is shown in brackets after the description of the location).
2. Any documents containing supplementary or explanatory material submitted with the application or subsequently.
3. Any documents relating to suggestions as to modifications or amendments to the application and any documents containing such modifications or amendments.
4. Documents relating to responses to the consultations, notifications and publicity both statutory and non-statutory as contained on the case file together with any previous planning decisions referred to in the Schedule item.
DELEGATION TO THE CORPORATE MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
The delegation to the Head of Economy includes the power to determine the conditions to be imposed upon any grant of planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area consent or advertisement consent and the reasons for those conditions or the reasons to be imposed on any refusal in addition to any conditions and/or reasons specifically resolved by the Planning Committee.
(Minute No 48(a) of the Council dated 19 October 2004).
PLANNING POLICIES
The Development Plan comprises saved polices in the Babergh Local Plan adopted June 2006. The reports in this paper contain references to the relevant documents and policies which can be viewed at the following addresses:-
The Babergh Local Plan: http://www.babergh.gov.uk/babergh/LocalPlan
National Planning Policy Framework: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf
Planning Committee Page 6 25 November 2015 2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS SCHEDULE
AWS Anglian Water Services
CFO County Fire Officer
LHA Local Highway Authority
EA Environment Agency
EH English Heritage
NE Natural England
HSE Health and Safety Executive
MoD Ministry of Defence
PC Parish Council
PM Parish Meeting
SPS Suffolk Preservation Society
SWT Suffolk Wildlife Trust
TC Town Council
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\141015-ApplicationList.docx
Planning Committee Page 7 25 November 2015 3
Planning Committee Page 8 25 November 2015 4 BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
25 November 2015
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA BUT BEFORE 12 NOON ON THE WORKING DAY BEFORE THE MEETING AND ERRATA
Paper R64
Item Pages Summary No 1 5-33 Headteacher - The Bridge School “Thank you for the papers you have sent to me regarding the proposed development at Belstead House.
Apologies for not having responded online to the planning application but school life has been hectic following our move to our new primary school at Sprites Lane.
I wanted to let you know that the school is pleased that proposals to develop the Belstead House site have been drawn up and planning applications submitted. I think the proposals have a lot of merit and offer the potential for much needed housing and accommodation for an ever increasing section of society.
I feel the development would also have benefits for the school because the proposed upgrading of Sprites Lane will improve vehicular access into and out of the school and will provide much safer access for staff, parents and pupils, and also local residents.
Given the caring aspect of our work at The Bridge School it is encouraging to note the possible development of a caring development as a near neighbour and the possibilities this may provide for us to work together.”
Corporate Manager - Development Management The views received are noted.
Councillor David Busby “This is a difficult one and I haven’t made up my mind yet but I have a number of concerns – it may just be the right development in the wrong place. My concerns are on four fronts – traffic; loss of green space, health facilities and the close proximity of the A14 and the Copdock interchange.
Traffic I have been through the GH Bullard transport assessment and unfortunately it is not really worth the paper it is written on. There are a number of key flaws in their analysis which probably lead to incorrect conclusions.
The automatic traffic counts were done in July (4.3) – school holidays and peak holiday period when approximately 40% of people are on holiday. This alone makes the whole traffic assessment irrelevant.
Page1 9 Item Pages Summary No The capacity figures quoted are ridiculous – according to their report (4.15) Cottingham Road could handle 21 vehicles per minute in each direction - possibly if they didn’t have to come out onto Scrivener Drive, where you can wait for 5 minutes just to join the queue. Even more laughable is the idea (4.7) that Sprites Lane could cope with 750 vehicles per hour in each direction. As they say (4.3) “Sprites Lane is a restricted byway, limited in width”, and as such is heavily used by walkers and cyclists seeking access to Belstead Brook Park.
“Shepherd Drive (4.11) is currently operating at 89.4% of its desirable capacity” – and this is during the quietest week of the year where traffic could be up to 40% lighter.
Predicted use of cycles and public transport is just not realistic (13.5). This is a development for the over 50’s. Cottingham Road hill is a challenge for fit, young cyclists and walkers. Given the age group and the terrain, use of the car will be higher than normal.
The mention (5.5) of cycle routes “passes through Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, ..” is totally irrelevant. More pertinent is that none of the key roads in Pinewood, Sprites, Belstead Hills, Chantry and Stoke Park are suitable for cyclists.
They are saying that because the site has been used as a residential training centre the traffic from the development will be no worse – in fact better (11.4) & (13.2). The assessment ignores the fact that as a training centre traffic flows are reversed i.e. access in the morning and departure in the afternoon plus it was an under used residential site meaning that journeys were few and often at the weekends.
Loss of Green Space
The report refers to the meadows as Parkland (3.2 & 9.3), it is held in our Plan as green space – not residential. These meadows are an important part of the whole green lung which wraps round the dense residential areas of south-west Ipswich. It stretches from Copdock round to Bourne Bridge and includes ancient woodlands, 3 nature reserves, meadows, reed-beds and playing areas and is accessed by thousands of people.
Greenways, the managing company, are receiving funding from the Environmental Agency to help retain its biodiversity. What happens at the Copdock end of the park could have serious consequences further downstream. A development of this size on a slope will dump thousands of gallons of extra water into the brook potentially overwhelming the sensitive ecostructure.
Next to Belstead Meadows is another field that would be too tempting to resist for a money strapped council. Where would it stop, the whole park would be under threat. This area needs to be treated as a whole not a series of parts which can be picked off one-by-one.
Page2 10 Item Pages Summary No Health Facilities
Although there are facilities within walking distance – no one will tackle that hill without using a car.
I understand that there is very little, if any, capacity at the doctors’ surgery – especially if it is to cope with Wolsey Grange too.
Being a ‘retirement village’ it will put greater strain on the facilities than a mixed development.
A14 & Copdock
This development is extremely close to a very busy interchange and a dual carriageway with a noisy surface – hardly conducive to a peaceful retirement.
At some point there will have to be further improvements to the Copdock interchange and this development could prevent improvements through a flyover or left lane filter.
Good luck with coming to your judgement.
Dave Busby”
Corporate Manager - Development Management
The comments received are noted. Members are reminded that those impacts relating to traffic and highway safety (including cumulative impacts) are covered between paragraphs 111-130 and this includes consideration of the cumulative impacts of the proposal and the adequacy of the submitted Transport Assessment. The Local Highway Authority raise no objection to the application and Highways England do not consider that the development would pose any detrimental impacts upon the wider strategic network.
The application site (where considering Belstead Meadows) relates to an area of approximately 4ha, where the wider Belstead Brook Country Park comprises an area of around 100ha; in context, this amounts to a minimal loss where the proposal offers significant public benefits and mitigation measures to offset any detrimental impacts.
Those comments received in relation to this being only the first of what could be numerous applications are noted but Members are being asked to consider the application that is in front of them; each application should be judged on its own merits.
The nature of the proposal as it relates to existing infrastructure has been considered and a suite of planning obligations are required in order to make the development acceptable in planning terms; and this includes support for the NHS.
With regard to those comments submitted in relation to the proximity of the meadow development to the A14, Members should note the comments of the Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Noise), which have been copied in full below. It is considered that with the imposition of suitable planning conditions those impacts relating to noise can be mitigated to an acceptable extent. Page3 11 Item Pages Summary No It is not understood how an approval of this application could hinder future highways improvements to the Copdock Interchange and no evidence has been submitted in support of this comment. This application is being considered on its own planning merits and in respect of all material planning considerations.
Pinewood Parish Council
"Pinewood Parish Council has grave reservations regarding B/14/01377/OUT the application for outline planning permission. The viability of this application depends upon access to the site. Paragraph 19 in the Planning Officer’s summary states that “The majority of the remaining 135 dwellings would be located off Cottingham Road with an additional access from Sprites Lane.” . The developer’s amended plan now includes a controlled junction at the Belstead House exit onto Sprites Lane which indicates that traffic from this development will use Sprites Lane in addition to that from the Belstead House Development.
Sprites Lane is described as a restricted byway at the entrance to the site and as such is a virtually a single track road. It is therefore not a suitable road to be able to cope with the amount of traffic which will be generated by the 135 dwellings and the Care Home in addition to the 20 dwellings planned for the Belstead House site.
This new road layout now opens up Sprites Lane to the existing development formerly known as ‘Pinebrook’ and also to motorists from South West Ipswich who could use Sprites Lane to avoid the long delays often experienced along Shepherd Drive and Scrivener Drive.
The Bridge School entrance is located on Sprites Lane. It is a special school, with a nursery, primary and secondary department for pupils with severe and complex learning difficulties. Pupils travel from a wide area and most are transported to school by car, taxi or minibus. In September the Primary Department relocated to this site. Out of 115 pupils on role 88 are of primary age. This represents an increase of up to 427%. So many vehicles now arrive at the school at the beginning and end of the day, that staff have to act as marshals with 2 way radios at intervals along the lane to manage the traffic to ensure safety. When members visited the site they were too early to witness this.
The Traffic Survey was done before this enormous increase in the school population.
In order to manage the increased traffic on the lane it is proposed to provide passing places. The plan does not appear to show the entrance to the school. One of them appears to be sited in the entrance to this school. This is unacceptable, will add to traffic chaos and is further evidence that Sprites Lane is unsuitable for the amount of traffic this development will generate, as it cannot be adequately altered to cope with it. Should a car break down between any of the passing places then the whole road becomes gridlocked. Remedial works or maintenance to the road would also cause major problems or delays.
Page4 12 Item Pages Summary No Cottingham Road is a winding steep road with no more than 100m or 125m visibility in any direction. At present drivers from the present development have difficulty, not just at peak times, filtering onto Scrivener Drive. As the plans now show that the existing houses will have access to Sprites Lane through the new development then it is likely that drivers will use this access thus adding to congestion on Sprites Lane. Cottingham Road was the subject of a planning enquiry several years ago when joining of the road to Bowland Drive was considered unworkable without it being straightened; this however would have resulted in the loss of two residential properties. A planning enquiry ruled this out and the joining of the road was abandoned.
The Design and Access statement shows no improvement to Cottingham Road.
Just because the new development is planned for the over 50’s it is not justifiable to assume that little traffic will be generated. Many people of this age still work and will be likely to use the road network at peak times. There is no surety that the development as shown will be built. Once Rural Community Housing have obtained the outline permission there is nothing to stop them from selling the land on for development by a national house builders who may build when family housing which could in fact increase the number of cars substantially.
The building of a 65 bed care home will add significantly to pressure on the Pinewood Surgery. This surgery currently has a very large practice list and since March 2015 has had 300 more patients register and as of last Monday because of the merging of two practices in Ipswich who have had to deregister patients in the area, an additional 137 patients have registered with the surgery. This surgery is already responsible for a specialised dementia home with 43 residents, the Sue Ryder home a high dependency establishment with 40+ residents and two bungalows of 50 patients at Monmouth Court. NHS England states that the surgery has 9.5 full time equivalent doctors when in fact the Surgery has only 6.66 full time equivalent doctors. No meaningful consultation has taken place with this surgery at any time. The significant number of assisted living dwellings and a larger number of older residents will also add to the pressure on this surgery, the S106 payment of £57, 880 does not begin to mitigate the additional workload.
We are concerned in the apparent haste that this application is being considered by the committee. We had been led to believe that this wouldn’t happen until after Christmas and this has not left us sufficient time as lay people to fully consider and compare various amendments received within the last 14 days.
We therefore request that for these reasons this application is refused on the grounds of unsuitable access."
Corporate Manager - Development Management The adequacy of the Transport Assessment and the highway impacts have already been addressed in the report and have been discussed above.
Page5 13 Item Pages Summary No
The figure of £57,880 has been put forward by the NHS and is considered to be acceptable in planning terms.
Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Noise) The Environmental Noise Report (ENR) submitted with the application (‘Land North of A14, Belstead House Sprites Lane, Pinewood, Ipswich, Suffolk – Environmental Noise Report for proposed residential development, Sharps Redmore, 19th Feb 2015, project no 1515041’) finds that the noise climate at the site is dominated by traffic noise from the A14.
Both at the centre of the site and at the point closest to the A14, the noise climate is above the upper noise limit of 55dB given in both BS8223 (Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction in buildings) and World Health Organisation guidelines and is likely to give rise to ‘serious annoyance’. It is also above the level given in the WHO guidelines to avoid sleep disturbance.
BS8233 states that guideline values should only be exceeded if “a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors, such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted”. The site is therefore not ideal for residential development and such development would thus only be appropriate if you consider there are significant wider social and economic benefits of the development.
The ENR details a number of measures by which loss of amenity can be reduced, including recommending a high standard of acoustic double glazing and alternative acoustic ventilation (to prevent having to open windows), in order to meet acceptable internal noise levels. Similarly, the design standard for noise levels in outdoor areas has been set at 55dB which is the threshold for ‘serious annoyance’ rather than the lower threshold of 50dB for ‘moderate annoyance’. Again, I would advise you that these mitigation measures can be regarded as appropriate if you consider there are significant wider social and economic benefits of the development, as outlined above.
It is outlined in section 4.8 - 4.9, that those dwellings most exposed to noise from the A14 can only meet internal noise guidelines if windows are kept closed. Alternative ventilation will therefore be required, which may be passive or mechanical. In my view, it is essential that adequate ventilation be attainable by passive means – if adequate ventilation is not possible without relying on mechanical means then would suggest that the area is clearly unsuitable for residential development and it would not be acceptable to rely on mechanical ventilation.
If it is felt that the development is warranted, I would suggest that noise could be controlled by means of the conditions suggested [previously].
Page6 14 Item Pages Summary No In addition I would suggest that a condition be attached to any permission to the effect that a sample for residential properties (the number and locations of which to be agreed between the developer and the LPA) shall be independently tested and certified so as to demonstrate that the scheme of glazing given in sections in 4.8 – 4.10 of the ENR has been effectively installed and that internal design values as given in the document (and BS8233) are being met.
Corporate Manager - Development Management
The comments submitted are noted and it is not considered that this should affect the recommendation that has already been made to Members or the suggested planning conditions which include provision for the imposition of conditions as recommended by the Environmental Protection team.
Corporate Manager - Public Realm
“I would suggest that an appropriate mitigation for the Belstead development would be:
1. Declaration of the remainder of Belstead Meadows (SCC owned) as Local Nature Reserve to protect it for the future with associated improvement works. £5k
2. Whitland Close/Bourne Park link – to create a new path from housing areas (edge of Ipswich) through to Bourne Park (avoiding walking along the main road). Approx 250m long with ramps and steps, informal unbound surface (hoggin or similar) – approx. £5k
3. Bourne Park Reedbed, Brookside path – providing a unique opportunity to explore one of south Suffolk’s largest reedbeds, improving the very wet and slippery existing path. Informal, unbound surface right through reedbed, approx. 800m - £5k.”
Corporate Manager - Development Management
The comments received from the Corporate Manager - Public Realm are noted and the applicant has been advised of the contributions required.
In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.
SCC Travel Plan Officer I have had a chance to have a look through the revised travel plan that was included in Appendix H and Appendix I of the revised Transport Assessment. There have been some very minor improvements, but there is still quite a bit of work needed to be done with both travel plans to make it fully acceptable. I have listed the main issues with the travel plan below:
Page7 15 Item Pages Summary No Residential Travel Plan:
Baseline data – The “Method of Travel to Work” Census data has been removed from the revised residential travel plan. This would need to be reinstated in a revised travel plan. It would be also beneficial to include some Census flow data that includes where the residents that currently reside in the area travel to work. This data can help provide the basis for more accurate interim targets and objectives.
Measures – No remedial measures have been identified in the travel plan if the 15% modal shift is not achieved. A smarter choices scheme for the existing residential area in the vicinity to the site to provide personalised travel planning and light incentives should be included in the travel plan to fulfil this purpose.
Travel Plan Budget – The budget does not match up to the estimated cost of the residential travel plan that Suffolk County Council estimates (£150,041). Looking at these figures there may seem to be an underestimation of the monitoring costs, as it does not seem to factor in the potential cost of setting up an automatic traffic count (approx £1000 per year), survey incentives and printing costs. There is also no budget for the personalised travel plans, provision of on-site noticeboards and a dedicated travel plan webpage.
Workplace Travel Plan:
The workplace travel plan does contain a lot of information that seems to be copied from the Residential Travel Plan; such as the 50% occupation thresholds and the references to “residents”. This should be written in accordance with the existing Suffolk Workplace Travel Plan guidance (http://www.greensuffolk.org/assets/Travel- Plans/Documents/Travel-Planning/2014-04-08-Suffolk- Workplace-Travel-Plan-Components.pdf)
Baseline Data – the wrong Census Data search was also used, as the “Location of Usual Residence and Place of Work by Method of Travel to Work” is one of the flow data searches. The “Method of travel to work by age (Workplace population)” data for the Babergh 005 Middle layer should be used instead. The full Census flow data to show where commuters are likely to travel from should also be included in a revised travel plan.
Travel Plan Coordinator – The Care Home’s Travel Plan Coordinator should be a senior member of the care home’s staff to ensure they have a strong influence over the implementation of the travel plan. It is strongly recommended that they link up with the Residential Travel Plan Coordinator to avoid duplicating some of the joint travel plan measures (i.e. monitoring, negotiating discounts, etc.)
Page8 16 Item Pages Summary No Measures – the following workplace travel plan measures must be included:
o Guaranteed ride home scheme for staff that use sustainable transport to travel to the site that need to get home in an emergency, or if a car share arrangement falls through o Cycle (Cycle to Work) and Public Transport Salary sacrifice schemes for staff o Parking management for staff
Identify remedial measures if the 15% single-occupancy vehicle reduction target is not achieved
Please note that I am only able to comment on the revisions to Appendix H and I of the revised Transport Assessment, not the rest of the document.
Even though there are still issues with both travel plans I will not object to the development, as the revised travel plan has identified some acceptable travel plan measures. There are also still some ongoing discussions regarding the highway improvements that are related to the travel plan that are not going to be resolved prior to the committee.
As a result I would require that there are further travel plan obligations included as part of the Section 106 agreement to allow the travel plan to be revised at a later date if planning permission is granted. I can supply the relevant wording and CIL compliance when needed. These obligations are in addition to the Travel Plan Evaluation and Support Contribution and Travel Plan Implementation Bond contributions, as well as the obligations to secure the full implementation of the travel plan and the provision of the welcome packs that I requested previously.
Corporate Manager - Development Management
The comments received from the Travel Plan Officer are noted and the applicant has been advised of the additional requirements that have been highlighted.
Suffolk Fire and Rescue - No further comments/no objection.
Historic England - No further comments/no objection.
Anglian Water - No further comments/no objection.
Corporate Manager - Economic Development - No objection.
Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Sustainability) - No objection, subject to conditions requiring adequate demonstration of energy efficiency/sustainability of the proposal.
Natural England - No further comments/no objection.
Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Land Contamination) - No further comments/no objection. Page9 17 Item Pages Summary No Higways England - No further comments/no objection.
Further Representations, Summarised as Follows:
Concern over surface treatment of Sprites Lane. Huge impact on a local, quiet neighbourhood.
Corporate Manager - Development Management
All further representations have been noted and taken into account.
Corporate Manager - Development Management
Members will note that Pinewood Parish Council have made claims in respect of the status of the footpath(s) that run through the application site as it relates to Belstead Meadows (see first bullet-point of page 13).
In amplification of paragraph 133 of the officer’s report, Suffolk County Council has confirmed that no formal claims have been made over any paths that run through the site and no evidence has been provided to support the assertion that a formal route or highway has been created through the site.
Nonetheless, Members are advised that the application for determination is in Outline only, where issues relating to layout would be a reserved matter. Therefore, whilst any issues relating to the footpath link would be private in nature, it is considered that the final layout to come forward (if Outline permission is granted) could successfully assimilate the footpath into the scheme.
A condition and informative note can be attached to any permission granted to that effect.
Corporate Manager - Development Management
Page 32/33 Change to RECOMMENDATION, amended as follows:
RECOMMENDATION
(1) That the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to provide:-
Provision and management of public open space; Affordable Housing as agreed; As may be agreed with LHA; As required by HRA Screening Report; Education - £255,801 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) Public Transport Infrastructure - £28,000 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) Bridleway 39 Improvements - £5,000 Travel Plan Contributions - to be agreed Libraries - £29,592 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) Waste - £6,987 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) NHS England - £57,880 As required by the Corporate Manager - Public Realm. Page10 18 Item Pages Summary No (2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above, the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant Planning Permission subject to conditions including:-
Stand time limit and Reserved Matters conditions; Parking to be provided in accordance with adopted standards; Materials samples; Quantum of total dwellings fixed; As required by Corporate Manager - Strategic Housing; As required by Corporate Manager - Heritage;
Removal of PD rights to Belstead House LB dwellings Agreement of construction management plan; 10% of agreed predicted energy use to be derived from renewable sources, with details to be approved (Policy CS13); Any external lighting to be approved; As required by Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection, where relevant; Full soft/hard landscaping including screening details, and as required by SCC Landscaping Team (including arboricultural protection measures); As required by SCC Highway Authority; As required by SCC Ecology/in accordance with ecological appraisal; As required by HRA Screening Report/Natural England; As required by Anglian Water; As required by Arboricultural Officer; Surface water drainage, as required by SCC, Anglian Water and Environment Agency; As required by SCC Archaeology; Fire hydrant provision; Agreement of Emergency Access treatment/control; Agreement of waste management plan; Agreement of landscape management plan; Care home to be no more than three-storeys in height; Slab levels. Details of all footways on site (together with an informative on any decision notice which addresses the Pinewood Parish Council’s concerns about a footpath crossing the site so that its status and existence can be taken into account and embraced in any layout proposed for development of the site at the reserved matters stage).
(3) That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to refuse Planning Permission, for reason(s) including:-
Inadequate provision of infrastructure contributions which would fail to provide compensatory benefits to the sustainability of the development and its wider impacts, contrary to Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy.
Page11 19 Item Pages Summary No 2 34-54 Further Representations, Summarised as Follows:
Concern over surface treatment of Sprites Lane. Huge impact on a local, quiet neighbourhood.
Anglian Water - No further comments/no objection.
Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Land Contamination) - No further comments/no objection.
Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Sustainability) - No objection, subject to conditions requiring adequate demonstration of energy efficiency/sustainability of the proposal.
Corporate Manager - Development Management All further representations have been noted and taken into account.
Christine Thurlow Corporate Manager – Development Management
24 November 2015
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\251115-Addendum Paper R64.docx
Page12 20 Item No: 1 Reference: B/14/01377/OUT
Parish: PINEWOOD Ward Members: Cllrs David Busby and Peter Burgoyne Location: Belstead House, Sprites Lane
Proposal: Outline - Residential development for the provision of 155 no. dwellings and 65 no. bedroom care home.
Applicant: Rural Community Housing Ltd
Case Officer: Steven Stroud Date for Determination: 24 December 2015
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a S106 agreement, Grant Outline Planning Permission
This application is referred to Planning Committee as the proposal is of a scale that requires consideration by Members.
A Panel of Members inspected the site on 21 October 2015.
THE SITE
1. The application site is 5.7ha in size and comprises Belstead House (including land adjacent to the north) and land which forms part of Belstead Meadows.
2. The application site is within the parish of Pinewood and is considered to be part of the Ipswich Fringe, where the site is partly within, and partly adjacent to, the existing built-up boundary.
3. The site is approximately 3km from the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA) which is also a recognised Ramsar and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
Belstead House
4. Belstead House is a Grade II listed building (a designated heritage asset) that is not currently in use. However most recently it formed an education and conference centre (Class C2) for the County Council along with other ancillary buildings, formal garden(s) and parking areas; prior to this use the property was residential in nature.
5. The principal building is 16th or early 17th Century in origin, being enlarged and remodelled in 1936. The ancillary buildings include a thatched barn that appears to have been built as a cartlodge closely related to the main house in the 19th Century. Due to its approximate age and siting within the curtilage of the listed building it too is considered to be a heritage asset that is afforded statutory protection under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Within the application site there is also a cottage-type dwelling constructed around 1900 and modern buildings which include a pre-fabricated classroom building and a pottery shed.
6. The Belstead House property is accessed from Sprites Lane, which on approach becomes a narrow track that additionally provides access to the Bridge School, a number of dwellings and a public bridleway. Existing residential development bounds Belstead House directly to the east and meadow land is adjacent to the south.
7. The bridleway which follows along Sprites Lane also runs through the site in a southerly direction, past the front of Belstead House. There is a woodland TPO which covers the north- eastern corner of the property and which also runs adjacent to the eastern edge of the access along Sprites Lane. There are also individual TPO trees along its boundary and the Council is aware that there have been bat sightings within the vicinity.
Planning Committee Page 21 25 November 2015 5
Belstead Meadows
8. The larger area comprising the application site relates to land north of Belstead House and part of a field, part of what is known as Belstead Meadows, which is adjacent to the western edge of the Belstead House gardens.
9. Belstead Meadows is accessed from Cottingham Road, which currently terminates adjacent to the north-western corner of the site. No other public vehicular access to the site is available, notwithstanding the Sprites Lane access to Belstead House.
10. To the north of the site is the Bridge School and residential properties that form Wilding Road. Adjacent to the west and south of the site is further open green space, which to the south forms part of the Country Park and Belstead Brook; beyond this is the A14.
11. Belstead Meadows has a number of informal footpaths running through it and these lead from Cottingham Road where there is a small parking area, to south of Belstead House where they join with the definitive footpath network.
THE PROPOSAL
12. The application seeks planning permission in outline for the erection of 155 no. new dwellings and a 65 no. bed care home. The application seeks to establish the principle of development and position(s) of access only, with all other matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) to be agreed at the reserved matters stage. Whilst a layout and elevational plans have been submitted, these are (other than the position(s) of access) for indicative purposes only.
13. Members will note that separate applications for full planning permission and listed building consent have been submitted by the applicant (B/14/01375 & 76) in respect of the Belstead House property and those applications have been addressed under cover of a separate report at this Planning Committee. However, as the red-lined application site for this proposal also includes that land (and the 20 no. dwellings proposed under B/14/01375 form part of the 155 no. dwellings quoted in this application), that development and its associated impacts and material planning considerations relating to the full planning application (B/14/01375) need to be considered afresh under cover of this application in outline form.
14. In support of this outline application, the same full plans provided pursuant to a determination of B/14/01375 and B/14/01376 have been provided, however as all matters except for access are reserved they can only be treated as being indicative.
Belstead House - 20 no. dwellings
15. The supplied plans indicate that this part of the development comprises the change of use and conversion of Belstead House to provide 4 no. dwellings; the conversion of a separate dining hall to form 1 no. dwelling; the conversion and extension of the pottery building to a dwelling; the conversion and extension of the thatched barn to a dwelling; the demolition of a prefabricated classroom building; and the erection of 13 no. dwellings together with alterations to access, formation of parking areas and associated landscape works.
16. Both the new and converted dwellings are shown to have private amenity spaces at the rear. For the dwellings created as part of the conversion of Belstead House it is proposed for there to be partitioning of the existing formal gardens in order to create private spaces.
17. The rest of the formal gardens would remain open and publically accessible from the further proposed residential development to the west.
18. Parking spaces for the dwellings of Belstead House would be to the front of the buildings. The majority of the other properties are also indicated to have front parking spaces; however some of the parking provision for the mews houses would be located at the rear of the site behind the gardens. Further Residential Development - 135 no. dwellings and 65 no. bed care home
Planning Committee Page 22 25 November 2015 6
19. The majority of the remaining 135 no. dwellings would be located off Cottingham Road with an additional access from Sprites Lane.
20. The indicative layout (as this detail would be a reserved matter, if approved) shows the access from Cottingham Road going south with dwellings on one side, leading to an open space and then an assisted living complex comprising a community centre with wardens accommodation above and 11 no. two bed houses and 7 no. one bed flats.
21. Beyond the assisted living complex would be a 65 no. bed care home with associated parking. This is located closest to the A14 to act as a buffer for the remaining development, due to its likely scale and form. Attached to the care home would be a café which is proposed to be a public facility.
22. The access road would then loop towards the north with two-bed dwellings both fronting the road and to the rear. The road would then curve around the gardens of Belstead House with 2, 3 and 4 bed houses fronting the road before meeting Sprites Lane.
23. It is also proposed for an additional three houses to the north of Belstead House to be accessed off Sprites Lane. Two cottages on the northern edge of the site are to be retained and it is proposed for these to be used for respite care for students at the Bridge School.
24. The indicative layout shows a number of areas of open space for the development, including a ‘village green’ to the north of the assisted living accommodation, the majority of the existing formal gardens of Belstead House and a tennis court with Local Area of Play (LAP) directly adjacent to the north.
25. The layout also shows various pedestrian routes through the site including one link into the remainder of Belstead Brook Country Park.
26. The information submitted with the application indicates that the 155 dwellings proposed would be predominantly for the over 50’s demographic community. Only 44 dwellings would be allocated for open market sale or rental, with the remainder for affordable rent (54 units), retirement/over 50’s and assisted living (57 units). The proposal would also provide a combined facility for the Bridge School, to the north of the application site, including a daytime life learning facility and respite care accommodation for students of the school.
27. The applicant, Rural Community Housing Limited, is a privately owned and managed affordable housing provider and has provided an indicative accommodation schedule as follows:
Open Market
House 8 no. - 2 Bedrooms (B) 4 Persons (P) 13 no. - 3B 5P 10 no. - 3B 6P 1 no. - 4B 6P 4 no. - 4B 7P 1 no. - 5B 9P
Flat 4 no. - 1B 2P 3 no. - 2B 3P
Total = 44 no. dwellings.
Planning Committee Page 23 25 November 2015 7
Affordable Rent
House 40 no. - 2B 4P
Flat 4 no. - 1B 2P 4 no. - 2B 3P 5 no. - 2B 3P (Loft) 1 no. - 2B 3P (Warden)
Total = 54 no. dwellings.
Retirement and Assisted Living
House 28 no. - 2B 4P
Flat 9 no. - 1B 2P 2 no. - 2B 3P
Total = 39 no. dwellings.
Assisted Living
House 11 no. - 2B
Flat 7 no. - 1B 2P
Total = 18 no. dwellings.
Care Home
Total = 65 no. bed spaces.
28. This application has been revised through amendments/amplifications which have included information in relation to heritage, contamination, highways, flood risk, ecology and archaeology. All information received has been subject to at least one additional round of consultation with all interested parties. However any further responses or representations will be reported through the Addendum Paper and/or at Planning Committee.
29. The application documents can be viewed online via the planning pages on the Babergh District Council website.
RELEVANT HISTORY
30. None relevant.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
31. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision- making purposes.
Planning Committee Page 24 25 November 2015 8
PLANNING POLICIES
32. The Development Plan comprises the policies in the Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031, Core Strategy and Policies (2014) document and the ‘saved’ policies within the Babergh Local Plan, Alteration No.2 (2006).
1) Core Strategy
The Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031, Core Strategy and Policies (2014) document was adopted on the 25 February 2014 and is now fully operational (for planning decisions and other purposes). The following policies are relevant to application:-
CS1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development in Babergh CS2 - Settlement Pattern Policy CS3 - Strategy for Growth and Development CS12 - Sustainable Design and Construction Standards CS13 - Renewable/Low Carbon Energy CS14 - Green Infrastructure CS15 - Sustainable Development in Babergh CS18 - Mix and Types of Dwellings CS19 - Affordable Homes CS21 - Infrastructure Provision
2) Saved Policies in the Local Plan
The ‘saved’ policies within the Babergh Local Plan, Alteration No.2 (2006) adopted June 2006 should be regarded as a material consideration in planning decisions. The following policies are applicable to this proposal:-
CN01 - Design Standards CN06 - Listed Buildings EM24 - Retention of Existing Employment Sites HS31 - Public Open Space (Sites of 1.5ha and above) TP15 - Parking Standards
33. The following documents are also considered as material for the purposes of determining planning applications and are applicable to this proposal:-
Babergh District Council - Affordable Housing, Supplementary Planning Document (2014).
Babergh District Council - Safeguarding Employment Land, SPD (2008).
Cabe at Design Council - Building for Life 12 (3rd Edition, 2015).
Department for Transport - Manual for Streets (2014).
Suffolk County Council - Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2014), adopted 2015.
34. On the 6th March 2014, a number of Ministerial planning circulars were cancelled by central Government and were replaced by the Government’s online Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The guidance provided is advice on procedure rather than explicit policy, but has been taken into account in reaching the recommendation made on this application.
35. The PPG is an online reference and is available at the following internet address: www.planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk.
36. The relevant policies that have been referenced can be viewed online. Please see the notes attached to the schedule. CONSULTATIONS
37. Pinewood Parish Council - Objects; Responses summarised and italicised where directly quoted, as follows:
Planning Committee Page 25 25 November 2015 9
16 January 2015
Particular concern relating to highways impacts and additional traffic generated has been raised by the public within Pinewood.
“As a Parish Council we too share these concerns and must therefore consider this development in conjunction with other proposed developments soon to be submitted both in and adjacent to our parish. The proposed siting of an Aldi store in Scrivener Drive and possibly two large housing developments under discussion for Chantry Vale would all create further traffic congestion in Pinewood and the surrounding area, an area already suffering gridlock on its local estate roads and nearby A1214. With further traffic to be generated from the Vet’s Surgery (including retail outlet) currently being built on Scrivener Drive and any future development on the land given permission for office development to Fred Olsen these all stand to add still further to a road network currently already unable to cope at peak times.”
Traffic congestion is a major factor to be considered with all of these proposals so we feel these must all be taken into consideration at the same time. The core strategy states the A12 and A14 are important communication routes essential to the local economy and congestion at the Copdock Junction should not be exacerbated by any development in this area. Attention is drawn to the need for early consultation with the Highways Agency and warns against a piecemeal approach that would be damaging to a comprehensive plan for the areas future. Whilst this proposed development is not on land included in the Core Strategy it will impact onto the area that it covers.
The traffic survey provided by Mr Harding was heavily criticised by our residents and the response from Suffolk County Council Environment and Transport raises still further concerns and issues.”
The Parish Council therefore requests more time to consider the traffic survey/transport assessment together with issues raised through consultation responses. The Council further requests more time in order to carry out its own investigations and to submit a fully informed response.
The Parish Council requests that the District Council does not make a decision on the application(s) on their own but in conjunction with those other applications referred to above.
12 October 2015
The Parish Council’s concern relating to additional traffic generation and congestion remains. Due to the length of the amended/amplified transport assessment, additional time is requested in order to respond.
Planning Committee Page 26 25 November 2015 10
23 October 2015
“Pinewood Parish Council wishes to object to this application for the following reasons:-
This development is not part of the Babergh Local Plan 2011 – 2031 as defined in CS2 and CS7 and map C. The Ipswich fringe that is included in the local plan does not include this particular location. Therefore this site has not been the subject of proper consultation through any local plan process. Page 45 of the Core Strategy when referring to South West Ipswich Fringe states that the development of the area “needs to be considered and planned with the local communities and refers to the development of a “Master plan”. This is surely essential NOW – no decision on this development, the Wolsey Grange development and other development proposals, should be taken until a comprehensive review of the cumulative effect on the South West Ipswich Fringe including Pinewood has been undertaken. Factors such as traffic congestion on the A12 and A14, A1214 and local roads, loss of green space and recreational areas, pressure on local medical services are all things which should be included.
Had it been included in the plan, we still believe the proposed development is a direct contravention to the policies as set out in the plan. The proposal for 155 houses in an area approx. 14.1 acres is in complete contrast to the adjacent Pinebrook housing area which has 196 houses in approx. 25 acres, in real terms the proposed estate will have approximately 60% of the Pinebrook numbers in 50% of the area; doubling the density of housing. This is not in keeping with the local plan.
The proposed development by virtue of its size, scale and type is against Policy CS20 as nowhere in the Design and Access Statement does it give sufficient evidence to prove that there is an identified local need for this type of development from either a housing needs survey or agreed in advance by the District Council.
Babergh’s own planning policy states preference should be given to Brownfield sites. This location certainly does not meet that requirement and the local need certainly is not to a level which should require the building on Greenfield sites.
2.2.2.5 of the local plan states that the most important consideration when planning growth is the provision or improvement of the necessary infrastructure to ensure that proposed development does not impose a burden on the existing community. The roads in our locality are already suffering from congestion and overload and we question the overriding conclusion of the developer that the traffic effect will be minimal.
‘Pinebrook’, a residential area comprising of 196 dwellings is currently a cul-de-sac estate with Cottingham Road the only access route in/out for all but a few houses at the top end of the road.
Cottingham Road by nature of its design, a winding steep road with no more than 100 - 125 metres visibility in any one direction is not designed to take large volumes of traffic. With part of the road already lined to allow the safe flow of the existing traffic any increase in the traffic as a result of this development will need the length of Cottingham Road lined which will be to the detriment of the houses that face onto this road who will lose valuable amenity when visitors are not able to park. The transport assessment/travel plan is not representative of the area as the figures were collected on 23 & 24 July 2015 when the number of car movements were lower than normal as the survey was undertaken during the school summer holidays. Consideration of the following was not taken into account:-
o The Bridge School Secondary School in Sprites Lane was closed and the Primary Department was not yet opened. Planning Committee Page 27 25 November 2015 11
o Suffolk One was closed. There are a large number of buses that visit the college each day in the morning and the afternoon which haven’t been included in the report. o East Bergholt High School was closed and as Pinewood is a catchment area for this school there are two buses stopping on Shepherd Drive twice daily often causing a backlog of traffic. o The other local area catchment schools (Gusford, Sprites and Chantry Academy) were closed on these dates therefore the traffic was reduced. o St Joseph’s College was also closed.
The data collected and used by the travel plan therefore does not provide an adequate baseline from which to decide how the development will impact on local traffic at its busiest times. This surely demonstrates the inaccuracy and total inadequacy of the data gathered to formulate the Travel Plan. In order to gather reliable data this survey must be done again within term time before any decision making.
The travel plan does not show the difficulty that is currently experienced by residents when leaving the Pinebrook area as the only routes from Cottingham Road are by filtering onto Scrivener Drive or along Ward Road out onto Shepherd Drive. Both Scrivener Drive and Shepherd Drive are locations already grid-locked at peak times and with no traffic management i.e. traffic signals, traffic lights or roundabouts at the Cottingham Road/Scrivener Junction or the Ward Road/Shepherd Drive junctions it is very difficult for motorists to enter and exit. During peak times it is almost impossible to turn right onto either Scrivener Drive or Shepherd Drive. ‘Pinebrook’ residents are not the only residents who will be affected – all Pinewood residents will be affected by more traffic between Sprites Lane and the Copdock Interchange Retail Park roundabout.
The proposed development of a further 155 dwellings and a 65 bed care home will increase the traffic adding still further and we consider this is in contravention of the Suffolk Design Guide County Highways Policy as follows which states:-
o Section 3.3.38 Major access roads serving more than 150 up to 300 dwellings:- a) Two points of access should be provided to the part of the site being served and the road layout should conveniently connect those points of access. b) Where only one point of access is available the road layout should form a circuit and there should be the shortest practicable connection between the circuit and point of access. This should form the stem of the T-junction usually with a local distributor road. o Section 3.3.9 From the point of safety and the need to consider access in emergencies, not more than 150 dwellings will normally be served by a single means of access.
In addition to the above no allowance has been made for traffic that has/will be generated as a result of the following:-
o The Ipswich Veterinary Centre which opened in September 2015. o The Bridge School Primary Department has since opened in September 2015. o Aldi to be built over the coming months o Proposed Wolsey Grange which will impact at both ends of Scrivener Drive. o There is also the land at present owned by Fred Olsen which at some time in the future will have some commercial/business use. o There is no projected traffic information for the proposed care home.
Planning Committee Page 28 25 November 2015 12
The detrimental impact upon the amenity of both Pinewood residents and Ipswich Borough residents through the introduction of a large scale development in this countryside location through the loss of meadow significantly impacts upon open space provision and the ecological network. Belstead Brook Park is an open space frequented daily by large numbers of ramblers and dog walkers all year round. The area has a footpath across the proposed development site which has been in use since the houses were first built in 1984 and there is no clear evidence that this will be retained. By right of use over a period of some 21 years we consider this public footpath should be retained in its present location. The law is now set out in section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, which says that if a route is enjoyed by the public for 20 years or more, as of right and without interruption, the path is “to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway”. Information boards have been put up to encourage people to use the area. The educational perspective of this important environment will be removed should such a large development take place and completely undermine the good work conducted over several years by local community groups.
The detrimental impact upon the biodiversity interests of the site; the loss of habitat for flora, fauna animals and species etc., Wildlife habitat reduction is of serious concern. Already highlighted in the surveys for the site are possible nesting sites for bats (a species known to be in decline). Other animals regularly seen include: deer, foxes, squirrels, birds of prey, owls, herons, mice, frogs and newts. Although some of the green areas will remain, such a dramatic and extensive reduction will cause irreversible effects on the local wildlife structure and ecosystem.
Proposal results in significant levels of tree felling, with no satisfactory replacement tree planting scheme in place.
The flood Risk has not been adequately assessed and the associated detrimental effect on the water course such as Belstead Brook.
The impact on the local doctor’s surgery from a development that is to be predominantly for the elderly will put a strain on services and there is no information on how the local surgery is to cope.
The Pinewood doctor’s surgery in the Travel Plan is shown to be within walking/cycling distance. Elderly people are not likely to do either if feeling unwell.
The Surgery car park already struggles to cope and there is little adjacent on street parking because of double yellow lines having to be introduced because of parking problems caused by students from Suffolk One.
The Travel plan states that the proposed development is only 400M from a bus route. This would not apply to the extremities of the development. As a number of the residents will be elderly a shorter distance would be required and again is not met.
The information given by the developer about the number 13 bus operated by Ipswich Buses is incorrect. The developer overstates the availability of public transport at certain times. The number 13 does not run every 12 minutes throughout the day. Early morning use between 05.55 and 8.10 varies between 15 and 30 minutes and after 18.40 buses run only every 30 minutes. With the proposed care home located very near to the brook, very vulnerable people will suffer most from the noise and pollution from the Copdock Interchange and the roads feeding into it.
In view of all of the above points raised, Pinewood Parish Council objects to this application.”
38. Ipswich Borough Council - Objects (reasons for objections have been copied in full): Planning Committee Page 29 25 November 2015 13
22 January 2015
“Unallocated, large windfall site that has not been the subject of proper consultation through any local plan process; Proposal would result in a significant negative impact upon local infrastructure, including the road network and public rights of way; Adverse impact upon the amenity of Ipswich Borough residents through the introduction of a large scale development in this countryside location; Detrimental impact upon the biodiversity interests of the site; Loss of meadow significantly impacts upon open space provision and the ecological network along the south-west boundary of the Borough; Proposal results in significant levels of tree felling, with no satisfactory replacement tree planting scheme in place; No masterplan is in place, leading and contributing to uncoordinated and incremental harm and urban sprawl; Flood Risk not adequately assessed; Transport Assessment not adequate in addressing traffic management issues; If approved, s106 contributions towards public transport provision and highway crossings within the locality should be secured; If approved, a satisfactory scheme of sustainable drainage (SuDS) should be implemented and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development at the expense of the developer; If approved, satisfactory mitigation measures should be in place regarding infrastructure (including public transport), pedestrian and cycle routes/facilities, rights of way together with the provision of a Travel Plan.”
39. Suffolk County Council (Local Highway Authority) - No objection following amended Transport Assessment; subject to conditions/s106 agreement in relation to highways improvements and Travel Plan contributions. Full comments relating to their current position have been appended.
40. Suffolk County Council (Travel Plans) - No objection; however further information is required.
41. Highways England - No objection; Proposal is unlikely to result in an adverse impact upon the Strategic Road Network.
42. Environment Agency - No objection; subject to conditions relating to flood risk/surface water drainage.
43. Anglian Water - No objection; recommend conditions relating to surface water drainage and foul sewerage.
44. Historic England - Do not wish to offer comments.
45. Natural England - No objection; the findings of the HRA Screening Report are considered acceptable and if the recommended mitigation measures are carried out then the development is unlikely to pose an adverse effect upon the integrity of the SPA.
46. Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Sustainability) - Comments; no explicit objection raised, however concern that a Building for Life assessment has not been carried out, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS12. Comments regarding compliance with CS13.
47. Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Land Contamination) - No objection; subject to standard contamination condition and advisory note.
Planning Committee Page 30 25 November 2015 14
48. Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Other Issues) - No objection; subject to condition(s) relating to noise impacts/mitigation.
49. Corporate Manager - Heritage - Comments; No objection to the Belstead House conversion as indicated; subject to conditions relating to specific materials/joinery/fenestration details and an appropriate landscaping scheme. However the application as relating to the indicative plans would cause ‘less than substantial’ harm due to the intended sub-division of the curtilage of Belstead House. This could be overcome by further consideration to this aspect. With respect to the wider residential development careful consideration needs to be given to the precise siting and scale of those dwellings adjoining the boundaries of Belstead House.
50. Corporate Manager - Strategic Housing - No objection; subject to affordable housing obligation as agreed.
51. Corporate Manager - Planning Policy - No objection; the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable.
52. Suffolk County Council (Archaeology) - No objection; subject to condition relating to an appropriate scheme of investigation prior to development.
53. Suffolk County Council (Ecology) - Comments:
The applicant has now provided sufficient information with regards to the likely recreational pressures generated by the development and mitigation measures on offer and can allow determination of this proposal.
Recommendations with regards to conditions relating to protected species and biodiversity on any permission granted.
Members should note that this response has been produced by Suffolk County Council's Natural Environment Team at the request of Babergh District Council. However, the views and conclusions contained within this report are those of the officers providing the advice and are not to be taken as those of Suffolk County Council.
54. Suffolk County Council (Natural Environment - Landscape Development Officer) - Comments; no in-principle objections however concern that indicative landscaping details may be incompatible with overhead power lines on the site.
55. Suffolk County Council (Rights of Way) - No objection; comments.
56. Suffolk County Council (Floods & Water) - No objection; comments on/support for conditions suggested by Anglian Water/Environment Agency.
57. Suffolk County Council (Fire & Rescue) - No objection; recommend condition for fire hydrants.
58. Suffolk Constabulary - Comments; concerns raised regarding access, parking areas and open spaces.
59. Suffolk Wildlife Trust - Objects:
Due to presence of dormice in wider landscape, recommendations for landscaping made.
Any permission should require development to proceed in accordance with recommendations of ecological report submitted by the applicant.
However, objection raised due to urbanisation disturbance impacts and loss of open space/lack of provision for new enhanced areas of greenspace.
Planning Committee Page 31 25 November 2015 15
60. NHS England - Holding objection; no Healthcare Impact Assessment has been supplied or mitigation measures proposed. However, objection would be lifted if a developer contribution of £57,880 is secured through a S106 agreement.
REPRESENTATIONS
61. Those responses received during the consultation exercises that have been carried out (including representations from the Greenways Countryside Project, Friends of Belstead Brook Park & Ipswich and District Group (Ramblers’ Association) are summarised and italicised where directly quoted, below:-
Concern that number of dwellings will increase at a later stage. Concern over traffic pressures at Copdock Interchange. Concern how this proposal will relate to development adjacent to Holiday Inn. More people will be encouraged to park on Cottingham Road; safety hazard. Concern over traffic pressures on Scrivener Drive. Is there not another site which can accommodate this development? Concern over cumulative noise impacts. Proposal runs against Council objectives and logo. Suffolk One has already destroyed the area and this will make things worse. Not enough people have been consulted or are aware of the development. A smaller proposal should be submitted. Convert Belstead House and leave it at that. Policy CS7 should not apply to this development. School, Dentist and Surgery capacities are full or stretched. Air quality concerns. Members need to do the ‘right’ thing. How would highway improvements be managed? How would open space be managed? Brownfield sites should be given priority. Planning Statement is incorrect/misleading. Concern over traffic noise for nearby existing residents. Cramped, too high a density. Too much land is being taken by the applicant. Potential decision is directly associated with budget cuts. Contrary to the Babergh development plan. Concern over proximity of ‘Gate House/Plot 11’ to neighbouring properties. The wider Belstead Meadows/Park would lose its special value. Concern over loss of trees. Contrary to the Suffolk Design Guide. This is a countryside development and should be refused. The site is not within the Ipswich Fringe. What are the benefits of this application? Why is SW Ipswich such a focus for development? There are better areas that could handle this growth elsewhere. The architect has fallen far short of what is required by law when submitting planning applications. Insufficient drainage/flood risk information provided. Inadequate accesses. How can you build on a water meadow? More on-site services should be provided. Not enough publicity. Too much affordable housing; will lead to social isolation. How can you ensure development will be for the over 50s? Concern over proximity to electricity pylons. Concern over lack of contamination information provided. Harm to the Green Belt.
Planning Committee Page 32 25 November 2015 16
Is anybody monitoring the current traffic situation? Have the Council ulterior motives by not publicising the application widely? Development is purely for financial gain. Would undermine the good work people have done to promote the park area. Concern over use of emergency access. The plans do not show the entrance/exit to the recently opened Primary Campus of the Bridge School; this is misleading. Increased traffic from that development has put further pressure on Sprites Lane, which would be exacerbated further should this application be approved. How will construction traffic be managed? The Transport Plan does not mention other developments in the area. The transport survey was not conducted on a ‘typical’ or representative day as a number of key traffic generators were closed. Question as to whether Cottingham Road will connect to Sprites Lane through the development site. Concern over loss of habitat. Flood concerns. Loss of open space. Lack of school places. Lack of provision for local amenities. Concern due to additional traffic using Cottingham Road. A traffic management system should be implemented, even if the application is refused. Sprites Lane should remain a ‘country’ lane. Loss of privacy/overlooking for residents directly to the east of the application site. Noise and disturbance for residents to the east of the application site. Concern over window-to-window views between new dwellings and properties to east. Use of car park to eastern boundary will cause significant disturbance to nearby residents (east) and cause health issues. Arboricultural concerns. Concern over damage to properties, including subsidence, during construction. Loss of outlook for nearby properties. Concern over noise and disturbance during construction. Security concerns for nearby properties. Local services will be stretched and pressured. Loss of property values. Concern over nature and reporting measures of the ‘enviro-check’ report. Street lighting concerns. Incomplete flood/contamination reports have been submitted. Initial ecology reports/surveys are deficient and inaccurate. Pedestrian safety concerns for users of Sprites Lane. Concerns for animal welfare due to increased traffic. No school or surgery spaces are being provided. Local community consultation has been inadequate. Cumulative impacts should be considered. Concern over emergency access. Construction could disturb pipes that supply drinking water. The public have not been consulted on the proposed plans. I do not object to small-scale development around Belstead House. Where will the dog walkers go? Additional pressures on Sprites Lane from Bridge School development have led to marshals being required to direct traffic. Belstead House should be preserved for future generations. Discrepancies between highways drawings. Not enough projected traffic has been accounted for. The qualifications of the original ecological report author are incorrect and any documents written by him should be disregarded. Poor reptilian surveys undertaken.
62. Greenways Countryside Project - Objects:
Would expect to see an Environmental Assessment accompanying the application. Planning Committee Page 33 25 November 2015 17
The loss of 6-7 acres of natural open space is unacceptable. The development would have a detrimental impact on remaining parts of Belstead Meadows. The grazed parkland is unusual for the area and should be protected. Would be a visible blot from the A12/A14. Ecological considerations are of considerable importance. Unallocated land. Traffic issues. Drainage impacts should be considered. The applicant should provide more detailed information.
63. Friends of Belstead Brook Park - Objects:
Belstead Meadows are part of Belstead Brook Park and possibly the best used part. Cattle graze from time to time and the loss of 7 acres would cause this to cease and stop children seeing cattle in a natural setting. A not inconsiderable loss to the green lung of Ipswich and wider countryside. Concern over ecology/biodiversity impacts; proper assessments should be made. Traffic issues. Traffic issues would make the Park less desirable to visit. Is this the thin end of the wedge? Contrary to the development plan? National planning policy/guidance should be taken into consideration.
64. Ipswich and District Group (Ramblers’ Association) - Objects:
13th January 2015
“On the grounds of its direct impact on the existing public rights of way and all the other paths in the area. Further its wider and more general impact on the surrounding landscape and further out. This is an open space where people can relax walking or taking the dog for a walk and should kept so for all time.”
15th October 2015
“On the grounds of the impact on existing public rights of way and other footpaths in the area. Further its wider and more general impact on the surrounding landscape and further out. As has been said before this is an open space where people can relax walking or taking the dog for a walk. The area should be kept as open space for the benefit of the public at large - if developed this would be lost.”
65. All consultee responses and representations received to date have been noted and have been taken into account when reaching the recommendations as set out below.
Planning Committee Page 34 25 November 2015 18
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
66. From an assessment of the relevant planning policies, supplementary guidance, site history and constraints/designations, those representations and consultation responses received and other material planning considerations, the main issues in determining this application are considered, as following:-
The Principle of Development; Housing Need; Heritage; Connectivity - Highway Safety and Sustainable Transport; Loss of Open Space and Impact on the Landscape; Design and Layout; Resilience to Climate Change (Flood Risk/Drainage and Building Performance/Renewable Energy); Impact upon Residential Amenity; Other Matters, including; Land Contamination, Crime and Disorder, Biodiversity and Protected Species, Archaeology, and Environmental Impact Assessment; Planning Obligations; Planning Balance and Conclusion.
The Principle of Development
The Ipswich Fringe
67. Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy are considered to be the lead policies in establishing the principle of development for this planning application. Policy CS2 sets out the overall settlement policy for the District. It states that most new development within the District will be directed sequentially from the towns/urban areas, which includes the Ipswich Fringe (edge of the urban area).
68. Policy CS3 further sets out that employment and housing growth will be accommodated within the District’s existing settlement pattern and in mixed and balanced communities on the edges of towns and the Babergh Ipswich Fringe.
69. The application site, where referring to Belstead House and the land immediately adjacent to the north and north-west, is within the settlement boundary of Pinewood, which is part of the Ipswich Fringe and is designated as an urban area that should be a focus for development as part of a sequential spatial-planning process, in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy which supports such growth.
70. Belstead Meadows is outside the built-up area boundary. Nonetheless, as a part of the Ipswich Fringe where it is sited on the edge of the urban area, the principle of residential and employment development is considered to accord with the Core Strategy as a part of the development plan. The Core Strategy is clear that the geographical area around Ipswich does not fit well within administrative boundaries, which is why the ‘fringe’ edge-of-urban area which includes Pinewood and parts of Sproughton for example, has been put forward and adopted.
71. That the proposal seeks to develop an unallocated ‘windfall’ site which has not been part of any form of consultation or local planning process, as considered by Ipswich Borough Council, is noted. The Core Strategy (which contains policies CS2 and CS3 and the emphasis for development to be primarily directed to towns/urban areas including the Ipswich Fringe) is an adopted plan document that forms the first part of the new Babergh Local Plan. It was adopted by Full Council on Tuesday 25th February 2014, the document having previously been found sound by an Inspector appointed to oversee the public examination process as setting out an appropriate basis for the planning of the District subject to modifications (which were made).
72. Belstead Meadows is also part of the Belstead Brook Park, an informal country park providing access to the countryside for residents of Pinewood and the wider Ipswich Fringe. When Belstead Meadows was owned by the County Council it was grazed and managed for biodiversity purposes. The site and footpaths are very well used.
Planning Committee Page 35 25 November 2015 19
73. However the site, apart from being located within the countryside, has no statutory protection. It is not designated and the footpaths through the site are permissive and not public rights of way; the SCC Public Rights of Way has additionally raised no objection to the proposal. As such the site could be fenced off from the public by the landowner at any time, notwithstanding the proposed development.
Loss of Employment Land
74. Belstead House, as a former educational centre has a lawful employment use which is considered to fall within Class C2 of the Use Classes Order 1987. The loss of such employment land is contrary to Policy EM24 which states that all employment sites are required to be marketed for employment uses prior to them being considered for a change of use to residential (Class C3). Although the site was marketed by the County Council (and it is understood that no interest was forthcoming), no evidence has been received with regards to the potential for retaining employment uses on the site.
75. However, the submission includes proposals for the development of a care home and associated café. This therefore represents a use which would help to offset the loss of employment at Belstead House.
76. Notwithstanding this, Belstead House is a listed building where the desire to preserve such a heritage asset should be of significant weighting and importance. The building was originally residential in nature and the proposal allows for this domestic character to be maintained where an alternative or re-emerging commercial use may be harmful to its character or special interest. As an important building that is current unused, it is therefore vulnerable and it is considered that a granting of planning permission in this instance would ensure its long-term viability and conservation.
77. A judgement therefore needs to be made as to whether the loss of employment space would warrant a refusal of planning permission in this instance. Given the emphasis on heritage conservation and that the proposal offers a positive delivery of housing growth in addition to the creation of employment floor space elsewhere within the red-lined site, it is considered that the loss of employment space would be acceptable in this instance.
78. Following the above, the change(s) of use and additional residential development are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to assessment against other material planning considerations. This report will therefore now proceed to assess those other material considerations, following a summary of those other policies that have been held in regard when reaching the recommendation for Members.
79. Policy CS1 applies a presumption in favour of sustainable development in Babergh. It states inter alia that the Council will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions, which means that proposals can be approved wherever possible and that development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the district can be secured.
80. Policies CN01, CS12, CS13, CS14 and CS15 outline the Council’s objectives in seeking to positively shape communities and to conserve or enhance local character and the built, natural and historic environments through requiring good design and developments of an appropriate form and scale. They also set out a framework of criteria for sustainable development, the energy needs of new development and the provision/support of renewable energy.
81. Policy CS18 states that residential development that provides for the needs of the district’s population, particularly the needs of older people will be supported where such local needs exist, and at a scale appropriate to the size of the development; therefore the mix, type and size of the housing development will be expected to reflect established needs.
82. Policy CS19 seeks to promote inclusive and mixed communities by requiring all residential developments to make an affordable housing contribution. 83. Policies CS21 and HS32 require all new housing developments to be supported by and make adequate provision for, appropriate infrastructure, public open space, services and facilities to ensure that the development is sustainable and of a high quality.
Planning Committee Page 36 25 November 2015 20
84. Policy TP15 of the LP requires inter alia that proposals for all types of new development will be required to provide parking in accordance with parking standards adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
85. In accordance with the NPPF due weight must be given to the policies contained within the development plan (comprising Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 and the Core Strategy) according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
86. The Core Strategy was subject to examination by the Planning Inspectorate with a report being issued in January 2014. Subject to recommended amendments (that were consequently made prior to adoption) the Inspector found the document to be sound and therefore consistent with the NPPF.
87. Those ‘saved’ policies within the Local Plan that are relevant to the application(s) submitted have been scrutinised and are also considered to be consistent with the NPPF and so are afforded a strong weighting.
Housing Need
88. Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy states that the mix and type of housing development is expected to reflect the established needs in the Babergh District. It also states that residential development that provides for the needs of the Districts population, and particularly the needs of older population, will be supported where such local needs exist and is at a scale appropriate to the size of the development. CS18 also goes onto state that mixed-use developments with a substantial residential element will be required to make provision for the accommodation needs of the vulnerable or identified groups of people (as reflected in established local needs assessments.)
89. Policy CS19 relates to the provision of affordable homes and states that in order to promote inclusive and mixed communities all residential schemes will be required to provide 35% affordable housing.
90. Policy CS15 relates to implementing sustainable development and contains a number of criteria against which proposals for development should be judged and states that all development must respect the local context and character of different parts of the District and address the key issues and contribution that they make to the objectives of the Local Plan in relation to housing need.
91. In addition to the above planning policies, planning policy and housing delivery has been constantly evolving at a national level. The Governments objectives are aimed towards improving housing delivery and the supply of housing in line with need and the recent Housing and Planning Bill introduced to Government on the 13rd October is building upon an approach where Local Planning Authorities should be flexible in meeting housing need to ensure delivery.
92. In respect of this outline planning application the following assessment is made of the scheme against the above planning policies and housing need:-
All matters are reserved with the exception of access on the outline planning application; consequently the indicative sketch plan is for illustrative purposes and only serves therefore to show that the amount and scale of development is possible on the site;
Planning Committee Page 37 25 November 2015 21
This proposal provides for the re-use and conversion of the main listed building and a curtilage listed building which are both vacant, to dwellings together with a number of other new dwellings; all of which will be for general needs and which will add to housing supply and would meet needs within the District. The dwellings arising out of the conversions together with the others in close proximity to Belstead House will respect the character and quality of the listed building and its setting (in respect of the latter the applicant has submitted an amended plan which shows a different line between the gardens for the dwellings and the area to be left as open space);
Delivery of 155 no. dwellings and a 65 no. bedroom care home; the proposal would have inherent social and economic benefits and would meet housing need and delivery of growth;
A significant affordable housing provision (44 no. available for affordable rent); due to viability constraints few recent developments have been able to deliver full policy compliance in terms of affordable housing and this factor therefore weighs in favour of the proposal;
Delivery of 57 no. retirement and assisted living units; this is meets a significant demographic need;
The mix and type of dwellings has been assessed by the Corporate Manager for Strategic Housing. She is supportive of the planning application as it would provide for much needed housing options for older people looking to purchase more suitable accommodation, or when needed to move into residential care within a local community.
This development is part-aimed at people aged over 50 and at establishing a community that provides support with a range of on-site facilities including a café, later living and assisted living accommodation and landscaped gardens.
93. In conclusion, the scheme is acceptable in terms of meeting housing need when viewed against the development plan and the local needs of the District.
Heritage
94. With reference to the treatment of the submitted applications, the Council embraces its statutory duties and responsibilities in relation to listed buildings, notably; Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires the Local Planning Authority to have “special regard to the desirability of preserving [a] building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.
95. Following recent legal judgments and related obiter dicta, it is understood that whilst the assessment of likely harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter for its own planning judgement, the Local Planning Authority is required to give any such harm considerable importance and weight. However, where special regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets has been paid and no harm is considered to be posed, the ‘balancing’ of harm (which should be given considerable weight as above) against public benefits as required by the NPPF, is not necessary.
96. As noted, the assessment of whether there is likely to be harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter for the LPA’s own planning judgement. In this case, the Corporate Manager - Heritage is supportive of Belstead House (including thatched barn) being brought back into a beneficial use that can secure its longer-term protection and conservation. It is understood that a detailed scheduled of works to any historic fabric and joinery/fenestration details are required, however it is considered that such details can be dealt with through the imposition of conditions to any permission granted; the principle of the conversions, sub-division of the principal listed building and alterations to facilitate the development and works are viewed positively.
97. The new dwellings proposed within the setting of Belstead House (where detailed plans have been provided, as per application B/14/01375 (albeit to be treated as indicative) have been considered carefully in terms of scale, form and detailed design including their siting in relation Planning Committee Page 38 25 November 2015 22
to the heritage assets. Given their complementary materials palette and subservient forms and scales, it is considered that the proposal positively portrays a development that would be suitably subservient and respectful of the listed buildings and their settings. In relation to the conversion and extension of the thatched barn, the low-set contemporary wing is positive as it does not compete with the barn for visual dominance.
98. The provided indicative plans show that the existing private garden area(s) of Belstead House would be subdivided in order to form amenity spaces for converted dwellings. The initial layout proposed was considered by the Corporate Manager - Heritage to be harmful to the listed building, where the experience and appreciation of the building within its wider landscape setting would be compromised; this was due to the significant private amenity area proposed for south-western dwelling to be created through the Belstead House conversion and the general erosion of the buildings setting through the sub-division of garden areas for the new dwellings. Such harm would have been less than substantial within the meaning provided by the NPPF, however would have required a balanced judgement as to whether such harm could be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
99. Through negotiation with the applicant, an amended site layout has been submitted, where the open nature of the wider landscape setting has been retained to an acceptable extent. Whilst there might be an argument advanced that such demarcated spaces, as proposed, might still impinge upon the setting and appreciation of the listed building to an extent that could be considered harmful (less than substantial within the meaning provided by the NPPF), this is considered to be acceptable in this instance where a balance can be made against the public benefits of the proposal which would outweigh such harm; an assessment of such will follow below. Members should also note that landscaping and arboricultural cultivation is not considered to amount to development and would not require planning permission or listed building consent; in this instance the applicant is proposing only soft landscaping to delineate private spaces and weighting has been attached to this ‘fall back’ position whereby the setting of the listed building could naturally change through such landscape works over time.
100. It is also noted that the proposed block plan reveals a public entrance to the rest of the garden area at the western corner of the application site, which would allow for wider enjoyment of the heritage asset and its setting.
101. Nonetheless, and where it is still considered that the proposal would pose less than substantial harm to the setting and wider appreciation of the listed building, the NPPF requires that such harm be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal.
102. Given the proximity between Belstead House and the other development proposed, an assessment of the potential impacts of that development and the wider application site upon the setting and significance of the heritage asset is also required. As noted by the Corporate Manager - Heritage, Belstead House is an imposing property within a mature landscape setting.
103. The indicative layout plan submitted with the application suggests that properties would be erected in close proximity to the western boundary of the Belstead House site. As the application is in outline form where only matters of access are fixed now, it is not clear how tall the dwellings might be or where they would be precisely sited. Notwithstanding this the Corporate Manager - Heritage considers that the layout as indicated could undermine the setting of Belstead House and as such this would give rise to harm, which is defined as being ‘less than substantial’ within the meaning provided by the NPPF.
104. Where less than substantial harm has been identified, the NPPF requires that such harm be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal.
105. In this instance, the public benefits of the proposal can be summarised as including the following:-
Planning Committee Page 39 25 November 2015 23
Delivery of 155 no. dwellings and a 65 no. bedroom care home; the proposal would have inherent social and economic benefits and would meet housing need and delivery of growth; A significant affordable housing provision (44 no. available for affordable rent); due to viability constraints few recent developments have been able to deliver full policy compliance in terms of affordable housing and this factor therefore weighs in favour of the proposal; Delivery of 57 no. retirement and assisted living units; this is meets a significant demographic need. Bringing back a designated heritage asset into an optimum long-term use that can secure its ongoing preservation and conservation; Public open space and play equipment delivery; Highway improvements to Sprites Lane;
106. Considered in isolation, it is unlikely that these public benefits would be sufficient to outweigh the potential harm that has been identified. However, in combination these public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building identified, even when considerable importance and weight is given to the desirability of preserving the setting of that building.
107. Officers have therefore applied the balance required by paragraph 134 of the NPPF, having special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building as required by s66 of the Listed Buildings Act and given the harm considerable importance and weight. The outcome of this balancing exercise is that those public benefits identified outweigh the less than substantial harm, even when that harm is given considerable importance and weight.
108. However it is considered that, and in accordance with those comments received from the Corporate Manager - Heritage, the level of harm could also be overcome by giving further consideration to the views into and out of the gardens of Belstead House so that the overall setting and experience of the property is not compromised.
109. In any event, Members must consider and make a determination of this application based upon only those matters relating to the access(es) and the principle of development. The scale and layout of the scheme is not for determination at this time.
110. A positive recommendation in relation to heritage impacts can therefore be made having had regard to the development plan, other material planning considerations including the NPPF, and imposed statutory duties and responsibilities.
Connectivity - Highway Safety and Sustainable Transport
111. Matters relating to access, highway safety and the cumulative impacts of this proposal as it relates to other potential and approved developments within the vicinity are considered to be among those most contentious for nearby residents, and as expressed by Pinewood Parish Council.
112. For this reason, the full comments of the Local Highway Authority in response the amplified/amended highways information provided by the applicant, dated 24th July 2015 have been appended.
113. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that proposals must provide safe and suitable access for all and that transport networks should be improved in a cost effective way to limit any significant impact of the development on the surrounding area. Paragraph 32 also makes it clear that proposals must only be refused where residual cumulative impacts on highway safety would be ‘severe’.
114. The key policies to consider from the development plan are CS14 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy and saved policy TP15 of the Babergh Local Plan. These policies seek development that is well laid out in terms of site access and highway safety, traffic flow and the environment.
Planning Committee Page 40 25 November 2015 24
115. Whilst the proposal is in outline form, access is included as a matter for consideration at this stage. A detailed and revised Transport Assessment has been provided by the applicant, following concerns raised by the Local Highway Authority that the initial information provided was inadequate. The final comments of the local highway authority, which raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions and contributions relating to highways improvements (including Travel Plan contributions), have been appended as noted above.
116. Notwithstanding this and the fact that each application must be considered on its own planning merits, Members should nonetheless consider carefully the potential cumulative highway impacts when juxtaposed with those other developments that have recently been brought forward in the vicinity and whether such impacts would be ‘severe’ as outlined by the NPPF.
117. Having taken into account the submitted, amended Transport Assessment as provided (which has now been accepted by the Local Highway Authority) it is considered that the wider highway network is capable of coping with the additional traffic that the proposed development would generate to the extent that any cumulative impacts presented should, as a matter of planning judgement, be considered as less than ‘severe’.
118. This view has been supported by the Local Highway Authority where the impacts of the development have been considered against the committed developments of the local Veterinary Centre and Aldi Superstore and it is not considered that mitigation could be justified. This is in part because the Belstead House site has an access via Sprites Lane by which trips to and from Ipswich town centre could avoid the area most likely to be congested.
119. The comments of Highways England who also consider that the proposal is unlikely to pose any detriment to the wider, strategic network are noted.
120. Comments received relating to the date that the Transport Assessment was undertaken have been noted and these include references to recent developments within the local area. The Local Highway Authority have confirmed that the validity of the assessment has been checked in two ways; firstly, the Transport Assessment has been compared against the survey data (within the public domain) provided for the recent application for an Aldi superstore (B/15/00124) which was not only comprehensive but was carried out within school term-time (including Suffolk One); secondly, the Local Highway Authority visited the site in the peak hour on a typical day in order to ensure that the capacities of the junctions had been adequately modelled. On that basis, the Transport Assessment is considered to be a satisfactory indicator as to the acceptability of the proposal in highway terms.
121. At this time, only the principle of the development and details relating to access are being considered. The internal layout of the scheme as it relates to meeting those access points of Cottingham Road and Sprites Lane would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage, but it is considered that appropriate connections, with an emphasis on Cottingham Road usage, would assist with ‘dispersing’ traffic appropriately, as advised by the local highway authority.
122. Given that a significant proportion of the residential development would be centred on the retired or elderly demographic, it is additionally considered that trip generation is likely to be less intensive when compared to other forms of growth.
123. In respect of the conversion and new development of the Belstead House site, it is considered that the movements and use of Sprites Lane associated with 20 no. dwellings of varying sizes are unlikely to be greater or more intensive than the present lawful use where at least 65 no. parking spaces have been provided.
Planning Committee Page 41 25 November 2015 25
124. Further, were that use to re-establish itself there would be no means to control or improve the current highway situation, which might include more intensive lawful uses under Class C2 where no application for planning permission would be required. For example, Class C2 includes such uses as residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres.
125. On that basis, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable where it makes use of Sprites Lane as it currently exists (in relation to the Belstead House site) and where there is the opportunity for betterment, as recommended by the highway authority.
126. With regards to parking, there would be sufficient space at the quantum and density of development proposed to achieve off road parking in accordance with the parking standards. Likewise, there is no inherent reason why a safe internal layout could not be achieved. The detailed layout and design would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage, notwithstanding that details have already been provided in respect of the development at Belstead House.
127. The indicative site layout identifies a number of pedestrian links that provide for permeability through the open space that bounds the application site to the west and south and then up into Pinewood, via Cottingham Road or Sprites Lane, thereby enabling connectivity from/to the development to/from nearby services.
128. Furthermore, Manual for Streets identifies that “…Walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes (up to 800m) walking distance of residential areas, which residents may access comfortably on foot”. The Council’s own Rural Development and Core Strategy Policy CS11 SPD identifies that there is a preferred maximum of 1,200 metres for walking distances.
129. Whilst the main facilities within Pinewood are over the 800m threshold set out within Manual for Streets, it is approximately 1km from the site to those services. This is considered to be well within a reasonable walking and cycling distance. The site is, therefore, considered to be well connected to facilities and, therefore in this respect, is a sustainable form of development.
130. In respect of highway safety and connectivity the application is therefore, on balance, considered favourably.
Loss of Open Space and Impact Upon the Landscape
131. Policy CS14 seeks to protect and enhance existing green infrastructure and states that on larger sites it will be central to the character and layout of the development. Additionally, it requires that particular consideration be given to ensuring that new provision links to existing green infrastructure.
132. The NPPF states that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised in decisions. Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy requires development proposals to protect the landscape of the district.
133. The western and northern aspects of the application site are green in nature with the western part (Belstead Meadows) forming part of a publicly-accessed green network, connecting to the country park and Belstead Brook. However, as considered above the site has no statutory protection. It is not designated and the footpaths through the site are not public rights of way; the SCC Public Rights of Way has additionally raised no objection to the proposal. As such the site could be fenced off from the public by the landowner at any time, notwithstanding the proposed development.
134. In this instance, whilst the western area of the application would be developed, the remaining areas of open space and recreation surrounding the application site would still be accessible. Further, the indicative layout indicates good permeability which would allow for public use of proposed open spaces within the site, which includes a tennis court and Local Area of Play (LAP). The currently private garden of Belstead House would also be opened, which would allow enjoyment of this designated heritage asset. Further, the links provided would also allow for future residents within the application site to make use of the wider green network.
Planning Committee Page 42 25 November 2015 26
135. On this basis, it is not considered that the development would pose any significant detriment with regards to the loss of open space represented by the proposal, such that a refusal of this application would be justifiable.
136. It is inevitable that developing the field(s) for housing and employment would have some adverse impact on the character of the site. However, the development plan envisages that there will be some development in such areas as the Ipswich Fringe; the key question, having established that the principle of development is acceptable, is whether the visual impact of the development can be reasonably contained or mitigated.
137. In this instance the applicant has provided an indicative layout which includes perimeter planting for the proposal. The information supplied is considered to be sufficient to enable an assessment to be made against the likely landscape and visual effects of the proposal, with your officers having also made an extensive visit to the application site and its surroundings.
138. The west of the application site is on a south-facing slope that falls towards the A14. The immediate setting of the site relates to Belstead Meadows, however the wider field is bounded by substantial levels of screening which includes native hedging, trees and the grounds of Belstead House. The Belstead House property, including the grassland to the north of the site, is also well screened with the land to the north being bounded to the east/west by existing residential development and natural features.
139. Contextually, in views into the site from the south and from other vantage points where available, the development would be seen in the context of the existing developments, where it would read as an infilling of the space that currently exists. Opportunities will be taken to ensure that the existing screened boundaries to the site, are retained in their naturalised form and where possible those boundaries can be reinforced and complemented through appropriate planting with additional planting in those areas where screening is limited (as has been shown on indicative plans).
140. The SCC Natural Environment Team (Landscape Development Officer), whilst not explicitly objecting to the proposal, have expressed concern that some elements of the proposed perimeter planting scheme, whilst acceptable in mitigation terms, may be incompatible with existing overhead power lines that run across Belstead Meadows in a southerly direction. These comments have been noted; however in the determination of this application landscaping is a reserved matter which can be considered fully at the detailed submission stage. The views of UK Power Networks have been sought but no response has been received.
141. It is considered appropriate to condition the maximum number of storeys for the proposed care home in order to reduce its visual impact, where a maximum of three storeys is considered appropriate.
142. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to the proposal and considered that the arboricultural report submitted with the application provides a generally accurate assessment of the condition and constraints presented by trees at the site. Although the proposal indicates the removal of a number of trees, these are mostly of limited amenity value and/or in poor condition and the impact of their loss can be mitigated with new planting. All important (category A) trees are indicated to be retained.
143. Consequently therefore, and subject to recommended conditions, the development is considered to have an acceptable visual impact on the landscape.
Design and Layout
144. Delivering quality urban design is also a core aim of the NPPF which states (at paragraph 56) that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. At paragraph 64 the NPPF further states that permission should be refused for poor design that fails to take opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The NPPF also encourages the use of local design review.
145. Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy requires (inter alia) that new development should be well designed and of an appropriate size/scale, layout and character in relation to its setting and be
Planning Committee Page 43 25 November 2015 27
well connected to facilities. Development should also respect the landscape, landscape features, streetscape/townscape, heritage assets, important spaces and historic views of the locality.
146. This application is submitted in outline where the matters of layout and building design are reserved. However, it is good practice for an applicant to demonstrate that the site can be developed in an acceptable way. To this end the applicant has submitted an indicative layout and a detailed Design and Access Statement along with indicative house type drawings that provide an indication as to how the development would be envisaged to occur.
147. With regard to the proposed development at Belstead House the applicant has supplied detailed drawings, identical to those which were submitted in support of planning application B/14/01375 (that application is subject to a separate determination).
148. The wider residential development proposed follows a similar theme; general forms and styles commensurate with the Suffolk vernacular with a palette of materials reflective of the area. The materials indicated include a mixture of plain tiles, pantiles and slate with wall treatments of buff brickwork, coloured render and timber boarding.
149. The Design and Access Statement includes the following reference:-
“It is the design intent that the proposed appearance of the development shall be that of a mixed scale and finish. An irregular street pattern shall enhance the street scene and build upon the local vernacular.
It is also intended that the street scene shall largely be car free, with car parking arrange in groups or on plot. Grouped car parking is proposed to be hidden from the street. Allowing the street to appear uncluttered and provide opportunity for hard and soft landscaping enhancements… The uncluttered development shall be of a medium density and provide flexible residential accommodation incorporating the Lifetime Home principles.”
150. The indicative layout and illustrative elevations has articulated these principles by showing a simple layout with housing generally facing onto the road or into designated shared spaces which would create a sense of enclosure and natural surveillance. A looped road arrangement would be accommodated around open spaces, providing focal points for the development.
151. The medium density of the development at c27 no. dwellings per hectare (dph) is considered appropriate for this edge of town/urban fringe location and can be secured by planning condition. The density and indicative layout proposed allows space for soft landscaping and open spaces and would ensure that the development would not have a cramped appearance; this allows ‘garden suburb’ principles to be followed, as encouraged in Paragraph 52 of the NPPF. The density/quantum of development also enables the proposal to be of a size which can assimilate into the settlement.
152. At this stage, a formal Design Review and/or Building for Life assessment has not been undertaken given that the scheme is in outline and it has been demonstrated that it is underpinned by sound urban design principles. These assessments could be undertaken at the reserved matters stage.
Resilience to Climate Change (Flood Risk/Drainage and Building Performance/Renewable Energy)
153. The NPPF gives great weight to sustainable development, which is considered to be a ‘golden thread’ running through the planning system. Adaption to, and resilience against, climate change is a key consideration of sustainable development in the NPPF. This is echoed in Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy, which states that development should be designed to a high standard in terms of its sustainability.
154. The ‘sustainability’ of the proposal and its resilience to climate change can be broken down into a number of key issues, such as the accessibility of the proposed development and its design quality (discussed above), the scheme’s resilience to climate and social change and the buildings performance. Other important aspects of sustainable development, such as
Planning Committee Page 44 25 November 2015 28
ecology, open space provision and safeguarding heritage are discussed elsewhere in this report.
155. A key issue when considering ‘resilience’ is whether the development has been designed to adapt to issues presented by climate change, such as an increased risk of flooding from heavy rain or high energy prices. In this instance the application site is considered to fall within ‘Flood Zone 1’ and as such there is a very low probability (less than 1 in 1000 annually) of river or sea flooding.
156. However, due to the scale and residential nature of the proposal a detailed flood risk assessment was considered necessary and has been submitted with further supporting information by the applicant. Accordingly, the Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions which includes details relating to surface water drainage.
157. With regards to building performance, the Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Sustainability) has expressed concern as no evidence has been provided that the development can derive at least 10% of its predicted energy use from renewable sources in accordance with Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy. However, as this is an outline application such matters can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage when passive solar gain, for example, can be explored and building performance would be better known at this detailed design stage. Consequently a condition is recommended to secure this.
Impact upon Residential Amenity
158. One of the core planning principles within paragraph 17 of the NPPF is that Local Planning Authorities should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings, and this is also required by saved policy CN01 of the Local Plan.
159. The application is in outline with the layout reserved. The proposal is such that there would be sufficient room to ensure residential amenity is safeguarded for existing neighbours and future residents. The indicative layout shows a way that this can be achieved with clear building lines and adequate separation distances between proposed development and the existing properties in Wilding Road, Yewtree Rise and Sycamore Close.
160. The proximity of the estate road to nearby properties is noted but is not considered a justifiable reason for refusal. Notwithstanding this, the detailed layout of the scheme would be assessed at the reserved matters stage.
161. Concerns regarding the construction of the development have been noted. It is considered appropriate, as would be standard on most Major schemes, to secure agreed details of a suitable management plan.
Other Matters
Land Contamination
162. The Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Land Contamination) and the Environment Agency have not raised any objection to the proposal in this respect, but have requested conditions be attached to ensure the safe development and future occupancy of the site.
Planning Committee Page 45 25 November 2015 29
Crime and Disorder
163. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.
Biodiversity and Protected Species
164. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, in so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, in relation to protected species.
165. An amended ecological appraisal undertaken by Mill House Ecology was submitted by the applicant on the 1st October 2015 in response to comments received from the Suffolk County Council ecologist/Suffolk Wildlife Trust and has been subject to an additional consultation exercise. It is considered that the proposal poses no significant adverse impacts on ecology (including bats and dormice), subject to the implementation of the recommended compensatory and mitigation measures outlined within the appraisal.
166. The Suffolk County Council ecologist has confirmed that the information provided is sufficient, subject to appropriate conditions.
167. Those comments received in relation to the qualifications of the original author of the ecology report have been considered. Members should note that the most recent ecological report/appraisal (prepared by Mill House Ecology) has superseded the original submission and it is considered that the present report has provided sufficient ecological information for the determination of this application. Accordingly Suffolk Wildlife Trust has raised no objection to the proposal.
168. Due to the proximity of the development to the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA, the Council has engaged the services of an ecologist to produce a Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report. This has recently been completed and Natural England has confirmed that they raise no objection to the development and that if the identified mitigation measures are carried out (and these can be secured by a s106 obligation) then no adverse impacts upon the integrity of the SPA would be posed.
Archaeology
169. The site does not lie within an area of High Archaeological Potential but as the proposal involves a listed building Suffolk County Council Archaeology were consulted. It is noted that whilst no objection was raised, the imposition of a planning condition has been requested.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
170. Local planning authorities have a well-established general responsibility to consider the environmental implications of developments which are subject to planning control. Only those projects which are likely to have significant effects upon the environment will require an EIA.
171. In that respect this application has been carefully considered against both the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
172. Due to the scale and nature of the proposed development, which includes the provision of at least 150 no. dwellings, it is considered that the proposal exceeds the threshold set by Schedule 2, Paragraph 10(b), Column 2 of the 2011 Regulations.
173. Taking into account the selection criteria listed under Schedule 3 of the 2011 Regulations, a Screening Opinion has been issued and it was concluded that no EIA was required for the development proposed. Planning Committee Page 46 25 November 2015 30
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
174. Policy HS31 of the adopted Local Plan requires residential developments on sites of 1.5ha or more to provide 10% of the site area as open space. The indicative layout identifies that such space can be achieved within the proposed development. Play equipment would also be included. The precise design and layout would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage but obligations are recommended to secure the public open space and its management.
175. Other contributions identified and agreed by the applicant include:-
Education - £255,801 Public Transport Infrastructure - £28,000 Bridleway 39 Improvements - £5,000 Travel Plan Contributions - to be agreed (£155,041 estimated) Libraries - £29,592 Waste - £6,987 NHS England - £57,880 Affordable Housing as agreed and accepted by the Council’s Housing team. As required by the findings of the HRA Screening Report.
176. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) state that after 6 April 2015 no more than five s106 obligations can be ‘pooled’ for the funding or provision of an infrastructure project or type of infrastructure. The Regulations require that s106 obligations must be specific and identify the infrastructure project that the contribution will fund.
177. In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.
PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
178. At the heart of the balancing exercise to be undertaken by decision makers is Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
179. The development would have a number of significant benefits, including the conversion of a listed building, provision of a care home, assisted living flats, both affordable (at full policy compliance) and market housing and housing for the over 50’s demographic community.
180. When taken as a whole, and as a matter of planning judgment, the proposal is considered to broadly adhere to the development plan (where those applicable policies are considered to be consistent with the NPPF), other material planning considerations including the NPPF, and imposed statutory duties and responsibilities. The proposal is consequently considered to represent a sustainable form of development, where there exists a presumption in favour of such development in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF and Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy.
Planning Committee Page 47 25 November 2015 31
181. This presumption in favour of sustainable development is further reinforced by advice relating to decision-taking in the NPPF. Paragraph 186 of the Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to "approach decision taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development". Paragraph 187 states that Local Planning Authorities "should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible".
182. In the absence of any justifiable or demonstrable material consideration indicating otherwise, it is considered that the proposals are therefore acceptable in planning terms and a positive recommendation to Members is given below.
STATEMENT REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 35 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015
183. When determining planning applications the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. In this case the Local Planning Authority worked with the agent/applicant to address issues relating to heritage, contamination, highways, archaeology, ecology and flood risk. Following minor amendments/amplifications, additional information received and subsequent re-consultation exercises, the Local Planning Authority was able to reach a decision having had regard for all material planning considerations.
RECOMMENDATION
(1) That the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to provide:-
Provision and management of public open space; Affordable Housing as agreed; As may be agreed with LHA; As required by HRA Screening Report; Education - £255,801 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) Public Transport Infrastructure - £28,000 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) Bridleway 39 Improvements - £5,000 Travel Plan Contributions - to be agreed Libraries - £29,592 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) Waste - £6,987 (or an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC) NHS England - £57,880
(2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above, the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant Planning Permission subject to conditions including:-
Stand time limit and Reserved Matters conditions; Parking to be provided in accordance with adopted standards; Materials samples; Quantum of total dwellings fixed; As required by Corporate Manager - Strategic Housing; As required by Corporate Manager - Heritage; Removal of PD rights to Belstead House LB dwellings Agreement of construction management plan; 10% of agreed predicted energy use to be derived from renewable sources, with details to be approved (Policy CS13); Any external lighting to be approved; As required by Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection, where relevant; Full soft/hard landscaping including screening details, and as required by SCC Landscaping Team (including arboricultural protection measures); As required by SCC Highway Authority; As required by SCC Ecology/in accordance with ecological appraisal; Planning Committee Page 48 25 November 2015 32
As required by HRA Screening Report/Natural England; As required by Anglian Water; As required by Arboricultural Officer; Surface water drainage, as required by SCC, Anglian Water and Environment Agency; As required by SCC Archaeology; Fire hydrant provision; Agreement of Emergency Access treatment/control; Agreement of waste management plan; Agreement of landscape management plan; Care home to be no more than three-storeys in height; Slab levels.
(3) That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to refuse Planning Permission, for reason(s) including:-
Inadequate provision of infrastructure contributions which would fail to provide compensatory benefits to the sustainability of the development and its wider impacts, contrary to Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy.
Planning Committee Page 49 25 November 2015 33
This page is intentionally left blank Item No: 2 Reference: B/14/01375/FUL B/14/01376/LBC Parish: PINEWOOD Ward Members: Cllrs David Busby and Peter Burgoyne
Location: Belstead House, Sprites Lane
Proposal: Change of use and conversion of Belstead House to provide 4 no. dwellings; Conversion of dining hall to form 1 no. dwelling; Conversion and extension of pottery building to a dwelling; Conversion and extension of thatched barn to dwelling; Demolition of prefabricated classroom building; Erection of 13 no. dwellings together with alterations to access; Formation of parking areas and associated landscape works (as amended/amplified) - planning application B/14/01375/FUL.
Internal and external alterations to Belstead House in connection with conversion to 5 no. dwelling houses including conversion of existing dining hall together with conversion of outbuildings to dwellings and demolition of former classroom - listed building application B/14/01376/LBC.
Applicant: Rural Community Housing Ltd
Case Officer: Steven Stroud Date for Determination: 24 December 2015
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a S106 agreement, Grant Planning Permission; Grant Listed Building Consent
These applications are referred to Planning Committee as the proposal is of a scale that requires consideration by Members.
A Panel of Members inspected the site on 21 October 2015.
THE SITE
1. Belstead House is a Grade II listed building (a designated heritage asset) that is not currently in use. However most recently it formed an education and conference centre for the County Council along with other ancillary buildings, formal garden(s) and parking areas; prior to this use the property was residential in nature.
2. The principal building is 16th or early 17th Century in origin, being enlarged and remodelled in 1936. The ancillary buildings include a thatched barn that appears to have been built as a cartlodge closely related to the main house in the 19th Century. Due to its approximate age and siting within the curtilage of the listed building it too is considered to be a heritage asset that is afforded statutory protection under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Within the application site there is also a cottage-type dwelling constructed around 1900 and modern buildings which include a pre-fabricated classroom building and a pottery shed.
3. The application site is located within the parish of Pinewood and is accessed from Sprites Lane, which on approach becomes a narrow track that additionally provides access to the Bridge School, a number of dwellings and a public bridleway.
4. Existing residential development bounds the application site directly to the east and meadow land (which incorporates part of the land commonly known as ‘Belstead Meadows’) is adjacent to the north, west and south of the site.
Planning Committee Page 51 25 November 2015 34
5. In conjunction with the proposed development of Belstead House and its grounds set out within this report, the applicant has additionally submitted an application for outline planning permission (B/14/01377/OUT) for residential development of Belstead House and the meadow land to the north and west; that proposal will be considered under the cover of a separate report to Members.
6. The bridleway which follows along Sprites Lane also runs through the site in a southerly direction, past the front of Belstead House. There is a woodland TPO which covers the north-eastern corner of the site and which also runs adjacent to the eastern edge of the access along Sprites Lane. There are also individual TPO trees on the boundary of the site and the Council is aware that there have been bat sightings within the site.
7. There are no other particular land designations or constraints that are considered to affect the determination of these applications.
THE PROPOSAL
8. The proposal comprises the change of use and conversion of Belstead House to provide 4 no. dwellings; the conversion of a separate dining hall to form 1 no. dwelling; the conversion and extension of the pottery building to a dwelling; the conversion and extension of the thatched barn to a dwelling; the demolition of a prefabricated classroom building; and the erection of 13 no. dwellings together with alterations to access, formation of parking areas and associated landscape works.
9. The proposal indicates that relatively little alteration would be required in the conversion of the historic main house, where the principal room layouts would remain as existing with works generally involving the adding or removing of partitions or doors; in relation to historic fabric this relates to some intervention, where windows may be removed and openings enlarged in order to facilitate new external entrances. The sub-division of the house into four separate dwellings would take place ‘vertically’ rather than creating apartments over different floors, in order to preserve the general integrity of the building and its fabric.
10. External alterations to the main house would comprise alterations to existing fenestration and the creation of new openings which would include front entrances for three of the new dwellings. On the rear elevation the existing railings on the balcony would be replaced with a balustrade and a first-floor door onto the balcony would be added in lieu of an existing vertical window.
11. The fifth dwelling would be created from the existing modern dining room that is attached via a link to the main house; the conversion would therefore involve additional partitioning on the ground floor and general external alterations.
12. A further two dwellings are proposed to be created from existing ancillary buildings; the modern pottery building would be extended by erecting a second storey to become a detached dwelling. The thatched barn would also be extended as part of its conversion to a dwelling with a single storey link extension of modern design. This is proposed to be set back to appear subservient in structure.
13. In addition to the conversions, the proposal includes the erection of 13 no. additional dwellings. A pair of semi-detached dwellings is proposed to be located to the north of the Belstead House replacing an existing pre-fabricated classroom that would be demolished. To the rear of the thatched barn are proposed two detached dwellings. Facing Belstead House, on the existing car parking area are proposed 9 no. ‘mews’-style homes. Each end of the mews would have one detached dwelling with the 7 middle properties attached by linking structures. All the new dwellings have been designed to complement Belstead House using similar fenestration, roof pitches and materials. The mews properties are set to be modest in scale and form to ensure that they are subservient to Belstead House.
14. Both the new and converted dwellings would have private amenity spaces to the rear. For the dwellings created as part of the conversion of Belstead House it is proposed for there to be partitioning of the existing formal gardens in order to create private spaces.
Planning Committee Page 52 25 November 2015 35
15. Parking spaces for the dwellings of Belstead House would be to the front of the buildings. The majority of the other properties would also have front parking spaces, however some of the parking provision for the mews houses would be located at the rear of the site behind the gardens.
16. The accommodation schedule for the proposed 20 no. dwellings is as follows:-
Belstead House 2 no. - 5 bedroom 2 no. - 4 bedroom
Dining Hall 1 no. - 3 bedroom
Pottery Shed 1 no. - 4 bedroom
Thatched Barn 1 no. - 3 bedroom
New Dwellings 3 no. - 4 bedroom 6 no. - 3 bedroom 4 no. - 2 bedroom
17. The application for planning permission has been revised through amendments/amplifications which have included information in relation to heritage, contamination, highways, flood risk, ecology and archaeology. All information received has been subject to at least one additional round of consultation with all interested parties. However any further responses or representations will be reported through the Addendum Paper and/or at Planning Committee.
18. Whilst the applications considered within this report stand on their own and should be assessed on their individual merits, it is important for Members to realise that this proposal is intrinsically linked with the proposal for outline planning permission which will be addressed separately, under cover of a separate report at this Planning Committee.
19. The application documents can be viewed online via the planning pages on the Babergh District Council website.
RELEVANT HISTORY
20. None relevant to the determination of these applications.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
21. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes.
Planning Committee Page 53 25 November 2015 36
PLANNING POLICIES
22. The Development Plan comprises the policies in the Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031, Core Strategy and Policies (2014) document and the ‘saved’ policies within the Babergh Local Plan, Alteration No.2 (2006).
i) Core Strategy
23. The Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031, Core Strategy and Policies (2014) document was adopted on the 25 February 2014 and is now fully operational (for planning decisions and other purposes). The following policies are relevant to application:-
CS1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development in Babergh CS2 - Settlement Pattern Policy CS3 - Strategy for Growth and Development CS12 - Sustainable Design and Construction Standards CS13 - Renewable/Low Carbon Energy CS14 - Green Infrastructure CS15 - Sustainable Development in Babergh CS18 - Mix and Types of Dwellings CS19 - Affordable Homes CS21 - Infrastructure Provision
ii) Saved Policies in the Local Plan
The ‘saved’ policies within the Babergh Local Plan, Alteration No.2 (2006) adopted June 2006 should be regarded as a material consideration in planning decisions. The following policies are applicable to this proposal:-
CN01 - Design Standards CN06 - Listed Buildings EM24 - Retention of Existing Employment Sites HS31 - Public Open Space (Sites of 1.5ha and above) TP15 - Parking Standards
24. The following documents are also considered as material for the purposes of determining planning applications and are applicable to this proposal:-
Suffolk County Council - Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2014), adopted 2015.
Babergh District Council - Affordable Housing, Supplementary Planning Document (2014).
Babergh District Council - Safeguarding Employment Land, SPD (2008).
Cabe at Design Council - Building for Life 12 (3rd Edition, 2015).
25. On the 6th March 2014, a number of Ministerial planning circulars were cancelled by central Government and were replaced by the Government’s online Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The guidance provided is advice on procedure rather than explicit policy, but has been taken into account in reaching the recommendation made on this application.
26. The PPG is an online reference and is available at the following internet address: www.planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk.
The relevant policies that have been referenced can be viewed online. Please see the notes attached to the schedule.
Planning Committee Page 54 25 November 2015 37
CONSULTATIONS
Pinewood Parish Council
27. Objects; Response(s) summarised and italicised where directly quoted, as follows:
16 January 2015
Particular concern relating to highways impacts and additional traffic generated has been raised by the public within Pinewood.
“As a Parish Council we too share these concerns and must therefore consider this development in conjunction with other proposed developments soon to be submitted both in and adjacent to our parish. The proposed siting of an Aldi store in Scrivener Drive and possibly two large housing developments under discussion for Chantry Vale would all create further traffic congestion in Pinewood and the surrounding area, an area already suffering gridlock on its local estate roads and nearby A1214. With further traffic to be generated from the Vet’s Surgery (including retail outlet) currently being built on Scrivener Drive and any future development on the land given permission for office development to Fred Olsen these all stand to add still further to a road network currently already unable to cope at peak times.”
Traffic congestion is a major factor to be considered with all of these proposals so we feel these must all be taken into consideration at the same time. The Core Strategy states the A12 and A14 are important communication routes essential to the local economy and congestion at the Copdock Junction should not be exacerbated by any development in this area. Attention is drawn to the need for early consultation with the Highways Agency and warns against a piecemeal approach that would be damaging to a comprehensive plan for the areas future. Whilst this proposed development is not on land included in the Core Strategy it will impact onto the area that it covers.
The traffic survey provided by Mr Harding was heavily criticised by our residents and the response from Suffolk County Council Environment and Transport raises still further concerns and issues.”
The Parish Council therefore requests more time to consider the traffic survey/transport assessment together with issues raised through consultation responses. The Council further requests more time in order to carry out its own investigations and to submit a fully informed response.
The Parish Council requests that the District Council does not make a decision on the application(s) on their own but in conjunction with those other applications referred to above.
12 October 2015
The Parish Council’s concern relating to additional traffic generation and congestion remains.
Due to the length of the amended/amplified transport assessment, additional time is requested in order to respond.
Planning Committee Page 55 25 November 2015 38
23 October 2015
“Whilst Pinewood Parish Council has no objection to the redevelopment of Belstead House as mentioned above, we would request this only be granted on condition that the access via Sprites Lane (a restricted byway, number 44) is limited to the residents/visitors of the above dwellings, residents of Sprites Lane and those accessing the Bridge School.
The description of Sprites Lane is misleading. In paragraph 4.3 p5 of the Travel Plan Sprites Lane is described as ‘a restricted byway at the entrance to the site’. However in paragraph 4.7 page 5 it is described as’ would fall under the category of an up to 6.1 m UAP4 carriageway (High Street), the smallest urban road.’ The Oxford Dictionary describes a byway as ‘a road or track not following a main route; a minor road or path’. The description of Sprites Lane as a byway better describes the majority of the Lane. The Travel Plan seems to be confused as to the classification of the Lane. The assumption that Sprites lane has capacity of 750 vehicles per hour either way does not apply to a byway.
The statement on page 5 ‘this access has been in use by the Conference Centre for over 50 years for access by vehicles servicing the premises (including delivery vehicles, catering vehicles, etc.) without any access difficulties’ would also be contradicted by residents who used the area.
The developers’ describe the Belstead House site as a Conference Centre (Town and Country Planning Use Class C2) on page 3 of the Travel Plan. This may be useful as a head line description but does not describe its actual use. It was used for residential and day courses by Suffolk County Council and community education courses. Its use was sometimes sporadic and had considerably decreased towards its eventual closure at the end of 2012.
The description of the usage of the building on P4 has no evidence to back it up and is not supported by the experience of residents in Pinewood.
‘The principal business of Belstead House is conferences and various training courses and the centre has hosted residential courses virtually every weekend as well as on week days throughout the year. In 1999 the buildings had been in educational use for over 50 years. Week day conferences and courses were arranged by the County Council and also by other organisations. These have attracted up to approximately 200 delegates with associated car parking provision. It is anticipated that the week day activities led to peak hour vehicle generation of approximately 150 vehicular movements in the morning peak hour and similar number in the evening peak hour. People that attend the activities come from all over the County and further afield and invariably arrived as a single occupant of private motor cars or by taxi. Delegates from Ipswich also arrived by using bus transport‘p4
The developer overstates the use of Belstead House as a ‘Conference Centre’. In describing the use of Belstead House the developer gives the impression that it was always used to capacity – this is not so. Many weekend courses were for subjects such as water colouring/poetry/drawing – these were not for 200 people at a time.
The Travel Plan also states that due to lack of information from Suffolk County Council, “It was therefore decided to use the trip rates produced by another consultant in regards to the proposed development of a conference centre in Plymouth.’ They have provided no evidence which explains why a centre in Plymouth can be used as an adequate comparison. They have not stated which centre is being used as a comparison so that others can comment on the validity of their comparison.
Planning Committee Page 56 25 November 2015 39
The data collected and used by the travel plan does not provide an adequate baseline from which to decide how the development will impact on local traffic. The data was collected outside of term times and uses a peak time of 5pm to 6pm. The two main sources of traffic within the area close to the site are i) The Bridge School in Sprites Lane, and ii) Suffolk One. Using a data collection period when both are closed and a peak time which is outside of their daily operating time invalidates the accuracy of the data collected.
The Bridge School and Suffolk One have to implement traffic management measures during peak periods of operation.
In appendix G of the Travel Plan the developer puts forward a plan to improve Sprites Lane. This improvement is inadequate as traffic entering the new system will not be able to see traffic entering the system at the opposite end. If more than two cars entered the system from either end the lay-bys would not be sufficient resulting in the road layout being ineffective. Traffic using local roads to access Belstead Houses for courses held there would have been travelling against the flow of most peak time traffic.
Recently the Bridge School has doubled in size and already the school has to dedicate staff each day to physically manage the traffic accessing the school at the beginning and at the end of the school day. Any further significant traffic usage of this lane will cause major congestion.
The applicant’s revised proposal for the improvement of Sprites Lane to safely accommodate vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists is considered unsuitable by Suffolk County Council in their response to this application because of the restrictions of the available corridor width. As Sprites Lane cannot be brought up to an adoptable standard in accordance with the Suffolk Design Code we feel this again makes it unsuitable for high volumes of traffic, cyclists and pedestrians. This is a very popular and well used public right of way taking residents who are walking out into the wider countryside; with no footpaths this would become dangerous for the walker if the levels of traffic were increased significantly.”
28. Suffolk County Council (Local Highway Authority) - No objection; subject to conditions/contributions in relation to highways improvements.
29. Highways England - No objection; Proposal is unlikely to result in an adverse impact upon the Strategic Road Network.
30. Environment Agency - No objection; subject to conditions relating to flood risk/surface water drainage.
31. Anglian Water - No objection; recommend condition relating to surface water drainage.
32. Historic England - Do not wish to offer comments.
33. Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Sustainability) - Comments; no explicit objection raised, however concern that a Building for Life assessment has not been carried out, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS12.
34. Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Land Contamination) - No objection; subject to standard contamination condition and advisory note.
35. Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Other Issues) - No objection; subject to condition relating to noise impacts.
Planning Committee Page 57 25 November 2015 40
36. Corporate Manager - Heritage - No objection to Belstead House conversion; subject to conditions relating to specific materials/joinery/fenestration details and an appropriate landscaping scheme. However the application would cause ‘less than substantial’ harm due to the intended sub-division of the curtilage of Belstead House. This could be overcome by further consideration to this aspect.
37. Corporate Manager - Housing - No objection; “From a housing delivery point of view this application brings forward the conversion of a listed building which is considered a heritage asset and will provide accommodation for a mix of unit sizes. The conversion consists of larger units which will provide a better return to the developer which is likely to be needed to offset the cost of conversion works.”
38. Suffolk County Council (Archaeology) - No objection; subject to condition relating to an appropriate scheme of investigation prior to development.
39. Suffolk County Council (Ecology) - Comments:
Following additional information received, the applicant has provided sufficient information to allow determination of the proposal.
Recommendations with regards to conditions relating to protected species and biodiversity on any permission granted.
Members should note that this response has been produced by Suffolk County Council's Natural Environment Team at the request of Babergh District Council. However, the views and conclusions contained within this report are those of the officers providing the advice and are not to be taken as those of Suffolk County Council.
40. Suffolk County Council (Landscape Development) - No objection; subject to condition(s) to secure an appropriate, detailed landscaping (and subsequent management) scheme with tree protection measures and controls on external illumination.
41. Suffolk County Council (Rights of Way) - No objection; comments.
42. Suffolk County Council (Floods & Water) - No objection; comments on/support for conditions suggested by Anglian Water/Environment Agency.
43. Suffolk County Council (Fire & Rescue) - No objection; recommend condition for fire hydrants.
44. Suffolk Wildlife Trust - No objection:
Subject to confirmation from the applicant that no works would impact the areas of the building that support bats, as indicated by the first-floor/attic plan drawing.
If permission granted, development should be carried out in accordance with recommendations of ecological report.
REPRESENTATIONS
45. Those responses received during the consultation exercises that have been carried out (including comments from the Ipswich and District Group (Ramblers’ Association) are summarised below:-
The plans do not show the entrance/exit to the recently opened Primary Campus of the Bridge School; this is misleading. Increased traffic from that development has put further pressure on Sprites Lane, which would be exacerbated further should this application be approved. How will construction traffic be managed? The Transport Plan does not mention other developments in the area.
Planning Committee Page 58 25 November 2015 41
The Transport Survey was not conducted on a ‘typical’ or representative day as a number of key traffic generators were closed. Question as to whether Cottingham Road will connect to Sprites Lane through the development site. Concern over loss of habitat. Flood concerns. Loss of open space. Lack of school places. Lack of provision for local amenities. Concern due to additional traffic using Cottingham Road. A Traffic Management system should be implemented, even if the application is refused. Sprites Lane should remain a ‘country’ lane. Loss of privacy/overlooking for residents directly to the east of the application site. Noise and disturbance for residents to the east of the application site. Concern over window-to-window views between new dwellings and properties to east. Use of car park to eastern boundary will cause significant disturbance to nearby residents (east) and cause health issues. Arboricultural concerns. Concern over damage to properties, including subsidence, during construction. Loss of outlook for nearby properties. Concern over noise and disturbance during construction. Security concerns for nearby properties. Local services will be stretched and pressured. Loss of property values. Concern over nature and reporting measures of the ‘enviro-check’ report. Street lighting concerns. Incomplete flood/contamination reports have been submitted. Initial ecology reports/surveys are deficient and inaccurate. Pedestrian safety concerns for users of Sprites Lane. Concerns for animal welfare due to increased traffic. No school or surgery spaces are being provided. Local community consultation has been inadequate. Cumulative impacts should be considered. Concern over emergency access. Construction could disturb pipes that supply drinking water. The public have not been consulted on the proposed plans. I do not object to small-scale development around Belstead House. Additional pressures on Sprites Lane from Bridge School development have led to marshals being required to direct traffic. Where will the dog walkers go? Belstead House should be preserved for future generations. Discrepancies between highways drawings. Not enough projected traffic has been accounted for. The qualifications of the original ecological report author are incorrect and any documents written by him should be disregarded. Poor reptilian surveys undertaken.
Ipswich and District Group (Ramblers’ Association)
Would have no objection to the conversion of Belstead House, works to ancillary buildings and the access, parking and landscaping development works identified.
However, objection is raised to the proposed development of 13 no. new dwellings.
Note of Explanation by your Officers
46. All consultee responses and representations received to date have been noted and have been taken into account when reaching the recommendations as set out below.
Planning Committee Page 59 25 November 2015 42
47. Members should note that a significant number of responses received are related to the outline planning application B/14/01377/OUT. Whilst the Belstead House area is included within the application site for that proposal, the planning application (and listed building consent application) considered within this report should be assessed on its own merits.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
48. From an assessment of the relevant planning policies, supplementary guidance, site history and constraints/designations, those representations and consultation responses received and other material planning considerations, the main issues in determining this application are considered, as following:-
Principle of Development; Housing Need Heritage Impacts (including an assessment of the LBC application); Design and Layout (including an assessment against BfL 12); Resilience to Climate Change (Flood Risk/Drainage and Building Performance/Renewable Energy); Impact upon Residential Amenity; Impact upon Highway Safety; Other Matters, including; Land Contamination, Crime and Disorder, Biodiversity and Protected Species, Archaeology, and Trees; Planning Obligations; Planning Balance and Conclusion.
Principle of Development
49. Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy are considered to be the lead policies in establishing the principle of development for this planning application. Policy CS2 sets out the overall settlement policy for the District. It states that most new development within the District will be directed sequentially from the towns/urban areas, which includes the Ipswich Fringe (edge of the urban area).
50. Policy CS3 further sets out that employment and housing growth will be accommodated within the District’s existing settlement pattern and in mixed and balanced communities on the edges of towns and the Babergh Ipswich Fringe.
51. The application site is within the settlement boundary of Pinewood, which is part of the Ipswich Fringe and is designated as an urban area that should be a focus for development as part of a sequential spatial-planning process, in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy which supports such growth.
52. Belstead House, as a former educational centre has a lawful employment use which is considered to fall within Class C2 of the Use Classes Order 1987. The loss of such employment land is contrary to Policy EM24 which states that all employment sites are required to be marketed for employment uses prior to them being considered for a change of use to residential (Class C3). Although the site was marketed by the County Council (and it is understood that no interest was forthcoming), no evidence has been received with regards to the potential for retaining employment uses on the site.
53. Members should be aware that the related planning application B/14/01377/OUT includes proposals for the development of a care home and associated café. This therefore (if approved) represents a use which would help to offset the loss of employment at Belstead House, albeit this is a consideration that cannot be taken into account for the purposes of this application.
54. However, Belstead House is a listed building where the desire to preserve such a heritage asset should be of significant weighting and importance. The building was originally residential in nature and the proposal allows for this domestic character to be maintained where an alternative or re-emerging commercial use may be harmful to its character or special interest. As an important building that is current unused, it is therefore vulnerable and it is considered that a granting of planning permission/listed building consent in this instance would ensure its long-term viability and conservation. Planning Committee Page 60 25 November 2015 43
55. A judgement therefore needs to be made as to whether the loss of employment space would warrant a refusal of planning permission in this instance. Given the emphasis on heritage conservation and that the proposal offers a positive delivery of housing growth, it is considered that the loss of employment space would be acceptable in this instance.
56. Following the above, the change(s) of use and additional residential development are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to assessment against other material planning considerations. This report will therefore now proceed to assess those other material considerations, following a summary of those other policies that have been held in regard when reaching the recommendation for Members.
57. Policy CS1 applies a presumption in favour of sustainable development in Babergh. It states inter alia that the Council will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions, which means that proposals can be approved wherever possible and that development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the district can be secured.
58. Policies CN01, CS12, CS13, CS14 and CS15 outline the Council’s objectives in seeking to positively shape communities and to conserve or enhance local character and the built, natural and historic environments through requiring good design and developments of an appropriate form and scale. They also set out a framework of criteria for sustainable development, the energy needs of new development and the provision/support of renewable energy.
59. Policy CS18 states that residential development that provides for the needs of the district’s population, particularly the needs of older people will be supported where such local needs exist, and at a scale appropriate to the size of the development; therefore the mix, type and size of the housing development will be expected to reflect established needs.
60. Policy CS19 seeks to promote inclusive and mixed communities by requiring all residential developments to make an affordable housing contribution.
61. Policies CS21 and HS32 require all new housing developments to be supported by and make adequate provision for, appropriate infrastructure, public open space, services and facilities to ensure that the development is sustainable and of a high quality.
62. Policy TP15 of the LP requires inter alia that proposals for all types of new development will be required to provide parking in accordance with parking standards adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
63. In accordance with the NPPF due weight must be given to the policies contained within the development plan (comprising Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 and the Core Strategy) according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
64. The Core Strategy was subject to examination by the Planning Inspectorate with a report being issued in January 2014. Subject to recommended amendments (that were consequently made prior to adoption) the Inspector found the document to be sound and therefore consistent with the NPPF.
65. Those ‘saved’ policies within the Local Plan that are relevant to the application(s) submitted have been scrutinised and are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and so are afforded a strong weighting.
Housing Need
66. Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy states that the mix and type of housing development is expected to reflect the established needs in the Babergh District. It also states that residential development that provides for the needs of the Districts population, and particularly the needs of older population, will be supported where such local needs exist and at a scale appropriate to the size of the development. CS18 also goes onto state that mixed-use developments with a substantial residential element will be required to make provision for the accommodation needs of the vulnerable or identified groups of people (as reflected in established local needs assessments.) Planning Committee Page 61 25 November 2015 44
67. Policy CS19 relates to the provision of affordable homes and states that in order to promote inclusive and mixed communities all residential schemes will be required to provide 35% affordable housing.
68. Policy CS15 relates to implementing sustainable development and contains a number of criteria against which proposals for development should be judged and states that all development must respect the local context and character of different parts of the District and address the key issues and contribution that they make to the objectives of the Local Plan in relation to housing need.
69. In addition to the above planning policies, planning policy and housing delivery has been constantly evolving at a national level. The Governments objectives are aimed towards improving housing delivery and the supply of housing in line with need and the recent Housing and Planning Bill introduced to Government on the 13rd October is building upon an approach where Local Planning Authorities should be flexible in meeting housing need to ensure delivery.
70. In respect of this outline planning application the following assessment is made of the scheme against the above planning policies and housing need:-
This proposal provides for the re-use and conversion of the main listed building and a curtilage listed building which are both vacant, to dwellings together with a number of other new dwellings; all of which will be for general needs and which will add to housing supply and would meet needs within the District. The dwellings arising out of the conversions together with the others in close proximity to Belstead House will respect the character and quality of the listed building and its setting (in respect of the latter the applicant has submitted an amended plan which shows a different line between the gardens for the dwellings and the area to be left as open space);
Delivery of 20 no. dwellings; the proposal would have inherent social and economic benefits and would meet housing need and delivery of growth;
The mix and type of dwellings has been assessed by the Corporate Manager for Strategic Housing. She has raised no objection to the planning application and notes that the likely cost of conversion works would prohibit the potential for an affordable housing contribution.
71. In conclusion, the scheme is acceptable in terms of meeting housing need when viewed against the local needs of the District.
Heritage Impacts (including an assessment of the LBC application)
72. With reference to the treatment of the submitted applications, the Council embraces its statutory duties and responsibilities in relation to listed buildings, notably; Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires the Local Planning Authority to have “special regard to the desirability of preserving [a] building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.
73. Following recent legal judgments and related obiter dicta, it is understood that whilst the assessment of likely harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter for its own planning judgement, the Local Planning Authority is required to give any such harm considerable importance and weight. However, where special regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets has been paid and no harm is considered to be posed, the ‘balancing’ of harm (which should be given considerable weight as above) against public benefits as required by the NPPF, is not necessary.
Planning Committee Page 62 25 November 2015 45
74. As noted, the assessment of whether there is likely to be harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter for the LPA’s own planning judgement. In this case, the Corporate Manager - Heritage is supportive of the building (including thatched barn) being brought back into a beneficial use that can secure its longer-term protection and conservation. It is understood that a detailed scheduled of works to any historic fabric and joinery/fenestration details are required, however it is considered that such details can be dealt with through the imposition of conditions to any permission or consent granted; the principle of the conversions, sub-division of the principal listed building and alterations to facilitate the development and works are viewed positively.
75. The proposed plans show that the existing private garden area(s) of Belstead House would be subdivided in order to form amenity spaces for converted dwellings. The initial layout proposed was considered to be harmful to the listed building, where the experience and appreciation of the building within its wider landscape setting would be compromised; this was due to the significant private amenity area proposed for south-western dwelling to be created through the Belstead House conversion and the general erosion of the buildings setting through the sub-division of garden areas for the new dwellings. Such harm would have been less than substantial within the meaning provided by the NPPF and would have required a balanced judgement as to whether such harm could be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
76. Through negotiation with the applicant, an amended site layout has been submitted, where the open nature of the wider landscape setting has been retained to an acceptable extent. Whilst there might be an argument advanced that such demarcated spaces, as proposed, might still impinge upon the setting and appreciation of the listed building to an extent that could be considered harmful (less than substantial within the meaning provided by the NPPF), this is considered to be acceptable in this instance where a balance can be made against the public benefits of the proposal which would outweigh such harm; an assessment of such will follow below. Members should also note that landscaping and arboricultural cultivation is not considered to amount to development and would not require planning permission or listed building consent; in this instance the applicant is proposing only soft landscaping to delineate private spaces and weighting has been attached to this ‘fall back’ position whereby the setting of the listed building could naturally change through such landscape works over time.
77. Where it is considered that the proposal would pose less than substantial harm to the setting and wider appreciation of the listed building, the NPPF requires that such harm be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal.
78. In this instance, the public benefits of the proposal can be summarised as including the following:-
Delivery of 20 no. dwellings of an acceptable housing mix; the proposal would have inherent social and economic benefits and would meet housing need and delivery of growth; Bringing back a designated heritage asset into an optimum long-term use that can secure its ongoing preservation and conservation; Highway improvements to Sprites Lane; A public entrance to the rest of the garden area at the western corner of the application site, which would allow for wider enjoyment of the heritage asset and its setting.
79. Considered in isolation, it is unlikely that these public benefits would be sufficient to outweigh the harm that has been identified. However, in combination these public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building identified, even when considerable importance and weight is given to the desirability of preserving the setting of that building.
Planning Committee Page 63 25 November 2015 46
80. Officers have therefore applied the balance required by paragraph 134 of the NPPF, having special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building as required by s66 of the Listed Buildings Act and given the harm considerable importance and weight. The outcome of this balancing exercise is that those public benefits identified outweigh the less than substantial harm, even when that harm is given considerable importance and weight.
81. The new dwellings proposed have been considered carefully in terms of scale, form and detailed design including their siting in relation to the heritage assets. Given their complementary materials palette and subservient forms and scales, it is considered that the proposal positively portrays a development that would be suitably subservient and respectful of the listed buildings and their settings. In relation to the conversion and extension of the thatched barn, the low-set contemporary wing is positive as it does not compete with the barn for visual dominance.
82. A positive recommendation in relation to heritage impacts can therefore be made having had regard to the development plan, other material planning considerations including the NPPF, and imposed statutory duties and responsibilities.
Design and Layout (including assessment against BfL 12)
83. Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy requires (inter alia) that new development should be well designed and of an appropriate size/scale, layout and character in relation to its setting and be well connected to facilities. Development should also respect the landscape, landscape features, streetscape/townscape, heritage assets, important spaces and historic views of the locality.
84. Delivering quality urban design is also a core aim of the NPPF which states (at paragraph 56) that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. At paragraph 64 the NPPF further states that permission should be refused for poor design that fails to take opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
85. An assessment of urban design quality can be made using the ‘Building for Life 12’ (“BfL 12”) standard which is set out by CABE (now part of the Design Council). The BfL 12 criteria outline a number of urban design principles and questions against which a development should be considered, which includes examining how well a development integrates, looks and functions in order to provide a more objective assessment of the quality of a proposed development.
86. Members will note that the Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Sustainability) has expressed concern that a BfL 12 assessment has not been provided by the applicant, as considered to be required by Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy. However, this policy requires development to meet the Building for Life ‘Silver Standard’; CABE have advised that this approach is obsolete as it follows a superseded version of the BfL standard and therefore refer current users to the recent BfL 12 means of assessment.
87. Whilst therefore not considered to be a strict requirement when framed against the development plan, your officers have nonetheless undertaken an assessment of the proposed scheme against the BfL 12 standard, under the three CABE-defined ‘chapter’ headings below.
88. Integrating into the neighbourhood - Through maintaining an existing vehicular access onto Sprites Lane and by providing/maintaining additional pedestrian connections to the west and to the bridleway, it is considered that the proposed scheme would integrate into its surroundings well, through reinforcing existing connections and creating new ones. SCC Highway Authority have assessed the vehicular access and have raised no objection, however highways considerations will be considered in greater detail below. The retention of the green garden space to the west of the application site (which would also become accessible to the public) would promote an open and permeable character to the scheme, along with access to the wider green spaces adjacent to the south of the site via the bridleway. Planning Committee Page 64 25 November 2015 47
89. Notwithstanding that the application site is situated within the Ipswich Fringe, the proposal would be nonetheless well-related to existing residential development and within walking distance of key services and facilities; links to public transport are also of good standard, assisting in reducing the need for trips by car.
90. The site is on the edge of Ipswich and approximately 550 metres from the bus route and facilities at Pinewood, including a health centre, convenience retail and Sprites Lane Primary School. The site is also approximately 1 km from the retail facilities at Copdock Interchange.
91. The proposal would involve the reuse of various buildings within the site, which, given the embodied energy within them, would be more sustainable than a purely new build proposal.
92. The individual plot sizes are also considered to be acceptable, exceeding the Nationally Described Space Standard.
93. Creating a Place - The proposal would utilise a good-quality materials palette to complement the existing/retained buildings whilst at the same time promoting a level of visual interest that would be commensurate with the wider scene; the newly erected dwellings would not jar with the historic setting or pose any harm to the wider character or appearance of the area. The scale of the residential development proposed is also considered to be appropriate.
94. In re-developing a brownfield area that constitutes the current parking arrangements for Belstead House as an educational centre, the proposal would make good use of the existing site and its context, with the green space to the west being generally unaffected by the development.
95. Due to the modest proposed scale of 20 no. dwellings and nature of the development and its proposed siting, there is not considered to be any issues with regards to legibility or movement within the residential area(s).
96. Street and Home - The application site makes acceptable use of existing boundary treatments and the siting and arrangement of dwellings offers a good level of natural surveillance. Entrance areas would be direct and easily accessible.
97. The level and nature of parking proposed is acceptable when framed against the adopted parking standards and it is noted that SCC Highway Authority have raised no objection in relation to this.
98. It is considered that adequate space for bin and cycle storage is available and precise details can be obtained and agreed through the imposition of a planning condition.
99. From an assessment of the design and layout of the new dwellings, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any significant amenity issues for future residents within the application site. The proximity to the A14 is noted, however through the imposition of a planning condition it is considered that any impacts can be adequately mitigated.
100. When assessing the proposal against the above urban design principles the conclusion has been reached that the scheme offers a good quality design that would provide a positive environment for future residents and connectivity and interaction with existing development. Therefore the design and layout of the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan and the NPPF, and is considered to generally score positively against BfL 12.
Planning Committee Page 65 25 November 2015 48
Resilience to Climate Change (Flood Risk/Drainage and Building Performance/Renewable Energy)
101. The NPPF gives great weight to sustainable development, which is considered to be a ‘golden thread’ running through the planning system. Adaption to, and resilience against, climate change is a key consideration of sustainable development in the NPPF. This is echoed in Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy, which states that development should be designed to a high standard in terms of its sustainability.
102. The ‘sustainability’ of the proposal and its resilience to climate change can be broken down into a number of key issues, such as the accessibility of the proposed development and its design quality (discussed above), the scheme’s resilience to climate and social change and the buildings performance. Other important aspects of sustainable development, such as ecology, open space provision and safeguarding heritage are discussed elsewhere in this report.
103. A key issue when considering ‘resilience’ is whether the development has been designed to adapt to issues presented by climate change, such as an increased risk of flooding from heavy rain or high energy prices. In this instance the application site is considered to fall within ‘Flood Zone 1’ and as such there is a very low probability (less than 1 in 1000 annually) of river or sea flooding.
104. However, due to the scale and residential nature of the proposal a detailed flood risk assessment was considered necessary and has been submitted with further supporting information by the applicant. Accordingly, the Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions which includes details relating to surface water drainage.
105. With regards to building performance, it is considered that whilst the necessary information to meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS13 have not been provided as a part of the application, it would be acceptable to address this via the imposition of a planning condition and there is no reason to believe that such requirements cannot be met.
Impact upon Residential Amenity
106. One of the core planning principles within paragraph 17 of the NPPF is that Local Planning Authorities should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings, and this is also required by saved policy CN01 of the Local Plan.
107. As such, consideration needs to be given as to whether the proposal would be likely to give rise to any material harm to the amenity of neighbours by reason of impacts including loss of light, privacy, or outlook, or other potential impacts associated with the proposed development.
108. The newly proposed dwellings, including any ancillary structures, have been designed so as not to impact significantly upon neighbouring amenity to those existing properties located to the east of the application site and there would be a negligible relationship between those dwellings proposed and those existing to the north/north-west of the site. Due to the orientation of the buildings and their respective fenestration layouts including separation distances, there would be no significant impact with regards to loss of privacy, outlook or any overlooking issues associated with the development.
109. Having had regard for the current lawful use of the Belstead House site and its relationship to surrounding residential development, it is not considered that an approval of the proposal would lead to any amenity impacts in respect of future vehicular movements to and from the site, where if anything there is the potential for a lessening of movements where the remains a prospect of the current Class C2 use being re-instated or intensified (which would not require planning permission).
Planning Committee Page 66 25 November 2015 49
110. The amenity of future occupants has also been assessed and it is not considered that the layout or relationship between dwellings as proposed would lead to any significant impacts with regard to privacy or outlook. Additionally the nature and scale of private amenity spaces are considered to be appropriate.
111. Concerns regarding the construction of the development have been noted. It is therefore considered appropriate, as would be standard on most Major schemes, to secure a ‘management plan’ prior to the commencement of works.
112. The proposal is therefore considered as acceptable with regards to residential amenity.
Impact upon Highway Safety
113. Matters relating to access, highway safety and the cumulative impacts of this proposal as it relates to other potential and approved developments within the vicinity are considered to be among those most contentious for nearby residents, and as expressed by Pinewood Parish Council.
114. For this reason, the full comments of the Local Highway Authority in response the amplified/amended highways information provided by the applicant, dated 24th July 2015 have been appended.
115. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that proposals must provide safe and suitable access for all and that transport networks should be improved in a cost effective way to limit any significant impact of the development on the surrounding area. Paragraph 32 also makes it clear that proposals must only be refused where residual cumulative impacts on highway safety would be ‘severe’.
116. The key policies to consider from the development plan are CS14 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy and saved policy TP15 of the Babergh Local Plan. These policies seek development that is well laid out in terms of site access and highway safety, traffic flow and the environment.
117. The proposal provides for the creation of 20 no. new dwellings which would be a material change from the current use of the site which serves as an educational/conference facility (Class C2 under the Use Classes Order 1987).
118. Following initial issues identified by the Local Highway Authority (essentially relating to inadequate information provided in the Transport Assessment0, the applicant provided additional information which has been subject to further consultation. The most recent response from the Highway Authority confirms that their initial objection has been removed, subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to improvements to Sprites Lane.
119. Whilst it has not been possible to obtain precise data concerning the traffic generated in relation to the application site as an educational facility (to support the assertions made by the applicant), as a matter of planning judgement it is considered that the movements associated with 20 no. dwellings of varying sizes (as per the accommodation schedule above) are unlikely to be greater or more intensive than the present lawful use where at least 65 no. parking spaces have been provided.
120. Further, were that use to re-establish itself there would be no means to control or improve the current highway situation, which might include more intensive lawful uses under Class C2 where no application for planning permission would be required. For example, Class C2 includes such uses as residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres. 121. On that basis, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable where it makes use of Sprites Lane as it currently exists and where there is the opportunity for betterment, as recommended by the highway authority.
Planning Committee Page 67 25 November 2015 50
122. Comments received relating to the date that the Transport Assessment was undertaken have been noted and these include references to recent developments within the local area. The Local Highway Authority have confirmed that the validity of the assessment has been checked in two ways; firstly, the Transport Assessment has been compared against the survey data (within the public domain) provided for the recent application for an Aldi superstore (B/15/00124) which was not only comprehensive but was carried out within school term-time (including Suffolk One); secondly, the Local Highway Authority visited the site in the peak hour on a typical day in order to ensure that the capacities of the junctions had been adequately modelled. On that basis, the Transport Assessment is considered to be a satisfactory indicator as to the acceptability of the proposal in highway terms.
123. Further, this is not considered to alter the viewpoint that an approval of this planning application would not lead to any detriment greater than the site being brought back into its current lawful use or a use under Class C2, as the applicant is free to do.
124. It is not considered that there would be any detriment with regard to ‘cumulative’ impacts in relation to this planning application and this view has been supported by the Local Highway Authority where the impacts of the development have been considered against the committed developments of the local Veterinary Centre and Aldi Superstore and it is not considered that mitigation could be justified. This is in part because the Belstead House site has an access via Sprites Lane by which trips to and from Ipswich town centre could avoid the area most likely to be congested.
125. The impact of the Belstead House application site as it relates to the wider, outline planning application will be considered under the cover of that report.
126. In respect of highway safety the application is therefore considered favourably.
Other Matters
Land Contamination
127. The Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Land Contamination) and the Environment Agency have not raised any objection to the proposal in this respect, but have requested conditions be attached to ensure the safe development and future occupancy of the site.
Crime and Disorder
128. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.
Biodiversity and Protected Species
129. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, in so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, in relation to protected species.
130. An amended ecological appraisal undertaken by Mill House Ecology was submitted by the applicant on the 1st October 2015 in response to comments received from the Suffolk County Council ecologist/Suffolk Wildlife Trust and has been subject to an additional consultation exercise. It is considered that the proposal poses no significant adverse impacts on ecology, subject to the implementation of the recommended compensatory and mitigation measures outlined within the appraisal.
131. Those comments received in relation to the qualifications of the original author of the ecology report have been considered. Members should note that the most recent ecological report/appraisal (prepared by Mill House Ecology) has superseded the original submission and it is considered that the present report has provided sufficient ecological information for the determination of this application. Accordingly Suffolk Wildlife Trust has raised no objection to the proposal. Planning Committee Page 68 25 November 2015 51
Archaeology
132. The site does not lie within an area of High Archaeological Potential but as the proposal involves a listed building Suffolk County Council Archaeology were consulted. It is noted that whilst no objection was raised, the imposition of a planning condition has been requested.
Trees
133. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to the proposal and considered that the arboricultural report submitted with the application provides a generally accurate assessment of the condition and constraints presented by trees at the site. Although the proposal indicates the removal of a number of trees, these are mostly of limited amenity value and/or in poor condition and the impact of their loss can be mitigated with new planting. All important (category A) trees are to be retained. It is nonetheless considered appropriate to impose conditions upon any permission granted in order to secure a detailed landscaping scheme including measures for tree/root protection and auditable site monitoring.
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
134. Policy HS31 of the Babergh Local Plan states that proposals for residential development on a site of 1.5ha and above are required to provide 10% of the gross site area as public open space. Notwithstanding that the application site is marginally greater in size than this (being approx. 1.7ha) and is well-related to open space to the south, a considerable amount of public open space, far in excess of this requirement, would be provided on the western side of the application site. A planning obligation is recommended to secure the public open space and its management.
135. Whilst it is noted that Policy HS31 also requires the installation of play equipment on the provided open space, in this instance it is considered that a play equipment provision could lead to harm to the current natural and historic setting in that area, which is better left verdant and undisturbed; and this view has been taken by also having paid regard for the potential impacts that such play equipment may have upon the setting of the listed building.
136. Where play equipment cannot be provided on site, the Council may seek to secure a contribution to provide for open space or play equipment on an alternative site. However, the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) state that after 6 April 2015 no more than five s106 obligations can be ‘pooled’ for the funding or provision of an infrastructure project or type of infrastructure. The Regulations require that s106 obligations must be specific and identify the infrastructure project that the contribution will fund. In this case, there are no schemes within Pinewood or the Ipswich Fringe which have been identified as requiring such a commuted sum, notwithstanding that the ‘pooling’ limit has already been met.
137. Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy seeks to promote inclusive and mixed communities and requires that all residential development provides a provision for affordable housing; ordinarily this would equate to 35% of the total homes to be provided on the site.
138. In this instance, no affordable homes are being provided within the application site. However, Members should note that no objection has been received from the Council’s Housing team and that as a matter of planning judgement it is considered that significant weighting should be placed on the heritage considerations (that the scheme allows for a viable and long-term beneficial use of designated assets) and the delivery of new housing which includes new housing on a brownfield site.
139. On that basis, Members are advised not to seek any contributions in relation affordable housing or play equipment.
Planning Committee Page 69 25 November 2015 52
140. Suffolk County Council have identified the following contributions:-
Education - £60,905 Public Transport Infrastructure - £28,000 Libraries - £4,320 Waste - £1,020.
141. As above, the CIL Regulations require that s106 obligations must be specific and identify what the contribution will be spent on. In this case, SCC has identified specific contributions that would comply with these requirements.
142. In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.
143. Those requirements in relation to Travel Plan contributions and Bridleway 39 improvements are only considered to be necessary when viewing this application as a wider part of the outline planning application submitted under B/14/01377/OUT. As such, they will be addressed under the cover of that report.
PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
144. At the heart of the balancing exercise to be undertaken by decision makers is Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
145. When taken as a whole, and as a matter of planning judgment, the proposal is considered to broadly adhere to the development plan (where those applicable policies are considered to be consistent with the NPPF), other material planning considerations including the NPPF, and imposed statutory duties and responsibilities. The proposal is consequently considered to represent a sustainable form of development, where there exists a presumption in favour of such development in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF and Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy.
146. This presumption in favour of sustainable development is further reinforced by advice relating to decision-taking in the NPPF. Paragraph 186 of the Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to "approach decision taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development". Paragraph 187 states that Local Planning Authorities "should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible".
147. In the absence of any justifiable or demonstrable material consideration indicating otherwise, it is considered that the proposals are therefore acceptable in planning terms and a positive recommendation to Members is given below.
STATEMENT REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 35 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015
148. When determining planning applications the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. In this case the Local Planning Authority worked with the agent/applicant to address issues relating to and including heritage, contamination, highways, archaeology, ecology and flood risk. Following minor amendments/amplifications, additional information received and subsequent re- consultation, the Local Planning Authority was able to reach a decision having had regard for all material planning considerations.
Planning Committee Page 70 25 November 2015 53
RECOMMENDATION
(1) The Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to provide:-
Education - an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC. Libraries - an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC. Public Transport Infrastructure - an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC. Waste - an appropriate level as advised/required by SCC. Public Open Space.
(2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above, the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant Planning Permission subject to conditions including:-
Stand time limit; Development in accordance with approved plans; Materials samples; As required by Corporate Manager - Heritage; Removal of PD rights to Belstead House LB dwellings. Agreement of construction management plan; 10% of agreed predicted energy use to be derived from renewable sources, with details to be approved; Any external lighting to be approved; As required by Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection, where relevant; Full soft/hard landscaping including screening details, and as required by SCC Landscaping Team (including arboricultural protection measures); As required by SCC Highway Authority; As required by SCC Ecology/in accordance with ecological appraisal; Surface water drainage, as required by SCC, Anglian Water and Environment Agency; As required by SCC Archaeology; Fire hydrant provision; Agreement of waste management plan; Agreement of landscape management plan.
(3) That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to refuse Planning Permission, for reason(s) including:-
Inadequate provision of infrastructure contributions which would fail to provide compensatory benefits to the sustainability of the development and its wider impacts, contrary to Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy.
(4) Grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions including:-
Standard time limit; Works in accordance with approved plans; Materials samples; As recommended by the Corporate Manager - Heritage.
Planning Committee Page 71 25 November 2015 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Your Ref: B/14/01377/OUT Our Ref: 570\CON\1314\15 Date: 24 July 2015 Highways Enquiries to: [email protected]
All planning enquiries should be sent to the Local Planning Authority. Email: [email protected]
The Planning Officer Babergh District Council Council Offices Corks Lane Ipswich Suffolk IP7 6SJ
For the Attention of: Elizabeth Truscott
Dear Sir/Madam
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 - CONSULTATION RETURN B/14/01377/OUT
PROPOSAL: Outline - Residential development for the provision of 155 no. dwellings and 65 no. bedroom carehome LOCATION: Belstead House, Sprites Lane, Pinewood, Ipswich, Suffolk ROAD CLASS:
The applicant has submitted additional material to address SCC’s two main concerns regarding the traffic impact on the local road network and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using Sprites Lane.
Transport Assessment It has not been possible to obtain reliable data concerning the traffic generation of Belstead House under its previous use as a learning/conference facility. The applicant has provided additional information indicating that the available car park capacity was higher than previously considered. Additional information has also been provided confirming the intention to target the housing at retired and elderly residents who are less likely to use their cars at peak times.
Taking into account likely trip generation of the proposed type of development and additional information about the capacity of Belstead House it is considered that the permitted use of the site could generate a similar level of daily traffic to the proposed use as housing. Furthermore there is a new vehicular access proposed from Cottingham Road which will disperse the impact of traffic on the highway network. When considering the daily patterns of traffic from the existing and proposed use it is likely that there would be no significant increase in the peak hours when the local road network is most sensitive to changes in traffic patterns. Therefore, we would not consider the proposed development will have a severe impact on the highway and could not recommend refusal for this reason.
Sprites Lane The applicant has presented a revised proposal for an improvement to Sprites Lane, to safely accommodate vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, using the “shared space” design principle and providing passing places to allow vehicles to pass each other.
We do not consider the section of Sprites Lane between the site and Bridge School to be suitable for a shared space scheme because there is very limited frontage activity or crossing movements and consequently the route would appear to motoristsPage to be 73primarily a link road. An acceptable treatment of Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk the lane should provide adequate widths for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists to share the route or a designated footway. The applicant has indicated willingness to provide an improvement to the route and it is considered that a detailed solution can be found to resolve this issue so that the matter can be dealt with by a planning condition.
We would also wish to see the internal layout, provided within the Reserved Matters, to incorporate a design which would encourage all vehicular traffic to use the Cottingham Road access to minimise the conflict between motorised and non-motorised traffic on Sprites Lane.
The restrictions of the available corridor width would indicate that Sprites Lane could not be brought up to an adoptable standard in accordance with the Suffolk Design Guide. If the route is to remain private we would require a Section 106 obligation for a private management agreement that clearly sets out the liabilities for this route which would remain a restricted byway.
Rights of Way There is a popular and well used public rights of way network south of Belstead House taking residents out into the wider countryside.
Restricted Byway 44 is recorded along Sprites Lane and is commented on above.
Bridleway 39 leads out to Belstead via a subway under the A14, which does not provide a very inviting experience walking through. To provide a more appealing and safer route, we would require the subway to be lit. An estimate to install LED lighting, cabling and steels would be approximately £5000.
Bus infrastructure We will require contributions for the two nearest bus stops which are likely to be used by residents and which require improvement. We require £3000 for raised kerbs, £5000 for an inbound bus shelter (if technically achievable) and £20,000 for two RTPI screens.
Travel Plan Please refer to detailed comments on the draft travel plan from my colleague, Chris Ward, in his letter dated 25 June 2015. We will require the following Section 106 contributions:
Travel Plan Evaluation and Support contribution £5,000 (final fee to be agreed when more information on the phasing is included)
Travel Plan Implementation Bond £150,041 (indicative cost based on proposed travel plan measures)
We will also require either a Section 106 obligation or planning condition to secure the following:
Implementation of the travel plan
Provision of welcome packs with public transport/cycle voucher to each dwelling on first occupation
Summary of Section 106 contributions: Rights of way improvement = £5000 Bus infrastructure total = £28000 Travel plan monitoring = £5000 Travel plan bond = £ 150,041
Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highway Authority recommends that any permission which that Planning Authority may give should include the conditions shown below:
1 Condition: No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the proposed improvements to Sprites Lane have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use. Reason: To ensure safety is maintained for all users of the restricted byway.
Page 74 Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk
2 AL 2 Condition: No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the proposed accesses to the public highway (including the position of any gates to be erected and visibility splays provided) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved accesses shall be laid out and constructed in their entirety prior to the occupation of the property. Thereafter the accesses shall be retained in their approved form. Reason: To ensure that the accesses are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety.
3 B2 Condition: Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for storage of Refuse/Recycling bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out 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.
4 ER 1 Condition: Before the development is commenced, details of the estate roads and footpaths, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that roads/footways are constructed to an acceptable standard.
5 ER 2 Condition: No dwelling shall be occupied until the carriageways and footways serving that dwelling have been constructed to at least Binder course level or better in accordance with the approved details except with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access is provided for the safety of residents and the public.
6 GTP 1 Condition: Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the travel arrangements to and from the site for employees and customers in the form of a Travel Plan, including monitoring provisions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such approved arrangements shall be implemented before the development is first brought into use and thereafter adhered to. Reason: In the interests of sustainable development.
7 HGV1 Condition: All HGV traffic movements to and from the site over the duration of the construction period shall be subject to a Deliveries Management Plan which shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval a minimum of 28 days before any deliveries of materials commence.
No HGV movements shall be permitted to and from the site other than in accordance with the routes defined in the Plan.
The site operator shall maintain a register of complaints and record of actions taken to deal with such complaints at the site office as specified in the Plan throughout the period of occupation of the site.
Reason: To reduce and / or remove as far as is reasonably possible the effects of HGV traffic in sensitive areas.
8 P 2 Condition: Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for the [LOADING, UNLOADING,] manoeuvring and parking of vehicles including secure cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter and used for no other purpose. Page 75 Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk
Reason: To ensure the provision and long term maintenance of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety.
9 NOTE 02 Note 2: It is an OFFENCE to carry out works within the public highway, which includes a Public Right of Way, without the permission of the Highway Authority. Any conditions which involve work within the limits of the public highway do not give the applicant permission to carry them out. Unless otherwise agreed in writing all works within the public highway shall be carried out by the County Council or its agents at the applicant's expense. The County Council's Central Area Manager must be contacted on Telephone: 01473 341414. Further information go to: www.suffolk.gov.uk/environment-and-transport/highways/dropped-kerbs-vehicular- accesses/ A fee is payable to the Highway Authority for the assessment and inspection of both new vehicular crossing access works and improvements deemed necessary to existing vehicular crossings due to proposed development.
10 NOTE 05 Note: Public Utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal. The appropriate utility service should be contacted to reach agreement on any necessary alterations which have to be carried out at the expense of the developer. Those that appear to be affected are electricity pylons
11 NOTE 07 Note: The Local Planning Authority recommends that developers of housing estates should enter into formal agreement with the Highway Authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 relating to the construction and subsequent adoption of Estate Roads.
12 NOTE 15 Note: The works within the public highway will be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the County Council's specification. The applicant will also be required to enter into a legal agreement under the provisions of Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 relating to the construction and subsequent adoption of the highway improvements. Amongst other things the Agreement will cover the specification of the highway works, safety audit procedures, construction and supervision and inspection of the works, bonding arrangements, indemnity of the County Council regarding noise insulation and land compensation claims, commuted sums, and changes to the existing street lighting and signing.
Yours faithfully
Mr Colin Bird Development Management Engineer Highway Network Management Group Economy, Skills & Environment
Page 76 Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk
Agenda Item 8
R65
BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE 25 NOVEMBER 2015
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Item Page Application No. Location Officer Decision No.
APPLICATIONS REQUIRING REFERENCE TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
EAST BERGHOLT – Westmead 1. 5-8 B/15/01336/FHA GP House, Gaston End
WOOLVERSTONE – Paul 2. 9-11 B/14/00703/FUL GP Double Nurseries Ltd, Main Rd
Report submitted to 26 11-13 B/14/00703/FUL GP November 2014 Committee
Report submitted to 12 13-23 B/14/00703/FUL GP November 2014 Committee
EAST BERGHOLT – Etheldene, 3. 24-31 B/15/00956/FUL AS Dazeleys Lane
LITTLE CORNARD – Kedington 4. 32-36 B/15/01379/FUL JD Gate, Bures Road
Christine Thurlow Corporate Manager - Development Management
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\251115-ApplicationList2.docx
Planning Committee Page 77 25 November 2015 1
BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS MADE UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, AND ASSOCIATED LEGISLATION, FOR DETERMINATION OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
This Schedule contains proposals for development which, in the opinion of the Corporate Manager - Development Management, do not come within the scope of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers adopted by the Council or which, although coming within the scope of that scheme, she/he has referred to the Committee to determine.
Background Papers in respect of all of the items contained in this Schedule of Applications are:-
1. The particular planning, listed building or other application or notification (the reference number of which is shown in brackets after the description of the location).
2. Any documents containing supplementary or explanatory material submitted with the application or subsequently.
3. Any documents relating to suggestions as to modifications or amendments to the application and any documents containing such modifications or amendments.
4. Documents relating to responses to the consultations, notifications and publicity both statutory and non-statutory as contained on the case file together with any previous planning decisions referred to in the Schedule item.
DELEGATION TO THE CORPORATE MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
The delegation to the Head of Economy includes the power to determine the conditions to be imposed upon any grant of planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area consent or advertisement consent and the reasons for those conditions or the reasons to be imposed on any refusal in addition to any conditions and/or reasons specifically resolved by the Planning Committee.
(Minute No 48(a) of the Council dated 19 October 2004).
PLANNING POLICIES
The Development Plan comprises saved polices in the Babergh Local Plan adopted June 2006. The reports in this paper contain references to the relevant documents and policies which can be viewed at the following addresses:-
The Babergh Local Plan: http://www.babergh.gov.uk/babergh/LocalPlan
National Planning Policy Framework: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf
Planning Committee Page 78 25 November 2015 2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS SCHEDULE
AWS Anglian Water Services
CFO County Fire Officer
LHA Local Highway Authority
EA Environment Agency
EH English Heritage
NE Natural England
HSE Health and Safety Executive
MoD Ministry of Defence
PC Parish Council
PM Parish Meeting
SPS Suffolk Preservation Society
SWT Suffolk Wildlife Trust
TC Town Council
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\141015-ApplicationList.docx
Planning Committee Page 79 25 November 2015 3
Planning Committee Page 80 25 November 2015 4 BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
25 November 2015
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA BUT BEFORE 12 NOON ON THE WORKING DAY BEFORE THE MEETING AND ERRATA
Paper R65
Item Pages Summary No 2 9-11 Errata - The applicant is Mr G Braithwaite and not Ingleton Properties Limited as stated within the report.
3 24-31 Email Received from Ms R Collar, 18 CaeGwyn, Llanidloes, Powys, SY18 6DY received 6th November 2015 (summarised):
Although my permanent residence is in mid Wales, do spend a considerable amount of time in the family home in Cordwinders, East Bergholt. Has deep concerns of a visual, environmental and social nature, as follows; The pseudo Georgian property is completely out of context and character with the surrounding environment and properties. Does not see any contextual sensitivity towards the existing cottage size or design structure, and should be viewed through the lens of a historically designated AONB. The plans offer a smattering of outside ostentation to this small rural corner. The blurred black and white photos submitted are misleading. Leaves fall in autumn leaving this much more visible. The object in an AONB should be to harmonise with surrounding nature and environment not relay on camouflage strategy. The site would be very visible. This development would seem to open the door for developing the ‘dormitory village’ and impose more concrete onto a prime agricultural landscape. Of prime concern is the implicit destruction of environmental habitats for indigenous wildlife. Also speaks on behalf of her mother who is unable to comment at this time.
Christine Thurlow Corporate Manager – Development Management
24 November 2015
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\251115-Addendum Paper R65.docx
Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank
Item No: 1 Reference: B/15/01336/FHA Parish: EAST BERGHOLT Ward Members: Cllrs. John Hinton and Stephen Williams Location: Westmead House, Gaston End
Proposal: Erection of first floor extension, single-storey extension, front and rear porch canopies and conservatory
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Maclachlan
Case Officer: Gemma Pannell Date for Determination: 13 November 2015
RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission
This application is referred to Development Committee at the request of Councillor Williams as views have been expressed which are at variance with the officer recommendation. It is considered that the proposal will result in the loss of residential amenity and overdevelopment affecting a number of people giving rise to a large number of objections and the development may set an undesirable precedent for the locality.
THE SITE
1. The site comprises a detached bungalow located on the corner of Gaston End and Fiddlers Lane. The area comprises a mix of housing types and is within the housing settlement boundary for East Bergholt.
THE PROPOSAL
2. Planning permission is sought for an identical scheme to that approved in 2011 (B/11/01164/FHA) and comprises the erection of a first floor extension to the dwelling, resulting in the bungalow becoming a two storey dwelling, and the addition of ground floor extensions to the front and rear, including a glazed conservatory.
3. The existing dwelling is 5.49m to the ridge and the first floor extension would increase this to 7.458m. The extension has been designed with high level first floor windows to serve the master bedroom and the ensuite and an obscure glazed window to serve the family bathroom.
4. The proposed ground floor extensions comprise a front canopy and a rear canopy, and a single storey conservatory onto the side elevation. The conservatory measures 3.15m x 6.5m.
5. The application documents can be viewed on line via the planning pages on the District Council’s website.
RELEVANT HISTORY
6. B/89/01931/FUL - Erection of single storey rear extension for use as granny annexe and single storey extension linking the garage and existing bungalow together – Granted.
7. B/04/00048/FHA - Erection of first-floor front/side extension. Construction of new vehicular access as amended by plans received 11/05/04 – Granted
8. B/11/01164/FHA - Erection of first floor extension to an existing dwelling, with single storey ground floor extensions including front and rear entrance porch canopies and a glazed attached conservatory - Granted
Planning Committee Page 83 25 November 2015 5
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
9. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law, and the NPPF, continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes.
10. The NPPF is supported by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which assists applicants and decision makers to interpret the NPPF. Both the NPPF and PPG are referred to within this report where relevant to the assessment.
PLANNING POLICIES
11. The Development Plan comprises the Babergh Core Strategy 2014 and saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006. The following policies are applicable to the proposal:
Babergh Core Strategy 2014
CS1 - Applying the presumption in favour of sustainable development in Babergh
Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006
HS33 - Extensions to Existing Dwellings CN01 - Design Standards
The relevant policies can be viewed on line. Please see the notes attached to the schedule.
CONSULTATIONS
12. PC - Overdevelopment of site - overbearing and intrusive; loss of residential amenity; not compliant with the street scene. The submitted plans are out of date and inaccurate - the property called Stonecroft was demolished and replaced by Brambles in 2011. In 2011 Babergh requested the proposed roof height of Brambles to be lowered to fit surrounding bungalows - inconsistency of policy if two storey now allowed.
REPRESENTATIONS
13. 12 representation(s) objecting to the application have been received and the comments are summarised as follows:
Overlooking of adjoining properties - severe impact on amenity Contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan Out of proportion with the current property Block plan is outdated Out of keeping with the design and character of the exsiting property Loss of privacy Dominate surrounding properties Will result in the loss of a bungalow Inappropriate design Destroy the character of the area
Planning Committee Page 84 25 November 2015 6
14. The following organisations and public representatives have made representations on the application and their comments are summarised as follows:
East Bergholt Society: Overdevelopment. Development is too large for this small plot and will overwhelm its neighbours with loss of amenity and adverse impact on the street scene. Development in the vicinity has been limited in height and scale to respect its neighbours.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
15. From an assessment of planning policies, public representations and other material considerations, the main considerations are considered to be:
Principle of development
16. The site has previously benefited from planning permission for an identical scheme to that currently under consideration. The permission (B/11/01164/FHA) expired on 11 November 2014. The lead policy framework remains the same as that which was in place when the application was approved in 2011, with the exception of the Babergh Core Strategy. However, the policies under which the application was considered previously, HS33 and CN01 remain.
Design and Scale
17. Policy HS33 states that planning permission will be granted to extend a dwelling provided that the scale, mass, external materials and detailing blend in with those of the dwelling and its wider setting and that the extension reflects and respects the relationship of the site and its setting and those of adjoining dwellings and does not reduce the level of amenity enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring properties. This is supported by policy CN01 which requires all development to be appropriate scale, form and detailed design and have regard to the scale, form and nature of adjacent development.
18. Whilst the design of the extension would result in the building being more prominent, this is not considered harmful as the building would be well proportioned with pleasing details such as the window design. The extended building would punctuate a view and would therefore add to the wider street scene. There is no harm to the setting of the listed building to the rear given the distance between properties.
Impact on residential amenity
19. The potential for overlooking has been addressed by the introduction of high level windows within the first floor and also the introduction of obscure glazing to the first floor bathroom window. There are no impacts on the bungalows to the rear given the distance and window positions. The proposed bathroom window on the rear elevation is 5m from the boundary with Renstan and is set at an oblique angle to that property. The window is 25m from the rear elevation of Renstan. The high level windows are located on the side elevation and are 9.9m from the boundary with 24a and are 14m from the side elevation of 24a.
Crime and Disorder
20. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.
Biodiversity and Protected Species
21. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006, is so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 in relation to protected species. Planning Committee Page 85 25 November 2015 7
CONCLUSION - PLANNING BALANCE
22. When taken as a whole and as a matter of planning judgement, the proposal is considered to adhere to the development plan and NPPF and therefore can be considered sustainable development. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The application is therefore recommended for approval. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2015 (as amended).
23. When determining planning applications The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising. In this case, the scheme is considered acceptable in line with the Council’s policies, and negotiations were not required in this case.
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including:
Standard time limit Materials, including window and doors Securing high level windows to the southwest elevation
Planning Committee Page 86 25 November 2015 8
Item No: 2 Reference: B/14/00703/FUL
Parish: WOOLVERSTONE Ward Members: Cllrs Derek Davis and Peter Patrick Location: Paul Double Nurseries Limited, Main Road
Proposal: Erection of 4 no. dwellings, garages and associated works
Applicant: Ingleton Properties Limited
Case Officer: Gemma Pannell Date for Determination: 17 September 2014
UPDATE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD 14 JANUARY 2015
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement, grant planning permission.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to:
Update members on the current planning policy following the resolution of members in January 2015 as the S106 agreement has not been completed to date and therefore the application remains undetermined.
This Supplementary Report should be read in conjunction with the earlier Committee Report that was submitted for consideration on the 12 & 26 November 2014.
BACKGROUND
2. At the meeting on 12 November 2014 Planning Committee Members resolved to defer the application to allow additional viability information to be provided to affirm that the scheme would not be viable if an affordable housing contribution for the two additional dwellings was provided in accordance with CS19 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014). Following this the agent agreed to pay a commuted sum for the two additional dwellings which would equal £14,256, and the Committee resolution of 26 November 2014 was to approve planning permission subject to a S106 agreement which would include a contribution to affordable housing and public open space.
3. Following the Committee on 26 November, a ministerial statement was made by Brandon Lewis MP which had the effect of preventing the Council from seeking S106 contributions for affordable housing and public open space from small housing developments such as those at Doubles Nursery. Therefore the item was brought back to members for consideration on 12 January 2015 whereby the Committee made a resolution to approve planning permission without the need for contributions towards public open space and affordable housing.
4. In August this year, a decision in the High Court has quashed the provisions within the national planning practice guidance, allowing Councils once again to request S106 developer contributions on these smaller schemes. The legal challenge was brought by two local authorities – West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council. These Councils had concerns that their own adopted development plan policies, which allowed for affordable housing to be sought on sites of fewer than ten units, were effectively overridden by the new provisions. The Court found in the Councils’ favour and the ruling now means that smaller residential schemes of under 10 units can now be required to provide affordable housing and other development contributions.
5. Therefore the matter is returned to members in order to seek a resolution permitting the inclusion of an affordable housing contribution within the S106.
Page 87 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 9
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
6. Rather than provide additional viability information, the applicant agreed in November 2014 to pay the commuted sum for the two additional dwellings which would equal £14,256. This sum has been calculated using the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2014). This states that commuted sums at Woolverstone (as an area of medium housing value) will be calculated at £54 per square metre. As the 2008 planning permission includes dwellings on plots 10 and 11 which could be implemented and provided a commuted sum for affordable housing which has been paid, only a commuted sum for the additional dwellings, plot 12 and Courtyard House is required.
7. The application for consideration by Members is identical to that which was considered in January 2015. Those material planning considerations discussed in the associated Report are still considered to be applicable in this instance, with the exception that the application would now comply with Policy CS19 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014). Those conditions recommended by the Officer on the 12 November 2014 are still relevant.
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
8. In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.
9. In addition to the obligations, as outlined in the report on 12 November 2014, these remain relevant with the exception of the requirement for a financial contribution for off-site public open space provision.
10. Following consultation with the Council’s public realm/open space manager, it is not considered that the Council is able at present to identify specific projects(s) where S106 monies could be directed for the provision, improvement and/or upkeep of public open space and play equipment. It is also considered that the Council holds insufficient records in order to rack the pooling of S106 payments for the public open space and play equipment projects in accordance with the April 2015 CIL regulations. On this basis it is not considered that a financial contribution towards public open space equipment can be secured under policy HS32 of the development plan.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2015 (as amended)
11. When determining applications the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising. In this case it was necessary to request further information from the applicant prior to a decision being made.
RECOMMENDATION
(1) That the Corporate Manager – Development Manager to the Council be authorised to secure a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for:-
A financial contribution for off-site affordable housing; Secure conversion works to the water tower to the development of the dwellings; The tying of the walled garden and associated structures; and their maintenance, to Plot 11 and preventing the sale or lease of the walled garden separate to Plot 11; The preclusion of any sub-division of the walled garden; To ensure appropriate phasing of development To ensure that plots 10 and plot 11 of planning permission B/08/01067 cannot be built in conjunction with the new dwellings.
Page 88 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 10
(2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager - Development Management, the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission including the following conditions:
Standard Time Limit for Commencement Materials (including fenestration and finishes) Design details Landscaping Details of Boundary Treatments/Screen Walls/Fences Hard surface treatments As required by LHA. Contamination Removal of ‘Permitted Development Rights’ for extensions, alterations, roof additions, outbuildings, microgeneration and means of enclosure.
(3) That in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Corporate Manager – Development Management be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
The applications fail to secure the identified conservation works The applications fail to make provision for affordable housing The proposals would not represent an acceptable departure from the provisions of the Local Plan.
26 NOVEMBER 2014 COMMITTEE REPORT
Item No: 3 Reference: B/14/00703/FUL
Parish: WOOLVERSTONE Ward Members: Cllrs. Tony Roberts and John Deacon
Location: Paul Double Nurseries Limited, Main Road
Proposal: Erection of 4 no. dwellings, garages and associated works
Applicant: Ingleton Properties Limited
Case Officer: Elizabeth Truscott Date for Determination: 17 September 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement, grant planning permission
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to:-
Update members of the discussion held with the agent following the deferral of the application on 12 November 2014.
This Supplementary Report should be read in conjunction with the earlier Committee Report which was submitted for consideration on 12 November 2014 (attached).
BACKGROUND
2. At the meeting on 12th November 2014 Planning Committee Members resolved to defer the application to allow additional viability information to be provided to affirm that the scheme would not be viable if an affordable housing contribution for the two additional dwellings was provided in accordance with C19 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014).
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Page 89 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 11
3. Rather than provide additional viability information the applicant has agreed to pay the commuted sum for the two additional dwellings which would equal £14,256. This sum has been calculated using the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2014). This states that commuted sums at Woolverstone as an area of medium housing value will be calculated at £54 per square metre. As the 2008 planning permission includes dwellings on plots 10 and 11 which could be implemented and provided a commuted sum for affordable housing which has been paid, only a commuted sum for the additional dwellings, plot 12 and Courtyard House is required.
4. The application for consideration by Members is identical to that which was deferred on the 12th November 2014. Those material planning considerations discussed in the associated Report are still considered to be applicable in this instance, with the exception that the application would now comply with Policy C19 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014). Those conditions recommended by the Officer on the 12th November 2014 are still relevant.
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
5. The planning obligations as stated in the report on 12 November 2014 are still relevant to the application in the addition a commuted for sum affordable housing should be sought.
6. In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 31 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2010 (as amended)
7. When determining applications the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising. In this case it was necessary to request further information from the applicant prior to a decision being made.
RECOMMENDATION
(1) That the Corporate Manager – Legal be authorised to secure a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for:-
A financial contribution for off-site public open space provision;
A financial contribution for off-site affordable housing;
Secure conversion works to the water town to the development of the dwellings;
The tying of the walled garden and associated structures; and there maintenance, to Plot 11 and preventing the sale or lease of the walled garden separate to Plot 11;
The preclusion of any sub-division of the walled garden;
To ensure appropriate phasing of development;
To ensure that plots 10 and plot 11 of planning permission B/08/01067 cannot be built in conjunction with the new dwellings.
Page 90 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 12
(2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager - Legal, the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:-
Standard Time Limit for Commencement;
Materials (including fenestration and finishes);
Design details;
Landscaping;
Details of Boundary Treatments/Screen Walls/Fences;
Hard surface treatments;
As required by LHA;
Contamination;
Removal of ‘Permitted Development Rights’ for extensions, alterations, roof additions, outbuildings, mircogeneration and means of enclosure. (3) That in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Corporate Manager – Development Management be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
The applications fail to secure the identified conservation works;
The applications fail to make provision for public open space and affordable housing;
The proposals would not represent an acceptable departure from the provisions of the Local Plan.
12 NOVEMBER 2014 COMMITTEE REPORT
Item No: 1 Reference: B/14/00703/FUL
Parish: WOOLVERSTONE Ward Members: Cllrs. Tony Roberts and John Deacon
Location: Paul Double Nurseries Limited, Main Road
Proposal: Erection of 4 no. dwellings, garages and associated works
Applicant: Ingleton Properties Limited
Case Officer: Elizabeth Truscott Date for Determination: 17 September 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission Subject to a Section 106 Agreement
THE SITE
1. The entrance to the site is located on the Main Road, Woolverstone within the centre of the village. The site consists of an access road to the rear of properties facing onto Main Road and a site of approximately 0.45 hectares to the east of the walled garden and north of Main Road. The Grade II listed walled garden and surrounding land is within the ownership of the applicant. Page 91 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 13
2. The site is part of a larger site which was developed following a 2008 planning application comprising 11 dwellings and a new vehicular access. Nine of the plots have been completed and are located on Nursery Lane.
3. This planning application is concerned with the areas which comprised plots 10 and 11 of the 2008 planning permission.
4. The only immediate neighbour to the site is Dairy Farm which is located north of the site. The majority of the site is outside the Built up Area Boundary of Woolverstone and is also located within the Woolverstone Conservation Area and the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB.
THE PROPOSAL
5. The application is for the erection of 4 no. dwellings garages and associated works. The approved 2008 planning application showed plot 10 as a smaller dwelling within the Built up Area Boundary of Woolverstone and that the remaining site (plot 11) would consist of one very large dwelling with extensive grounds including the walled garden. The occupiers of plot 11 would have been responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the walled garden in accordance with an agreed conservation plan.
6. In 2013 a planning application was submitted for three dwellings instead of the very large dwelling on Plot 11, but designed to appear as one dwelling. Although approved by Planning Committee, the decision was made subject to a S106 which has not as yet been completed.
7. The current application proposes an alternative scheme to the 2008 permission. Plot 10 would be moved further into the site, so it is no longer completely within the Built up Area Boundary, the dwelling would be larger than previously approved and have a larger garden. It would be two storey with four bedrooms. The remainder of the site would be split into three plots. Plot 11 would comprise of a large single dwelling (although on a smaller scale than approved under the 2008 application). This would be 2½ stories in height with at least five bedrooms. This dwelling would be surrounded by an immediate garden with the existing water tower located in the corner. A four bay garage for plot 11 would be located in part of the south slip garden. At the rear of the plot would be a pedestrian gate way leading into the walled garden. Ownership and long term maintenance of the walled garden would remain with Plot 11. A new glass house on the edge of the walled garden would be built. The remaining glasshouses and bothies to the South and West of the walled garden would also remain within the ownership of Plot 11.
8. A new four bedroom single storey dwelling is proposed within the east slip garden (Plot 12). This would back onto the existing wall between the site and Dairy House and would face onto the walled garden, with the main garden to the side. An integral cartlodge would be located at the end of the dwelling. The bothies located within the east slip garden would be in the ownership of this plot. The third dwelling would be Courtyard House located in the south Slip Garden. This would be accessed by removal of part of the outer wall located adjacent to the access track. Courtyard House would be a single storey two bedroom dwelling designed to complement the existing glass houses. It would be set against the outer wall, facing onto the walled garden with a garden to the front. Parking would be provided in the adjacent yard area.
9. It is proposed that a section 106 agreement is entered into which would involve the owners of Plot 11 also having ownership of the walled garden and historic structures and responsibility for future maintenance as prescribed in ‘The Long Term Conservation Plan’. The legal obligation would include a condition not to sever the walled garden from the remainder of the planning unit. This would mean that the walled garden was connected to a significant asset. In addition the s.106 would be required to include a phasing mechanism to ensure that it is not possible to build all three of the smaller dwellings and not the larger one (which has happened in the past) so as to ensure the long term maintenance of the walled garden.
10. The application documents can be viewed on line via the planning pages on the District Council’s website. Page 92 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 14
RELEVANT HISTORY . 11. B/02/01801/OUT Outline - Erection of 4 No. detached dwellings. Refused.
12. B/03/02122/OUT Outline - Erection of 2 No. detached dwellings with associated garaging. Construction of new vehicular access as amended by letter dated 21st July and drawing nos CR/03/174/A/D, CR/03/174/E, CR/03/174/C/B, CR/03/174/F/A and CR/03/174/D/B all received on 22nd July 2004 and e-mails dated 3rd September 2004 and 9thSeptember 2004. Granted.
13. B/08/01067/FUL Construction of 11 no. dwellings with associated garaging. Construction of new vehicular access (development to enable the restoration of the Listed Walled Garden and associated structures). Granted.
14. B/08/01068/LBC Application for Listed Building Consent - Restoration of the Walled Garden, including associated Garden Structures. Granted.
15. B/12/00065/FUL Erection of 3 dwellings and associated garages (amendment to approved scheme under reference B/08/01067/FUL). Withdrawn by Agent.
16. B/13/0086/FUL Erection of 3 dwellings and associated garages (amendment to approved scheme under reference B/08/01067/FUL). Resolution to approve by Committee.
17. B/13/01392/FUL Erection of 4 dwellings, garages and associated works. No decision taken.
18. B/13/01393/LBC Part demolition of wall (To facilitate erection of 4 No. dwellings, garages and associated works).
19. B/14/00704/LBC Part demolition of wall and erection of glasshouse (Item 2 on this Planning Committee Schedule refers).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
20. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes.
21. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
● where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets
PLANNING POLICIES
22. The Development saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006 and Babergh Local Plan Core Strategy & Policies adopted 2014. The Plan should be regarded as material consideration in planning decisions. The following policies are applicable to the proposal:
Page 93 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 15
Babergh Local Plan Core Strategy & Policies 2014
CS1 - Sustainable Development CS2 - Settlement Planning Policy CS11 - Strategy for Development for Core & Hinterland Village CS15 - Implementing Sustainable Development in Babergh CS19 - Affordable Housing
Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006
HS32 - Public Open Space CN01 - Design CN06 - Listed Buildings CN08 - Conservation Areas CR02 - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty TP15 - Parking Standards
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Suffolk Advisory Parking Standards (2002)
The relevant policies can be viewed on line. Please see the notes attached to the schedule.
CONSULTATIONS
23. Woolverstone Parish Council: No comments.
24. Suffolk County Council Fire and Rescue Service: Recommend condition relating to fire hydrants.
25. Natural England: No objection.
26. Suffolk Wildlife Trust: Provided that the ecological recommendations made under application B/08/01067/FUL continued to be implemented, this proposal does not appear likely to have any impact upon protected species or designed habitat or priority Suffolk Biodiversity Action Plan habitats or species.
27. English Heritage: The applications should be determined in accordance with national and local guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.
28. BDC Heritage: I objected to a previous version of this scheme for this site, which was subsequently withdrawn. My objections to that proposal were based on the harm that I thought various specific elements of the works would cause to the character, appearance and significance of the walled garden as a heritage asset. These harmful elements were, specifically, the garaging arrangements for the new dwelling in the east slip garden, the making of a large new opening in the wall of the main walled garden, alterations to the symmetrical layout of walls and gates in the south slip garden and, most harmful of all, the addition of a fourth dwelling in the south slip garden. This last element I thought would potentially introduce a detrimental fragmentation of management of the site, endangering the long-term management of the whole complex as a single, coherent asset. These harms were not, in my opinion, justified by the identified public benefits of that scheme and in my view, that proposal did not meet the requirements of the English Heritage (EH) policy for enabling development (Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places: English Heritage, Revised Edition June 2012), because it failed to demonstrate that it would not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting, nor that it would avoid detrimental fragmentation of management of the place.
Page 94 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 16
Most of the elements that I identified as harmful in the previous version of the scheme have been revised and in most cases, the proposals are now acceptable. The absence of any large new opening in the wall of the centre garden is a particularly welcome revision. The small, private access gateway now proposed seems to me to be much less intrusive and as such, acceptable in these specific circumstances. The one remaining unresolved issue, however, is the one I thought most harmful: the provision of a fourth dwelling located in the south slip garden. The precise location for this has been revised, however, and to the extent that it no longer impinges so greatly upon the settings of the carnation house and the mushroom house, it is much less harmful than previously. In addition, the majority of the site including the whole of the centre garden, the bothies in the south-western corner of the site, the important mushroom house and carnation house and the majority of the south slip garden, are all to now be in one single ownership. There remains some potential for detrimental fragmentation of the management of the site, but this has been greatly reduced in its potential harmfulness by the latest revisions. The level of harm to significance is now, in my view, low and in fact well below the “substantial harm” threshold.
Additional information about the financial viability of the proposals has now been provided. Nevertheless, in spite of studying this and the relevant English Heritage guidance carefully, I am unable to say whether or not this revised proposal fully meets the complex EH requirements for enabling development. Irrespective of whether or not it meets these requirements, however, decision-takers must now carry out the balancing exercise referred to in NPPF 134: the harm that I have identified to the significance of the asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, including securing its optimum viable use.
REPRESENTATIONS
29. Two letters of representation have been received and the comments are summarised as follows:-
Proposal will be detrimental to the listed walled garden;
The introduction of Plot 12 has necessitated the pedestrian opening for Plot 11;
Detrimental to amenity of neighbouring properties due to noise and light;
Detrimental to the setting of the Grade 2 listed Dairy House;
Not necessary to removed parts of walls for access to Courtyard House;
Lack of justification for development outside the BUAB;
Not considered to be enabling development.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of development
30. The site is outside but adjacent to the built up area of Woolverstone where development would generally have to accord with Policy CS11 of the Babergh Core Strategy 2014. Woolverstone is a hinterland village where Policy CS11 states (inter alia) that development should demonstrate a close functional relationship to the existing settlement, and meets a proven need such as affordable housing or targeted market housing. The proposed development is close to the BUAB and may be considered to have a close functional relationship with the village, although sequentially there would be locations within Woolverstone with better relationships with the settlement boundary. However, the proposal does not include affordable housing or show any evidence that the housing would meet local market housing needs. As such the development does not comply with Policy CS11 and would therefore usually be considered unacceptable development within the countryside.
Page 95 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 17
31. However the NPPF allows small scale development within the Countryside if this development secures the future of a heritage asset. The application in 2008 was approved on the basis that the development would ensure the long term maintenance of the Grade II listed walled garden in accordance with a Short Term Repair and Long Term Conservation Plan. The majority of the short term repairs have been undertaken following the development and sale of the first 9 dwellings.
32. The 2008 application proposed two dwellings plots 10 and plot 11 which have not yet been built. There have been a number of offers for Plot 10 but it was not considered at the time that this should be sold separately from Plot 11. Plot 11 also received offers at the original asking price however these did not proceed to exchange. The developer states that on- going maintenance and security of the site, since permission was granted for development in 2008 has meant that the original asking price for Plot 11 would no longer make the development viable. The additional dwellings are now required to provide sufficient income to ensure than Plot 11 is built and the long term maintenance of the walled garden is retained. It should be noted that the site has now been sold for the purpose of developing the site for four dwellings.
33. The original proposal as approved in 2008 included Long and Short Term conservation management plans, with the short term works being undertaken in a phased approach, paid for as each of the dwellings were sold. The agent states that the applicant chose to complete the conservation work in its entirety (other that the water tower) in one phase. This choice was made in anticipation of the final phase being completed, and the application has therefore incurred costs of circular £250,000 against future sales and profit. The current maintenance costs of the gardens and its structures are being born by the applicant, this cannot carry on indefinitely especially given the costs already incurred. A long term solution to the maintenance of the walled garden needs to be found to ensure that the conservation works already undertaken to secure the future of the listed building are not lost due to lack of future control and maintenance
34. The 2008 would have created one large dwelling which would have been sold with the walled garden, and whose occupiers would have been required to undertake maintenance in accordance with the Long Term Conservation Plan. This would have meant that the walled garden would be attached to a dwelling which was consummate to the size of the garden and would have a strong stake in its long term maintenance. While the currently proposals would involve a slightly smaller dwelling, the principle of a large property with ownership of the garden and surrounding outbuildings remains.
35. The provision of two additional dwellings surrounding the walled garden is not ideal, it splits the site up and makes it more difficult to understand the historic context of the walled garden. However the scheme does have the benefit of retaining the walled garden and the vast majority of its outbuildings in a single ownership. The two additional dwellings would be located in the less significant slip gardens and follow on from the existing pattern of bothies built adjacent to the walled garden. They would both be single storey and therefore not prominent within the setting of the listed wall.
36. Although the developer considers that the proposal is still a form of enabling development and the additional dwellings are required in order to make the development reliable, little evidence of this has been provided. In particular an updated financial appraisal is lacking. The agent has stated that:
increased costs and lower sales values has resulted in a lower yield than were predicated in the original financial appraisal provided as part of the 2008 application. The effect of profitability together with the lack of interest in plot 11 at the required balancing sales value is the justification for the present proposal.
Page 96 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 18
37. The Conservation Officer has stated that he is unable to say on the evidence provided whether the revised proposal fully meets the complex English Heritage requirements for enabling development. This guidance seeks to ensure enabling development is only of a scale that is required to enable the long term use of the heritage asset. As such the harm that has been identified should be weighted against the public benefit of the scheme, which would be to provide a long term use for the walled garden. The lack of evidence provided makes it difficult to conclude that the proposal is fully in compliance with the NPPF, but the harm to the listed building is not significant and there are tangible benefits to the proposal.
Impact on the listed structures
38. The only element of the scheme which would have a direct impact on the listed walls would be the new glasshouse located within the walled garden; this would be connected to the adjoining bothies by a new entrance. Glasshouses located abutting the walls of walled gardens are not unusual and this is considered to be an acceptable development on the walled garden. It will also increase the size of the overall outbuildings in this location, making them more useable. The two additional dwellings would be located abutting the secondary walls which are not considered to be of such importance, although they are within the setting of the listed structure. Given the single storey nature of these dwellings they are not considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the listed structures and building.
Impact on Conservation Area and AONB
39. The Woolverstone Conservation Appraisal concluded that some type of development was likely to be required in order to maintain the listed walled garden. The design of the original development included a large dwelling close to the walled garden to provide a built hierarchy with one building dominating the development. This design concept is followed through in this proposal. Although plot 10 would be larger than previously approved, plot 11 would still dominate the overall development and be in proportion to the walled garden. The two additional dwellings would be single storey and not especially visible, as they would be located behind existing garden walls. As such they would not be detrimental to the character of the Conservation area. The 2008 application concluded that the development would not be detrimental to the character of the Woolverstone Conservation Area given the similarities between the approved and proposal and the small scale of the proposed additional dwellings this conclusion is still valid. The application is therefore is accordance with Policy CN08 of the Babergh Local Plan.
40. The proposed dwellings would be seen against the backdrop of the frontage development that exists along the main road from Woolverstone Park. The landscape character of the AONB will not therefore be affected from this vantage point and the provisions of Local Plan Policy CR02 will be satisfied in this regard.
Design and Layout
41. Plot 11 would be a substantial building of 2½ storeys for its main bulk, which is broken up and accentuated by projecting gable cross wings, with a 1 ½ storey and 1 storey side element. It provides the scale and dominance required for the scheme. Plot 10 is a smaller version of plot 10 with two stories and similar gable cross wings. Plot 13 is a single storey dwelling with a large amount of glass, its simple form with a lean to roof reflects the surrounding bothies. Courtyard House would also have a lean to roof and large glass element, reflecting the adjoining glasshouses. Overall it is considered that the design and siting of the additional dwellings is sympathetic to the setting of the listed walled garden. Plot 11 is sufficiently prominent to fulfil the role as the dominant dwelling and Plot 10 is located far enough from the walled garden not to impinge on the setting of the wall
Page 97 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 19
Residential Amenity
42. Policy HS02 requires new housing developments to maintain a reasonable standard of residential amenity. Amenity in this instance normally refers to loss of light, over bearing and over looking. It can also refer to the amenity of future occupants of any dwelling as well, therefore other issues such as noise, the provision of private amenity space and the general conditions afforded future occupants needs to be considered.
43. The main impacts to be considered here are upon the 5 dwellings which sit to the south of the site (Garden House, Bourne View, Ridgeway, Half Acre and The Studio) and Dairy House and Thatched Cottage which are located close to the East Slip Garden. The Garden House, Bourne View and Ridgeway have their rear aspects overlooking the walled garden. The Courtyard House would be situated close to the rear gardens of Bourne View and Ridgeway but has been designed as a single storey dwelling only slightly taller than the wall it would back onto. There would only be one roof light on the south elevation. As such the development would not affect the outlook or privacy of surrounding dwellings. Half Acre lies in a plot fronting Main Road and the property known as The Studio sits behind this. The impact on Half Acre would therefore be significantly lessened. Plot 10 would be located further away from The Studio than the approved plans, decreasing the effect of this dwelling. Plot 10 would screen The Studio from views of Plot 11. Ridgeway has an outlook to the rear across the site and onto the Dairy House beyond. The Plot 11 would partly interrupt this outlook, but is sited away from the rear Ridgeway. Plot 11 would be an imposing feature, with the two-and-a half-storey element sited some 45 metres away from the rear elevation of Ridgeway (approximately 25 metres from the boundary of the rear garden), however it is smaller than the previously approved dwelling in this location. Therefore, whilst some obstruction of view may exist, it is not considered that this would be such that would cause significant injury to the occupiers of Ridgeway. The building does not sit immediately to the rear of Ridgeway’s boundary, nor does it lose in completeness all views that exist. The fact that the dwelling can be seen from the rear of the property is not a sufficient reason to refuse planning permission.
44. Dairy House and Thatched Cottage lies close to the proposed Plot 12, however this dwelling would be single storey, and lower in height the wall in would back onto. As such it should not be visible from either Diary House or Thatched Cottage. Dairy House is located far enough from Plot 11 (approximately 50 metres) for Plot 11 to have an impact on the amenity of Dairy House.
45. The replacement of the two approved dwellings with four dwellings is likely to increase traffic on the access road which shares access onto Main Road with the dwellings on Nursery Lane. However this increase in traffic would only go past one of the new dwellings (no. 2 Garden Gate Cottages) and is not so sufficient to result in loss of amenity of the occupiers of this dwelling.
Highway Considerations
46. Comments from the Local Highway Authority have yet to be received. However improvements to the access onto Main Road were made as part of the 2008 development and this access has with good visibility splays. The proposed numbers of dwellings is the same as previously supported at Committee and have a similar floorspace to the single dwelling and plot 10 approved in 2008. It is considered that the increase in traffic created by smaller, detached dwellings is unlikely to increase the amount of traffic using the access road to such an extent that would warrant refusal. There is sufficient width on the driveway to the dwellings to allow for cars to pass with care.
Crime and Disorder
47. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues. Page 98 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 20
Biodiversity and Protected Species
48. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006, is so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 in relation to protected species, but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
49. In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.
Open Space
50. Policy HS32 of the adopted Local Plan requires all applications proposing new dwellings to make provision for public open space. This is either in the form of on-site provision (minimum of 10% of the application site area) or off-site provision in the form of a commuted payment. In this case, given the scale, and form of the proposal, on site public open space provision is not considered appropriate. A payment towards off-site public open space provision/improvement could be secured via a S106 Agreement.
Affordable Dwellings
51. Core Strategy Policy CS19 requires that all residential development provide 35% affordable housing. Proposals for one or two dwellings this can take the form of a commuted sum. The proposal does not make provision for on-site affordable housing. The applicant had demonstrated as part of the 2008 proposal that the provision of on-site affordable housing would make the scheme financially unviable. A commuted sum which equalled 20% affordable housing was therefore agreed.
52. Given that policy has altered since the 2008 permission, with the adoption of the Core Strategy and two additional dwellings are now proposed Policy CS19 would require a commuted sum should be provided from plots 12 and Courtyard House. The agent has stated that any additional affordable housing would not be viable, although little evidence has been provided to prove this. The evidence which has been provided consists of various letters from the agent which have stated that the cost of retaining plots 10 and 11 and fees associated with various revised proposals has resulted in a Gross Development Value less than that which was expected from the 2008 permission. While it appears that there may be issues with viability for the proposal, the robust viability assessment which would generally be required in relation to CS19 has not been provided.
Conversation Works
53. The majority of the conservation works as set out in the Short Term Conservation Plan have been undertaken in accordance with the section 106 for the 2008 application. However works to the water tower will need to be linked to the development of the proposed dwellings. In addition the owners of Plot 11 would need to comply with a long term management plan.
Use of Walled Garden
54. The planning obligation would also need to secure the ownership of the walled garden to the owners of plot 11 and ensure that the structures and garden could not be sold or be sub-divided.
Page 99 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 21
Phasing of development
55. The two additional dwellings are only acceptable if they secure the long term maintenance of the listed building and this will be only be achievable if plot 11 is built out. Allowing the other dwellings to be occupied first means that this is not guaranteed. As such an agreed phasing plan which prevents the occupation of other plots prior to Plot 11 will need to be included within the section 106 agreement.
CONCLUSION
56. While this agent has stated that the development is enabling development and that the scheme would be unviable if any affordable housing contributions would be provided the evidence to prove this is not robust. Generally the information provided would not be sufficient to allow the addition of two new dwellings in the Countryside as enabling development or not require an affordable housing contribution.
57. However, in this particular case there is a long running history on this site and the Council and the developer have been working since 2008 to provide a means to protect the long term future of the walled garden. There is some evidence that despite marketing a realistic offer for a single dwelling has not been forthcoming. This proposal appears to provide a viable use for the walled garden and the two additional dwellings are acceptable in the context of the listed structures. The site has been sold for development and there is a strong likelihood that the present scheme is now deliverable. Given these exceptional circumstances your Officers recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to the S106 Agreement explained above and taking into account the following points:-
The proposal will provide an acceptable development appropriate to secure the long-term future and security of the listed walled garden and associated structures.
The proposed design and layout of the site is appropriate within the context of the previously approved development and would not compromise the heritage asset in terms of the appreciation of the listed structures in their immediate context, wider historical setting or landscape setting.
In view of the particular material planning considerations surrounding the proposal the application can be supported as an exception to the settlement policies contained within the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006) and the Core Strategy. The applications are accordingly recommended for approval in the light of national guidance, Development Plan policies, and other material considerations.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 31 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2010 (as amended).
58. When determining planning applications The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising. In this case the application could be recommended for approved without negotiation or amendment although requests for further information to justify the development were made and some additional information was forthcoming.
Page 100 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 22
RECOMMENDATION
(1) That, subject to no new material issues being raised by the Local Housing Authority, the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for:-
A financial contribution for off-site public open space provision;
A financial contribution for off-site affordable housing;
Secure conservation works to the water tower to the development of the building;
The tying of the walled garden and associated structures, and their maintenance, to Plot 11 and preventing the sale or lease of the walled garden separate to Plot 11;
The preclusion of any sub-division of the walled garden;
To ensure appropriate phasing of development. (2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Solicitor to the Council, the Corporate Manager (Development Management) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:-
Standard Time Limit for Commencement;
Materials (including fenestration and finishes);
Design details;
Landscaping;
Details of Boundary Treatments/Screen Walls/Fences;
Hard surface treatments;
As required by LHA;
Contamination;
Removal of ‘Permitted Development Rights’ for extensions, alterations, roof additions, outbuildings, mircogeneration and means of enclosure.
(3) That in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-
The applications fail to secure the identified conservation works;
The applications fail to make provision for public open space and affordable housing;
The proposals would not represent an acceptable departure from the provisions of the Local Plan.
Page 101 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 23
This page is intentionally left blank Item No: 3 Reference: B/15/00956/FUL
Parish: EAST BERGHOLT Ward Member: Cllrs. John Hinton and Stephen Williams
Location: Etheldene, Dazeleys Lane
Proposal: Erection of two-storey detached replacement dwelling (following demolition of existing dwelling); erection of single-storey detached 3 bay garage with attached store building; construction of replacement vehicular access (following stopping up of existing access); change of use of meadowland to domestic garden; and construction of swimming pool
Applicant: Mr and Mrs Lippert
Case Officer: Alex Scott Date for Determination:18 November 2015
RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission
This application is referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Williams
THE SITE
1. The proposal site lies at the eastern edge of the village of East Bergholt, to the south of Manningtree Road.
2. The site lies at the end of a row of dwellings located to the south-west side of Dazeleys Lane, an unmade track and public footpath leading from Manningtree Road in the North to the River Stour in the South.
3. The site lies completely within the Dedham Vale and Stour Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and part of the site (including the existing dwelling) falls within the village Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB).
4. The eastern portion of the proposal site, fronting Dazeleys Lane comprises an existing circa 1800 two-storey dwellinghouse, with mansard roof and associated garden curtilage.
5. The western portion of the site comprises part of an existing meadowland which lies behind the existing dwellings fronting Dazeleys Lane.
6. To the north-west of the proposal site lies the neighbouring residential property of no. 8 Clarence Cottages. This neighbouring dwelling has recently been extended by a two-storey side extension facing the proposal site at a distance of approximately 6 metres from the site boundary.
7. To the north-east of the site, across Dazeleys Lane, and to the south-east of the site, lie agricultural fields.
8. Site levels decrease from north to south, down Dazeleys Lane, at an approximate gradient of 1 in 24.
THE PROPOSAL
9. The application proposes the erection of a two-storey replacement dwelling, following demolition of the existing dwelling on the site. The proposed replacement dwelling is designed in the Georgian style.
Planning Committee Page 103 25 November 2015 24 10. The application also proposes the erection of a single-storey detached 3 bay garage/store building, adjacent to the north-west boundary of the site and an open air swimming pool adjacent to the south-east site boundary. A replacement vehicular access onto Dazeleys Lane is also proposed, following the stopping up of the existing vehicular access to the site.
11. The application also proposes the change of use of approximately 0.19 hectares of meadowland, to the rear of the existing dwelling and garden curtilage, to further residential garden land.
12. The dimensions of the buildings involved are given below:-
Building Max. Max. Eaves Max. Width Max Depth Minimum Ridge Height distance from Height Dazeleys Lane Existing 5.66 4.15 metres 12.1 metres 9.15 metres 5.5 metres Dwelling metres (two storey rear element) Proposed 8.02 5.25 metres 25.05 20.11 metres 7 metres Dwelling metres metres Proposed 4.60 2.65 metres 14.1 metres 6.5 metres 10.6 metres garage/store metres (facing building dwelling)
13. The proposed buildings would be finished in a mix of facing render and painted weatherboard, would have a natural slate roof, and would have painted timber windows.
14. The proposed 3 bay garage and store building would be finished facing oak weatherboarding above a soft red brick plinth, with a natural slate roof.
RELEVANT HISTORY
15. No direct planning history.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
16. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes.
17. Paragraph 115 sets out the NPPF’s policy with regards Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and states (inter alia) that:-
“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”
Planning Committee Page 104 25 November 2015 25 PLANNING POLICIES
1) Core Strategy
18. The Babergh Local Plan – Core Strategy and Policies (2014) was adopted on 25 February 2014 and is now fully operational. The following policies are relevant to this particular planning application:-
CS1 - Applying the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development in Babergh CS2 - Settlement Pattern Policy CS3 - Strategy for Growth and Development CS11 - Strategy for Development for Core and Hinterland Villages CS13 - Renewable / Low Carbon Energy CS15 - Implementing Sustainable Development in Babergh CS18 - Mix and Types of Dwellings
2) Saved policies in the Local Plan
19. The saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No. 2) adopted June 2006 should be regarded as material consideration in planning decisions. The following policies are applicable to the proposal:-
CN01 - Design Standards CR02 - AONB CR07 - Landscaping for development in the countryside CR10 - Change of use from Agricultural Land to Domestic Garden HS28 - Infill Housing Development TP15 - Parking Standards – New Development
20. The relevant policies can be viewed on line. Please see the notes attached to the schedule.
CONSULTATIONS
21. East Bergholt Parish Council – Recommend Refusal:-
Consider proposal inappropriately large for site and incompatible with adjoining cottages; Concern with regards the proposed ridge height visual impact as approach down Dazeleys Lane; Consider proposal would result in a visual intrusion on the Dedham Vale AONB; Concern with regards the conversion of meadowland to domestic use/garden; Proposal is against East Bergholt Draft Neighbourhood plan policy to retain meadowland.
22. County Highway Authority – Raise no objection – subject to conditions to ensure: appropriate provision of new access and retention of visibility splays; the provision and retention of on-site turning and parking; and entrance gates to be appropriately provided and to open into the site and not on to Dazeleys Lane.
23. Rights of Way Officer – SCC – No objection – request informative note advising applicant of responsibilities regarding the adjacent public right of way along Dazeleys Lane.
Planning Committee Page 105 25 November 2015 26 24. Dedham Vale and Stour Valley Project – Comments received:
In its current form, the proposal does not appear to have considered the potential visual impact of the development on the AONB aside from the immediate impact on Dazeleys Lane; To be satisfied that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the AONB, recommend further viewpoints are considered; The proposed change of use of the meadow to garden presents some concerns in relation to permitted development rights that may be associated with extending the domestic curtilage of the dwelling; There appears to be no detail of the proposed landscaping (planting scheme); A reduced curtilage for domestic purposes, with conditions to restrict exterior lighting, hard landscaping and other garden structures etc. could be considered.
25. The Archaeological Service – No comments received
26. Heritage Team – Recommends Approval:
The heritage team considers that the proposal would cause no harm to a designated heritage asset because the existing building is not considered to be of heritage value; Felt that the traditional nature of the proposed new building, a seemingly early 19th Century form with its apparent extensions, is most suitable as a replacement; Should the application be approved, recommend conditions to control joinery detail and materials
27. Arboricultural Officer – No comments received
28. Environmental Health – Land Contamination Issues – No objections to raise:
No potential cause for concern on this site from a contamination point of view; Request that the applicant is made aware that we are contacted in the event of unexpected ground conditions being encountered during construction and that the developer is made aware that the responsibility for the safe development of the site lies with them.
REPRESENTATIONS
29. Letters of representation have been received from 4 neighbouring properties. The content of which is summarised below:-
Concern with regards the suitability of the proposed access; Concern with regards the scale of the development close to four modest semi- detached dwellings in a small lane; Consider the proposed dwelling will be totally disproportionate to the historic character and nature of the other dwellings on the lane; Concern with regards the impact of the proposed garage on the neighbouring property at 8 Clarence Cottages with regards loss of light and solar gain; Concern that proposed ‘specimen’ planting behind the proposed garage would also result in loss of light to neighbour at 8 Clarence Cottages; Seek assurance the guidelines prescribed for development control decisions affecting AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) will be taken into account in the planning committee’s ultimate decision; Consider the proposal will be visible from the B1070 in winter months and would impact the historic and sensitive landscape; Concern with regard to the proposed change of use from meadow to domestic garden – concern remaining meadow land could still fall under the change of use application and could be ring fenced for further development, detracting from the beauty of the landscape; Concern that any approved change of use from meadowland to garden would result in the erection of fences and garden buildings which would be incongruous within the AONB; Planning Committee Page 106 25 November 2015 27 Consider the proposal is a stepping stone to further change of use to enable a property development activity; Concern with regards the increase in vehicular activity along Dazeleys Lane which would result should development be granted – note that the lane is narrow and concern that increased traffic would impede existing residents and farm vehicles – concern for the safety of elderly and children who regularly walk the lane – consider remedial work for the lane is necessary should permission be granted.
30. Suffolk Preservation Society – comments received:-
Consider that the proposal represents the loss of a character building and the replacement is of a scale and design which will not enhance the immediate setting of Dazeleys Lane; Consider the site is in an elevated, prominent location and the proposals will impact negatively upon the wider AONB; Reference given to the NPPF and development plan policy on AONBs; Consider the existing dwelling is highly visible from the Manningtree Road, particularly in winter months with reduced tree cover; Consider the existing cottage is of a sympathetic scale to the adjacent pair of Victorian Cottages on Dazeleys Lane and sits well within its plot which consists of a kitchen garden and a large area of informal meadow; Contend the statement that the existing dwelling has no historic significance and consider that it is one of the few remaining traditional cottages exhibiting the historic rural character distinctive to this area – consider its demolition would detract from the special qualities of the area; Consider that its replacement with a much larger building would detract from the area’s character; Consider the development proposals would be excessive in its scale and bulk and lacks a distinctive architectural style, evidenced by the pillared canopy porch and the large areas of glazing which cumulatively result in a muddled and uninspiring outcome, contrary to the provisions of current planning policy; Concern with regards the loss of meadow land and the extension of domestic curtilage which will include a swimming pool and will result in other possible domestic paraphernalia under permitted development rights in future – consider this would detract from the area’s rural and tranquil character and concern with regards the future retention of screening hedgerows.
31. The East Bergholt Society – comments received:-
Wish to object and write in support of East Bergholt Parish Council who recommend that the application be rejected; The proposed dwelling is on a massive scale, completely out of proportion with neighbouring cottages; The proposed dwelling would be highly visible from the approach to the village via Touchey Hill and from other parts of the AONB as Dazeleys Lane is in an elevated position.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
32. The following considerations are relevant to the assessment of the application proposal:-
Principle
33. The existing dwelling and the main body of the proposed dwelling (save for the proposed two-storey side extension element and the rear part of the proposed single storey range element) lie within the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of East Bergholt, wherein the principle of new housing development is considered acceptable. Furthermore, policy CS2 of the Development Plan lists East Bergholt as a Core Village and such settlements are expected to act as a focus for development within their functional cluster.
Planning Committee Page 107 25 November 2015 28 34. The existing dwelling on the site, proposed to be demolished, has been appraised by the Council’s Heritage Team who have concluded that the existing building is not considered to be of significant heritage value to be considered a heritage asset or to consider listing. As such, it is not considered that the principle of demolition of this existing building would result in harm to a heritage asset.
35. For the above reasons, the principle of the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of policies CS1, CS2 and CS11 of the development plan. The principle of the proposed development is therefore considered acceptable subject to consideration of other material planning issues. Issues considered central to the determination of the planning application are:-
Design and impact on the AONB;
Site access, parking and highway safety considerations;
Residential amenity;
Archaeology;
Contaminated land;
Other matters.
Design and impact on AONB
36. It is considered that the proposed scale, form and design of the proposed replacement dwelling, seemingly a Georgian manor house scale and form with apparent extensions to the side and rear, is appropriate to the scale of the existing site, its rural setting and the character of Dazeleys lane.
37. It is considered that the proposed single-storey garage and store building, to the north side of the proposed dwelling, is appropriate in its scale and appropriately frames the new dwelling.
38. By reason of the topography of the landscape, and bunded road verges with hedge planting atop, it is not considered that the proposal would be significantly noticeable from the Manningtree Road, even in winter time when leaf cover is at a minimum. As such, the proposal is not considered to have an adversely harmful impact on the visual amenity of the AONB landscape when viewed from wider vantage points.
39. By reason of the continuous hedge line to the south-west side of Dazeleys Lane and to the south-east field boundary of the site, and having had regard to the increase in site levels to the north, lowering the proposal site in relation to neighbouring properties to the north, it is considered that the proposal site and proposed buildings would be appropriately softened and screened in the AONB landscape when viewed from the adjacent lane.
40. It is not considered that the proposed garden extension to the rear of the existing property would significantly intrude into the meadowland and countryside, and it is not considered that the scale of the proposed garden extension would have an adverse impact on the landscape character and biodiversity of the locality. Furthermore, the proposal would not result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and would not threaten the viability of farm holdings due to the breaking up of agricultural land.
41. For the above reasons, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the sustainable development provisions of the NPPF and those of policies CN01, CR02, CR10, CS15 and HS28 of the development plan.
Planning Committee Page 108 25 November 2015 29 Site access, parking and highway safety considerations
42. It is considered that the proposed vehicular access would be provided in accordance with existing highways visibility standards and would represent a gain in being considered safer than the existing site access to be stopped up.
43. The existing and proposed dwellings, both being 4+ bedroom dwellings, would result in a need for the same amount of vehicles to be parked on the site (3 no.), as per current highways parking standards. It is therefore not considered that the proposal would result in a significant increase in the volume of vehicular traffic using Dazeleys Lane.
44. The application proposes the provision of 3 no. undercover garage parking spaces and at least 2 no. hardstanding parking spaces (total of 5 no. on-site parking spaces) and also provides adequate space to turn vehicles on-site to enable vehicles to re-enter Dazeleys Lane in forward gear. This proposed provision is considered to be in accordance with current advisory turning and parking standards, provided by the local highway authority.
45. For the above reasons, the proposal is not considered to result in a demonstrable severe impact on highway safety, and is therefore considered to be acceptable when assessed against paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
Residential amenity
46. The proposed dwelling would sit a minimum distance of 12 metres from the neighbouring property to the north and a minimum of 21 metres from the existing dwelling on this property. The proposed dwelling would also sit at a lower site level than the neighbouring dwelling which would serve to lessen its perceived impact.
47. The proposed garage and store outbuilding would be located 0.6 metres from the neighbouring property to the north and approximately 8 metres from the neighbouring dwelling. Due to the single-storey nature of this proposed building, the distance from the neighbouring dwelling and its position at a lower ground level, it is not considered that this proposed building would be excessively dominant or to result in a detrimental loss of daylight from the neighbouring property.
48. The proposed outbuilding would not include any fenestration facing the neighbouring property and facing windows of the proposed dwelling would be at a distance of at least 26 metres from the neighbouring dwelling. It is therefore not considered that the proposal would result in demonstrable harm in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy for the neighbouring property.
49. For the above reasons, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 17 of the NPPF and policy HS28 of the development plan which seek to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
Archaeology
50. The proposed buildings do not lie within an area of archaeological interest or potential and would sit in excess of 100 metres from the nearest such identified area. The proposed development is not, therefore, considered to result in harm to any areas which have been identified to have a probability of containing buried heritage assets.
51. For the above reasons, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 141 of the NPPF with regards archaeological investigation and recording.
Planning Committee Page 109 25 November 2015 30 Contaminated land
52. The applicant has submitted a land contamination assessment and completed questionnaire with the application. Assessment of this information by Council environmental protection officers has concluded that it is unlikely that future occupants of the site would be a significant risk from land contamination.
Other Matters
Crime and Disorder
53. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.
Biodiversity and Protected Species
54. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006, is so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 in relation to protected species.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2015 (as amended).
55. When determining planning applications The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising. In this case negotiation has occurred with the applicants and their agents and amendments to the application have been secured which enabled the application to be supported by planning officers.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to conditions including:-
Standard time limit;
Standard list of approved plans and documents;
Those required by the local highway authority;
Samples of external facing and roofing materials;
Samples of external colour finishes to be applied;
Large scale drawings of all new external windows and doors;
Landscaping and aftercare;
Precise details of any external lighting to be provided;
Removal of ‘permitted development rights’ for extension and alteration to the approved buildings and for the provisions of gates, walls, fences and outbuildings.
Planning Committee Page 110 25 November 2015 31
Item No: 4 Reference: B/15/01379/FUL
Parish: LITTLE CORNARD Ward Member: Cllr Lee Parker
Location: Kedington Gate, Bures Road
Proposal: Erection of replacement dwelling & associated works, including improvements to existing vehicular accesses.
Applicant: Foxearth Developments Ltd
Case Officer: John Davies Date for Determination: 20 November 2015
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission
This application is referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Newman.
THE SITE
1. The application site comprises a part two storey, part single storey detached dwelling located close to the Bures Road frontage and adjacent to a lane known as Kedington Hill. Apart from the house there is also an outbuilding and some redundant pig pens. To the rear of the house land forming part of the application site extends back nearly 200 metres adjoining the lane and is enclosed by a hedgerow.
2. The site is in the open countryside and is characterised by sporadic development dotted along and generally positioned close to the road. The land rises to the east behind the house. The surrounding land is designated as a Special Landscape Area forming part of the upper valley of the River Stour.
3. There is an existing vehicular access onto the lane.
THE PROPOSAL
4. The proposal is for a two storey replacement four bedroom dwelling and the retention and conversion of part of the existing house into a one and a half storey outbuilding providing garage, workshop and stores over.
5. The replacement dwelling would be sited around 45 metres back from the road edge and would comprise a neo Regency style villa with painted render walls and natural slate hipped roof.
6. The proposal would increase the size of the dwelling on the site from 169m² to 223m², which is an increase of 54m²(+32%) in floorspace. This excludes the retained outbuilding, which has a floorspace of 134m² on two floors. Taken together with the increase in the size of the dwelling (54m²) this would increase total floorspace by 188m² or 111%.
7. This application is a resubmission of a previously refused application for the same development. The only differences with the previous application is that new tree planting is shown on the proposed site plan on the frontages to Bures road and Kedington Hill to provide screening of the development and the proposed dpc level (or ridge height) of the replacement dwelling has been reduced by 300mm.
8. The application documents can be viewed on line via the planning pages on the District Council’s website.
Planning Committee Page 111 25 November 2015 32
RELEVANT HISTORY
9. B/15/00931/FUL Erection of replacement dwelling & associated works, including improvements to existing vehicular accesses - Refused
10. 68/646/FUL New dwelling and access – Granted
11. S/442/FUL Rebuilding kitchen addition - Granted
12. S/442/1/FUL New access to garage - Granted
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
13. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law, and the NPPF, continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes.
14. The NPPF is supported by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which assists applicants and decision makers to interpret the NPPF. Both the NPPF and PPG are referred to within this report where relevant to the assessment.
PLANNING POLICIES
15. The Development Plan comprises the Babergh Core Strategy 2014 and saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006. The following policies are applicable to the proposal:
Babergh Core Strategy 2014 CS1- Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS2- Settlement Pattern Policy CS3- Strategy for Growth and Development CS11- Core and Hinterland Villages CS15- Sustainable Development in Babergh
Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006 HS05 –Replacement Dwellings CR04- Special Landscape Areas CN01- Design Standards TP15- Parking Standards
Supplementary Planning Documents
The relevant policies can be viewed on line. Please see the notes attached to the schedule.
CONSULTATIONS
16. Little Cornard PC – To be reported.
17. County Archaeologist - Request programme of archaeological work.
18. Environmental Health - Land Contamination Issues-To be reported.
Planning Committee Page 112 25 November 2015 33
REPRESENTATIONS
19. One response has been received from a neighbour living at Kedington Grange which is located further to the east along Kedington Hill. The neighbour raises concerns about possible overlooking from the new dwelling during the Winter months.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
20. From an assessment of planning policies, public representations and other material considerations, the main considerations are considered to be:
Principle of Development
21. The main policy relevant to the assessment of the application is saved LP policy HS05 which deals with replacement dwellings in the countryside. The existing dwelling is located in the open countryside on the Bures Road, which links Great Cornard/Sudbury and the village of Bures. The house is approximately 1 km from Sudbury to the north.
Policy HS05 states as follows:
HS05 Outside the built-up areas of Towns and Villages, planning permission may be granted to replace a dwelling and ancillary outbuildings on or very close to the same site if:
the size and massing of the replacement is not significantly different to those of the original dwelling to be replaced;
the new dwelling is of a design which is sympathetic in scale, mass, materials and
architectural details to the character of the surrounding development;
the proposals would not cause the felling or prejudice the retention of any significant trees
that contribute to the environmental quality of the area;
the new dwelling has a safe vehicular access;
the new dwelling is no more visually intrusive than the original dwelling;
the existing dwelling is not a listed building; and
there is no increase in the number of dwellings on the site.
22. The proposed dwelling is not on the same site as the existing building and is shown positioned approximately 37 metres back from the existing building's frontage. The new house, with a proposed ground to ridge height of 7.5 metres, would also be significantly taller than the ridge of the existing house which is only 5 metres high. There is also an increase in ground levels as the plot rises from the road towards the east by around 1.5 metres. The applicant has sought to mitigate the increase in height by setting the building into the ground so that the dpc level would be 300mm lower than the previous scheme.
23. The supporting text to Policy HS05 states that increases of only 30-35% in floorspace may be acceptable. In this case the increase based on that in the replacement dwelling and retained building is in excess of 100%. Taking all the above considerations into account it is clear that the proposed replacement dwelling represents a significantly larger dwelling than the existing in terms of its size and massing. This differential would be magnified by its more elevated siting on rising ground behind the existing dwelling. The lowering of the height of the building, as proposed, would have only a limited impact on the assessment of the height of the development.
Planning Committee Page 113 25 November 2015 34
24. Based on the above assessment it is considered that the proposal would be in clearly contrary Policy HS05 which among other things requires the size and massing of the replacement to be not significantly different to those of the original dwelling and for it to be no more visually intrusive. However, consideration must also be given as to what demonstrable harm would arise from the proposal. In assessing this it is noted that the site is in open countryside where existing development along Bures Road is sporadic and generally located close to the road frontage with open views beyond to the countryside, particularly to the east where the land rises and views are particularly open. The surrounding land is also designated as a Special Landscape Area based around the Stour Valley which reflects its importance in visual and landscape terms. The new house would, to some degree, be screened by two large established trees behind the existing house which are to be retained. The applicant also proposes additional tree planting along the road frontages. However, such screening will take a long time to develop and views of the new dwelling from the north along Bures Road would still be offered and would show the prominence of the new dwelling as well as the retained outbuilding on the frontage.
Design and Layout
25. The replacement dwelling is designed as a two storey Victorian villa property with a formal symmetrical frontage with painted render and a shallow pitched slate roof. The design and materials are of good quality and it is not considered that it would represent an over-development of the plot.
Highway Issues
26. The proposed development would utilise an existing access and as a replacement dwelling there would be no intensification of its use.
Neighbour Amenity
27. The plot is in an isolated location with no near neighbours. There are no amenity impacts likely. The objector at Kedington Grange is located around 200m up the hill from the site and it is not felt that any amenity impacts would be likely to arise.
Trees and Landscape
28. No trees are protected by TPO and there is no other tree protection in place. The proposals show the protection of a large monkey puzzle tree and a willow tree on the site positioned in between the retained outbuilding and new house. Trees are also shown retained along the southern boundary. The scheme also proposes additional tree planting.
Planning Balance
29. It is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to Saved Policy HS05 as the development would represent an over-large and prominent replacement dwelling in the countryside contrary to saved LP policies CN01, HS05 and CR04 and Core Strategy Policy CS15.
Crime and Disorder
30. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.
Planning Committee Page 114 25 November 2015 35
Biodiversity and Protected Species
31. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006, is so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 in relation to protected species.
CONCLUSION - PLANNING BALANCE
32. When taken as a whole and as a matter of planning judgement, for the reason given above, the proposal is not considered to adhere to the development plan and NPPF and therefore cannot be considered sustainable development. The NPPF states that development that conflicts with an up to date development plan should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case there are no material considerations that would justify an approval. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2015 (as amended).
33. When determining planning applications The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising. In this case the application proposals represent a clear departure from policies contained in the Development Plan and any amendments to the proposals could not address these ‘in-principle’ objections.
RECOMMENDATION
That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:
The replacement dwelling would have an adverse impact on the surrounding countryside by reason of its scale and siting. Moreover, a significant part of the existing dwelling is proposed to be retained and converted to a large outbuilding, which would have the effect of exacerbating the amount of built form in a prominent location visible from the main road.
The application would accordingly be contrary to saved policies CN01, HS05 and CR04 of the Babergh Local Plan and Policy CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy.
Planning Committee Page 115 25 November 2015 36
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
R66
BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE 25 NOVEMBER 2015
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Item Page Application No. Location Officer Decision No.
APPLICATIONS REQUIRING REFERENCE TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
SPROUGHTON – Lane to the North 1. 5-52 B/15/00993/FUL GW and South of Poplar Lane
Christine Thurlow Corporate Manager - Development Management
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\251115-ApplicationList3.docx
Planning Committee Page 117 25 November 2015 1
BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS MADE UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, AND ASSOCIATED LEGISLATION, FOR DETERMINATION OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
This Schedule contains proposals for development which, in the opinion of the Corporate Manager - Development Management, do not come within the scope of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers adopted by the Council or which, although coming within the scope of that scheme, she/he has referred to the Committee to determine.
Background Papers in respect of all of the items contained in this Schedule of Applications are:-
1. The particular planning, listed building or other application or notification (the reference number of which is shown in brackets after the description of the location).
2. Any documents containing supplementary or explanatory material submitted with the application or subsequently.
3. Any documents relating to suggestions as to modifications or amendments to the application and any documents containing such modifications or amendments.
4. Documents relating to responses to the consultations, notifications and publicity both statutory and non-statutory as contained on the case file together with any previous planning decisions referred to in the Schedule item.
DELEGATION TO THE CORPORATE MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
The delegation to the Head of Economy includes the power to determine the conditions to be imposed upon any grant of planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area consent or advertisement consent and the reasons for those conditions or the reasons to be imposed on any refusal in addition to any conditions and/or reasons specifically resolved by the Planning Committee.
(Minute No 48(a) of the Council dated 19 October 2004).
PLANNING POLICIES
The Development Plan comprises saved polices in the Babergh Local Plan adopted June 2006. The reports in this paper contain references to the relevant documents and policies which can be viewed at the following addresses:-
The Babergh Local Plan: http://www.babergh.gov.uk/babergh/LocalPlan
National Planning Policy Framework: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf
Planning Committee Page 118 25 November 2015 2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS SCHEDULE
AWS Anglian Water Services
CFO County Fire Officer
LHA Local Highway Authority
EA Environment Agency
EH English Heritage
NE Natural England
HSE Health and Safety Executive
MoD Ministry of Defence
PC Parish Council
PM Parish Meeting
SPS Suffolk Preservation Society
SWT Suffolk Wildlife Trust
TC Town Council
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\141015-ApplicationList.docx
Planning Committee Page 119 25 November 2015 3
Planning Committee Page 120 25 November 2015 4 BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
25 November 2015
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA BUT BEFORE 12 NOON ON THE WORKING DAY BEFORE THE MEETING AND ERRATA
Paper R66
Item Pages Summary No 1 5-52 Errata – Page 8, Heading ‘Supplementary Planning Documents’ should read ‘Informal Planning Document/Masterplan’.
Errata – Page 44, Paragraph 361, Bullet No.11, should read;
“Travel Plan implementation bond to cover the full residential element of the development up to £787,526”.
Errata – Page 45, Paragraph 365.
Replace ‘starter homes’ with ‘intermediate housing as discount to market’.
Errata – Page 48, Recommendation, Bullet No.14, should read;
“Travel Plan implementation bond to cover the full residential element of the development up to £787,526. This was reduced following clarification of requirements from Suffolk County Council Highways Department”.
Further representation received;
Burstall Parish Council, Received 24th November 2015
“Burstall Parish Council wish to object to the Taylor Wimpey UK application for Wolsey Grange/Poplar Lane.
This proposal is not within the parish of Burstall but is of such a size and in very close proximity to it that it is our view that it will have a significantly detrimental impact on the parish.
The council wish to make it clear that we understand the need for housing and employment in the area but believe that this proposal is inappropriate for the following reasons.
Transport The road network connection for the site is onto the A1071 close to the existing Hadleigh Road junction and traffic lights.
Page1 121 Item Pages Summary No This area of the A1071 from the A1214 junction back towards Burstall and Hintlesham through the existing roundabout and its connections to Sproughton and Washbrook & Copdock have caused concern for some years due to the increased volumes of traffic using this road and the congestion this causes at peak times. It is indeed common in the morning rush hour to find traffic queening from the A1214 back to Ivywell Farm Sproughton a distance of 1.3 miles. This causes lengthy delays and many vehicles leave the B1071 and travel through Burstall and down Burstall Lane to Sproughton. This rat running now sometimes involving Coaches, is causing a risk to motorist’s safety. The thought of adding traffic to this already heavily congested network as proposed from 145 homes for now but up to 475 homes in the future can do nothing to improve matters. It is our belief that an extensive and robust traffic survey needs to be undertaken to test the assumptions made by the developer and Highways department in order for local residents and road users to be sure of being appropriately protected, paying particular attention to the road Junctions on Burstall Lane.
Traffic increases through all of the aforementioned villages whenever a local traffic incident occurs on the A12 or A14 in the area causing very long delays in Sproughton, on Burstall Lane and on the B1071, the proposed development will again only make these very frequent occurrences considerably worse, and allowances should be made within the review / proposal for this.
The “we know there are major problems but we’ll sort them out later” philosophy is unacceptable with regard to (Site 9), the B1113/Lower St/Burstall Lane junction in Sproughton. The review indicates a severe impact with unacceptable queuing but then states:
“AECOM consider that other factors may come into effect, which would cause the increase in queuing on Burstall Lane to not be as severe as predicted…”
As the review’s interpretation of the actual problem at this junction is incorrect no comfort should be drawn from this vague suggestion; exactly what other factors “may come into effect”?
On the basis of this examples alone it is clear that the statement in the review’s summary, that the development will not result in residual cumulative impacts that could be deemed ‘severe’, is unsafe and should at the very least be fully tested.
Size & Design When this site was originally proposed for housing Babergh district Council considered 350 homes a suitable number. This current application proposes a total of 475 homes as well as employment and potential education uses.
On houses alone this is a 35% increase on what was originally considered appropriate by Babergh and on the basis of such a significant increase which we believe is disproportionate to the requirements of the community, the proposal should be refused.
Page 2122 Item Pages Summary No On design the proposals do not in our opinion reflect well on the fact that this development is essentially in a rural landscape and what is proposed is much more of an urban style. This should be addressed and a redesign sought that adequately allows for a more natural blending in to the surrounding countryside, and an overall decrease in density. Sproughton is after all a village and not a suburb of Ipswich.
There is mention of the project viability at point 363 stating that the 350 homes is not viable with the high infrastructure costs associated with the site. This we believe is not a planning matter developer profit is a purely commercial point and an increase in overall numbers of houses should not be sanctioned just to satisfy the financial returns required by a developer.
Education The proposals talk of provision of a primary school on site but this seems by no means guaranteed. Burstall children currently attend Sproughton Primary school which is already at capacity, and in order to safeguard this for the future, the construction of a primary School prior to occupation of the dwellings should be guaranteed.
In summary on Design, Overall size, Transport links and Education provision we feel this proposal falls short of the standards and requirements of the surrounding parishes and therefore we urge this committee to refuse this application as it stands or at the very least defer the proposal to a later meeting of this committee in order particularly for the assumptions made regarding traffic to be tested robustly against actual data to be gathered from the surrounding road network over a period of weeks of normal activity, and for more consideration to be given to the number of houses and the design of the layout.”
Representation: Email received 8th September 2015
“Dear Planning Officer,
The Taylor Wimpey Planning Statement for the Wolsey Grange, Ipswich planning application says that the Ipswich Wolsey Strategic Masterplan Document T.0294_22-3 MAY 2015 has been endorsed by the Council.
I do note that the Council's web page says a Development Brief or Master Plan once endorsed by the District Council is used as a guidance document to inform the consideration of future planning applications.
But to help me understand what is going on here, please answer the following questions.
What is the meaning of endorsement in this context?
Where is the procedure for endorsement of Masterplans set out?
What was the endorsement procedure followed by the Council?
Page3 123 Item Pages Summary No Did the endorsement process establish whether the Masterplan conforms with the adopted core strategy, fulfils its aims and aspirations, and addresses the matters raised by those consulted?
Where can I see the Council's record of what it did to reach its endorsement decision?
Is the Masterplan capable of being a material consideration in planning decisions? If so, where is provision made?
Does the Council intend there to be an SPD associated with the Masterplan so it can be a material consideration?
If I need to direct these questions elsewhere within the Council, please point me to the right place.
Yours faithfully, Clive Harris”
Response sent 10th September 2015
“Dear Mr Harris
Please find attached a copy of Planning Committee Report R25 of 22 July 2015 together with an extract of the associated minutes (see item 30 on page 7).
The report and minute describe the Masterplan process and summarise the consultations undertaken to inform that. I believe that these papers answer your various questions regarding the Masterplan and its status. It is not expected that a SPD will be prepared as the Masterplan fulfils the expectations of Policy CS7.
Regards
Gemma Walker Senior Planning Officer”
Subsequent Email received 14th September 2015:
“Dear Gemma Walker,
Thank you for providing the information the Council holds relating to my various questions regarding the Masterplan and its status.
I note that the stated purpose of report R25 is to set out the provisions of the Strategic Master Plan Document. But it seems to me that the Council has not tested whether the Masterplan fulfils the expectations of Policy CS7.
The Babergh Local plan 2011-2031 under Policy CS7 sets out requirements for the masterplan as (i) for what it is to be based upon and designed around, and (ii) for what links are to be provided for users, journeys and services.
Page 4124 Item Pages Summary No Also Policy CS7 describes the purpose of the masterplan; to demonstrate and include the items (i to Viii) supported by studies and evidence.
However, the report makes no assessment of whether the requirements (i & ii) for the masterplan have been fulfilled, and whether the items (i to Viii) have been demonstrated and included as they should.
Therefore, a claim that "The Strategic Master Plan fulfils the expectations of Policy CS7 as set out in the adopted Babergh Core Strategy", as stated in the report R25 under the heading Conclusion in paragraph 8.18, seems to be without foundation.
Furthermore, the R25 recommendation (now resolved) is that that the Masterplan be used with immediate effect to guide the consideration of future planning applications on the site. This begs the question how much weight the Masterplan will carry, and whether or not adherence to it will be a material consideration when determining planning applications. Answers to such questions can affect the outcome because there are differences evident between the Masterplan and the Local Plan; for example in the number of homes making up the proposed new community in policy area CS7.
Please receive the concerns I raise, and tell me how the Council intends to deal with them.
If the Council's procedures require me to direct these concerns elsewhere within the Council, or through my District Councillors, please advise me accordingly.
Yours sincerely, Clive Harris”.
Further Response sent 23rd September 2015:
“Dear Mr Harris
Gemma has passed me your email of 14 September and I apologise for the delay in response. I note your comments and respond as follows.
Firstly I would comment that in my opinion the Key Information contained within the report appropriately addresses the issues within requirement [i] and [ii] of policy CS7 concerning, in summary, green infrastructure and links. Policy CS7 sets out within a further [i] to [viii] matters which should be demonstrated by the Masterplan and supporting studies / feasibility/ viability evidence. I note that in both instances the policy asserts these matters with the discretionary wording "should" rather than an obligatory "shall" prefix. In my opinion an informed reader considering report R25 "Strategic Master Plan Document: Babergh Ipswich Fringe" as a whole and in particular paragraphs 8.4 to 8.18 would conclude that the masterplan fulfils the requirements [i] and [ii]. The report acknowledges that the Masterplan document contains a contextual appraisal of the site and its surroundings and the design evolution process.
Page5 125 Item Pages Summary No The Committee paper moreover references the Masterplan which was a background document together with the consultation reports. In my opinion that appropriately links onward to the relevant supporting studies and evidence upon which the Masterplan was based and addresses as a whole the matters [i] to [viii].
The Masterplan is, as the report states, to establish a set of overarching principles for the site and contains the necessary high level design guidance required to inform the consideration of future planning applications on the site. It is not intended to fulfil every last detail but is in our opinion appropriate for agreement as an informal planning document which has undergone some consultation.
For the record we do consider that the Masterplan contains the necessary high level design guidance in a spatial / illustrative form which can enable the informed consideration of future planning applications on the site and that the Masterplan fulfils the expectations of Policy CS7.
I acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion between us as to whether the document is well founded. In the circumstances I propose that your comments and this response be reported to Planning Committee at the time the application is determined for open consideration by the decision making body concerned. The Committee will be at liberty to make their own mind up on the matter.
The weight to be attached to any material consideration is for the decision maker at the time of decision. The increased number of dwellings within the project has been clearly acknowledged and will be part of the consideration of merits at the time the application is determined. It is not the role of the Masterplan to determine whether this is or is not appropriate.
Regards
Philip Isbell Corporate Manager - Development Management”
Habitats Regulation Assessment Screening Report was received on 6th November 2015 and is appended to this addendum.
Christine Thurlow Corporate Manager – Development Management
24 November 2015
K:\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2015\251115-Addendum Paper R66.docx
Page 6126 Item No: 1 Reference: B/15/00993/FUL
Parish: SPROUGHTON Ward Members: Cllrs Barry Gasper and Nick Ridley Location: Land to the north and south of, Poplar Lane
Proposal: Hybrid planning application in relation to: Outline planning consent (all matters reserved) for 29.7ha of mixed use development, comprising: - the erection of up to 475 dwellings (10.74ha); - 4ha of employment land, to include A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 and Sui Generis use classes; - 1.2ha of land for primary education use; - public open space, including childrens play areas; and, - associated landscaping, sustainable urban drainage systems and highway improvements. Full planning consent for residential development of 11.83ha of the outline application site, comprising: - the erection of 145 dwellings; - public open space and children's play areas (LEAP+); - green infrastructure, hard and soft landscaping, and boundary treatments; - sustainable urban drainage systems and pumping station; - highway improvements; and, - an electricity substation.
Applicant: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd. and Building Partnerships Ltd.
Case Officer: Gemma Walker Date for Determination: 3 November 2015
RECOMMENDATION:Subject to a Section 106 Agreement, Grant Planning Permission
This application is referred to Development Committee as the proposal is of a scale that requires consideration by Members
A Panel of Members inspected the site on 21 October 2015
THE SITE
1. The application site forms an area of land bounded by the A14, A1214 London Road and by the A1071, although an area of the site projects northwards beyond the A1071 into a small valley. Poplar Lane, a no-through road runs through the site from the A1071 towards the A14.
2. Adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the site is The Holiday Inn Hotel, situated on the junction between the A1214 London Road and A1071. Accessed from Poplar Lane are five residential properties, including the Grade II Listed Poplar Farm enclosed by the application site, and Thompson and Morgan, one of the UKs largest mail order seed and plant companies, situated to the west of the site. To the southern-western corner of the application site is another residential property, served by a separate access from London Road.
3. The wider surrounding area is varied in character, with the urban edge of Ipswich to the East of the site, agricultural land and Chantry Park to the north in the intervening space between the site and the built up area of Ipswich. To the South the site adjoins the Interchange Retail Park adjacent to the A12/A14 junction. To the West is the A14 and subsequently open countryside.
4. The site forms the majority of the area identified in Policy CS7 Strategic Site Allocation for the Babergh Ipswich Fringe.
Page 127 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 5
THE PROPOSAL
5. This application is a hybrid application for part outline and part full planning permission.
6. The outline aspect of the proposal would extend to 29.7ha, comprising 10.74ha of land for residential development, with up to 475 dwellings proposed, 1.2ha of land for a primary school, 4ha for employment development to include A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking establishments), A5 (hot food takeaways), D1 (non-residential institutions including health centres, crèches, museums and libraries), D2 (assembly and leisure including cinemas, music, concert, bingo and dance halls) and sui generis uses, 2.2ha for public open space including children's play areas, landscaping and 5.39ha for green infrastructure, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) and highway improvements.
7. The full part of the application extends to 11.83ha, comprising 145 dwelling houses, 1.14ha for public open space including a children's play area, landscaping including 3.62ha of green infrastructure, SuDS, highway improvements and an electricity substation.
8. The residential land in the full application is an area of land on the eastern side of the application site, between Poplar Lane and the A1071. This proposal would provide the following mix of dwellings:
Market Housing Affordable Housing 1 bedroom apartments 0 6 2 bedroom apartments 0 6 2 bedroom house 24 10 3 bedroom house 80 6 4 bedroom house 10 1 5 bedroom house 2 0
Total 116 29
9. The mix of dwellings for the remainder of the site would form part of reserved matters details.
10. The application documents can be viewed on line via the planning pages on the District Council's website.
RELEVANT HISTORY
11. B/86/01144/OUT - Outline application for residential, public park, shops, public house, medical centre, supermarket, exhibition centre, business park and construction of new roads and alteration to existing roads.
12. This application was refused as contrary to the County Structure Plan and proposed alterations to the County Structure Plan with regards to the scale and location of future large scale development and as the proposal would not maintain the open character of land which separates the villages around Ipswich from each other and from Ipswich itself. In addition, as the application would break through the strong existing visual edge to Ipswich into an area of attractive countryside, the environment of which would be unacceptably disturbed and as significant views into the area would be seriously and adversely affected. The loss of agricultural land, material increase in traffic using existing roads which do not have sufficient capacity and that the application did not demonstrate that the site can be satisfactorily drained to public sewerage were also reasons for refusal.
13. B/89/00263 - Outline application for erection of offices, petrol filing station, non-food retail outlets, garden centre, diner and residential development together with construction of all roads, access, car parking and service facilities.
14. This application was withdrawn. Page 128 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 6
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
15. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government's planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law and the NPPF continue to require that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes.
16. The NPPF is supported by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which assists applicants and decision makers to interpret the NPPF. Both the NPPF and PPG are referred to within this report where relevant to the assessment.
PLANNING POLICIES
17. The Development Plan comprises the Babergh Core Strategy 2014 and saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006. The following policies are applicable to the proposal:
Babergh Core Strategy 2014
CS1 Applying the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS2 Settlement Pattern Policy CS3 Strategy for Growth and Development CS7 Strategic Site Allocation - Babergh Ipswich Fringe CS12 Sustainable Design and Construction Standards CS13 Renewable/Low Carbon Energy CS14 Green Infrastructure CS15 Implementing Sustainable Development CS18 Mix and Type of Dwellings CS19 Affordable Homes CS21 Infrastructure Provision
Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006
EN22 Light Pollution SP02 Retail Trip Generating Development SP03 Retail Development Outside Town Centres HS31 Public Open Space HS34 Smaller Dwellings CR04 Special Landscape Areas CR07 Landscaping Schemes CR08 Hedgerows CN01 Design Standards CN04 Design and Crime Prevention TP01 Pedestrians TP02 Public Right of Way TP03 Provision of Cycle Routes TP15 Parking Standards - New Development TP16 Green Travel Plans TP17 Transport Assessment
Page 129 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 7
Supplementary Planning Documents
Ipswich Fringe Wolsey Grange Strategic Masterplan Document July 2015
18. Core Strategy Policy CS7 sets out the strategic site allocation and requires a Masterplan. The details set out in Policy CS7 informed the preparation of an initial Strategic Masterplan. The draft Masterplan underwent consultation, with a public consultation event in January 2015, a six-week consultation in May/June 2015 and a further public exhibition in June 2015. These consultations also included the site and neighbouring Parish Councils as well as Ipswich Borough Council.
19. The Masterplan was also presented to the Design Review Panel, 'Design: South East'.
20. The Masterplan was considered at Planning Committee on 22nd July 2015, with the recommendation and subsequent resolution that "the content of the Strategic Master Plan Document, Babergh Ipswich Fringe be noted as an informal planning document that will be used with immediate effect to guide the consideration of future planning applications on the site."
Affordable Housing SPD (2014) Suffolk County Parking Standards (2015)
21. The relevant policies can be viewed on line. Please see the notes attached to the schedule.
CONSULTATIONS
Sproughton Parish Council
22. Object for the following reasons:
On 13th October 1987 a public enquiry was held into the appeal by Wilcon Homes against the refusal of their planning application to develop Chantry Vale, which reasons are still valid: Loss of agricultural land Material increase of traffic on roads which do not have sufficient capacity Break through strong existing visual edge into countryside.
23. In June 2009 BDC completed its final report of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. It ruled out development of a nearby site, SB280, on the other side of the A1071 on the grounds of access constraints. Infrastructure changes have not been substantial since then and the same constraints apply now.
24. Taylor Wimpey are proposing 475 houses. This goes against Policy CS7, which references 'approximately' 350 houses. 475 houses is a 35% increase on 350, by no means 'approximately 350 houses'. 475 houses is almost equivalent to another Sproughton.
25. Taylor Wimpey own land on the other side of the A1071 up to Chantry Park. It is entirely possible that Taylor Wimpey will apply to build on that land in the future and the 1987 development plan for that area was 1400 houses. This again is against policy CS7.
26. High quality agricultural land being used, could the brown-field sugar beet site be used instead? Although primarily designated as a commercial development site, 350 homes would only take up a fraction of the site with little impact on its primary allocation and significantly less impact on the environment.
27. The site is defined as Special Landscape Area. Development in this area is supposed to be minimised at best, and sensitively designed if done at all.
Page 130 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 8
28. A substantial area to the south or Poplar Lane is either undesignated or designated for commercial use with no plan that guarantees its development as such. This area is entirely sufficient to provide a residential development of 350 homes and would bring residents within walking distance of shops etc. and place the development below the skyline views from Chantry Vale and Chantry Park. The area north of Poplar Lane would then be available for any future commercial development using low aspect buildings to hide them below the skyline.
29. Three storey flats are proposed bordering the A1071, due to the height of the bank these would appear 5 storeys high with a significant visual impact.
30. 35% of the development should be affordable housing, the first phase consists 20%, later phases would have to have more than 35%, is this financially viable?
31. There does not seem to be provision for older people, there are no bungalows.
32. Swapping the employment with the industrial area would help retain a natural boundary to the development reducing the possibility of housing jumping to the other side of the A1071 and down to the A14/Church Lane area, thereby retaining the identity of Sproughton as a village.
33. The local style of historic buildings appears to have been ignored e.g. Poplar Farmhouse, Springvale Cottages, Red House - the development would blend better if the style were taken into account.
34. The surveys appear to be primarily for the avoidance of liability within the site. Local knowledge reveals the potential for insects, bats, plants and wildlife in and adjacent to this SLA not investigated or considered.
35. Insufficient information available to determine that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on designated sites or protected and or UK/Suffolk Priority Species.
36. Welcome mitigation recommendations but concerned surveys inadequate. Concerned that relevant issues including beetles, insects, mammals, flora, fauna etc. do not appear to have been researched. Ask that planning approval rejected until proper surveys are completed, considered and verified.
37. Chantry Vale is not just an SLA but this site is also listed as some of the best and most versatile agricultural land in the area. Question the wisdom of destroying the best farmland in that area when the sugar beet factory could easily accommodate a mixed development.
38. The landscape survey does not recognise the present border of the SLA with urbanisation is predominantly the wide buffer of duel carriageway London Road with wide grass central reservations, borders, hedgerows and trees. The Landscape report also appears to have overlooked the raised bank along the A1071. This is about 15 foot high at the points Taylor Wimpey proposed to put in three storey flats. They will be effectively as high as a 5 storey block plus their pitched roofs and therefore a dramatic corruption of the skyline from Chantry Vale.
39. From viewpoint 8 there is a negligible residential impact visually on the vale from urbanisation and only limited impact from commercial/education premises. But this is considered adequate justification to breach the natural buffer of the London Road with residential development with a greater visual impact.
40. The development should be adequately screened by trees from the remaining SLA of Chantry Vale. This is proposed but we feel completely inadequate for the scale and design of the proposed development.
41. Loss of special landscape area with creeping coalescence, creeping urbanisation and progressive destruction of a beautiful valley.
Page 131 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 9
42. Request more consideration is given to how they will conserve or enhance the special landscape adjacent to the site.
43. BDC make reference to Gipping Valley footpath, Chantry Park and Belstead Brook Park, with no mention of the remaining Chantry Vale itself. Development in this area brings the urbanisation of Ipswich closer to Sproughton which we strongly object to.
44. This appears to be a blunt integration into the landscape to the visual benefit of the development perhaps, but to the detriment of the adjacent landscape.
45. This farmland is a plateau at the top of rolling hills and a complicated valley. The site may be uninteresting but it impacts on landscape of significant visual value.
46. Disagree with Landscape Report as it relies on conclusions that appear to ignore the natural border of the London Road and the raised land above the bank along the A1071 and three storey flats proposed for the northern edge of the development.
47. Main concern in respect of Arboricultural Survey is removal of several trees at the junction of Poplar Lane and the A1071. If they are not to be replaced this would be a further corruption of the visual aspect of the skyline from within the SLA. Also concerned about screening along A1071.
48. Lack of information about site designation, and level of responses not due to lack of concern, but due to lack of notification. Public response is only just developing and few people have had time to consider this application properly and may not have had time to refine their responses.
49. Taylor Wimpey claim that improvements will mitigate the increased volumes from Wolsey Grange but have been unwilling to explain how they reached the conclusion. Our objections relating to traffic are:
Adverse impact on the amenity of Sproughton Village and level of service provided by the surrounding transport network. Deficiencies in the assessment of transport impacts: Exclusion of traffic generated from committed and future developments Employment sensitivity tests - transport network performance not tested Irrational claim that development impact is diminished by growth impact Incredible performance predicted for the Wild Man junction Route apportionment for trip distribution belies observations and under estimates impacts Inadequacy of the transport infrastructure to support the proposed development.
50. Transport Assessment ignores cumulative impact in locations where other committed and planned future developments also have impact. For example, the permitted Great Blakenham Housing, Snoasis and Tomato Greenhouse developments also each require the Beagle and Wild Man junctions to accommodate additional traffic flows individually generated by each development. An assessment of the overall cumulative impact at a particular location can only be robust if the total impact from all developments affecting that location are taken into account.
51. The assessment only tests the employment sensitivity of one junction on the transport network.
52. The results of operational assessments show that 11 of the 13 junctions have insufficient space capacity to accommodate predicated traffic flows generated by the development. That is without taking sensitivity to employment traffic generated by the planned development into account.
Page 132 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 10
53. Given widespread lack of spare capacity in the network surrounding the proposed development it is essential that all affected junctions are tested for employment sensitivity.
54. The Transport Assessment concludes that the impact of the development traffic will be insignificant, this is dependent upon a value judgement that if the impact of the development traffic is less than half the impact of predicted growth, the impact of the development will be insignificant.
55. The statements made imply that because growth in traffic is high, the impact from development traffic is less severe. Both growth traffic and development traffic add to the impact, which is cumulative.
56. Query over errors in measurement of traffic at Wild Man junction.
57. By assuming that the route through Sproughton village only takes a fraction of the traffic to and from the north-west, the assessment underestimates the impact upon this part of the network.
58. The transport assessment shows that the transport network would not provide a reasonable level of service, even with the proposed transport schemes in place.
59. Can surgeries cope with the additional demand? Pinewood has fewer GPs than it should and 50% more patients per GP than NHS recommendations.
60. Concern that the school is unlikely to be built as it would be too small to be viable. Sproughton Primary School is already at capacity.
61. Ultimately Sproughton could be absorbed into Ipswich as the green space is gradually built on.
62. Other developments are either underway or planned which will all increase the loading on existing infrastructure. Although additional facilities can be provided and traffic mitigation measures undertaken, there is no guarantee that these will work and little confidence that they will be provided. If this development goes ahead developers should pay for additional traffic mitigation measures if their traffic model proves to be incorrect.
Pinewood Parish Council
63. Approves in principle the need for building development, the Council remains unconvinced that the measures suggested by the developers will alleviate the traffic problems caused by the proposed development.
64. The proposal is one of a number of projects being considered for this area now and in the future which could lead to an even greater increase in the number of houses being built. A review of the infrastructure needs of this area should be undertaken by the highway authorities before this planning application is progressed. We believe it places an unacceptably high burden on the local traffic infrastructure even when suggested road improvements are taken into consideration.
65. The roads in our locality are already suffering from congestion and overload and we question the over-riding conclusion of the developer that traffic effect will be minimal.
66. Our Council has little confidence in the sustainability of the Travel Plan for this development.
67. Pinewood Parish Council believes it must object to the proposal in its present form.
Page 133 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 11
Hintlesham and Chattisham Parish Council
68. The current proposal places an unacceptable burden on the local transport infrastructure, even when proposed road improvements are taken into consideration. In short, the scale of this development will have a severe impact on the local area and should be opposed in its present form.
69. The applicant's Transport Assessment summarises criteria for acceptability: 3.4.3 Development proposals are likely to be acceptable if they can be accommodated within the current existing capacity of a section (link or junction) of the strategic road network, or they do not increase demand for use of a section that is already operating at over-capacity levels, taking into account of any travel plan, traffic management and/or capacity enhancement measures that may be agreed. However, development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
70. The Assessment then bases conclusions about the impact on the assumptions found in standard planning software and recent surveys. The quality of this analysis is undermined by apparent abnormalities. For example, in Section 7 .. Combined Trip Generation the Multi- Modal Traffic Generation graph for the development includes trips on "surface rail or London Underground" and other public transport such as air and ferries [7.4.1].
71. Bold assumptions about the anticipated uptake of cycling and other 'sustainable' forms of transport are made throughout - e.g. 4.6.8 - and it is concluded traffic congestion will encourage people to use such methods - [10.15.5].
72. This is a significant flaw in the assessment. The assumptions on walking and cycling are not based on relevant local evidence and will not overcome shortfalls in the wider provision of infrastructure.
73. The report accepts that the traffic plan will simply transfer congestion to the nearest pinch points, including the key A1214/A1071 (Sainsbury's) junction:
74. [10.5.4] "The above assessments demonstrate that both Junctions 11 and 12 are working above capacity in the Do Minimum Scenario, exacerbated in the Do Something Scenario. As noted above, both junctions will operate over capacity in 2025, where the development impact remains a relatively small proportion of the overall queues and delays at the junctions."
75. If the traffic problem is already 'severe' (above capacity) it cannot be acceptable to exacerbate it. As stated in the application, the test is that: "they do not increase demand for use of a section that is already operating at or over capacity levels"
76. The report's conclusions thus highlight the fact that the application fails this test.
77. Assumptions made about the alterations to the Copdock Interchange [4.8.20 and 10.9.4] are complacent and not in accord with local experience. These concerns are shared by Suffolk Constabulary. The report includes a cumulative impact assessment in section 8 (page 61). This takes account of the proposed Belstead House development but not the expectation of major development at the former sugar beet factory, which will also impact on the Copdock Interchange as well as on secondary routes adopted at peak times. In this regard Sproughton is likely to experience an increase in traffic from the A1071 and from the opposite Ipswich End along a residential road that is already inadequate and frequently congested.
78. Likewise conclusions made in 9.2.5 - 9.2.10 concerning the ways residents would access key routes ignores the reality of people doubling back through Sproughton to reach the A14 and the stress point at the Wild Man, among others.
Page 134 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 12
79. Increased traffic volumes will likewise aggravate access problems onto the A1071 for private and public roads alike and congestion in Hintlesham. The dangers present on the A1071 from Hintlesham to the London Road are well known, although the number of accidents has been under-reported. Suffolk County Council Highways Dept. accepted the difficulties faced by residents of Valley Farm Drive and Hintlesham Fisheries last year, resulting in extra signage and hedge cutting. This has brought some benefits but serious problems remain and any increase in traffic will cause severe difficulty for residents.
80. Finally: at a strategic planning level there is considerable concern over the use of commercially productive farmland to extend the Ipswich Fringe, especially when there is a larger (130 acres) brown-field site, with better access that could be used to meet the area's stated housing needs.
Ipswich Borough Council
81. The application site forms part of the wider strategic development area including the former Sugar Beet factory and Chantry Park. A strategic approach is required to be taken as to how this wider area will be planned and developed. Application site should form part of and contribute to a wider strategic masterplan.
82. Proposed design and specifically the frontage of the development to the A1071 fails to achieve a level of design quality and architectural response for this important urban edge site. Proposal relies too much on planting as a visual screen and proposes very standardised housing with little or no relationship to a recognisable Suffolk vernacular.
83. Cycle and pedestrian routes lack consideration for connections beyond the site boundary and fail to include route enhancements to the town centre, Chantry Park, Ipswich Railway Station and former Sugar Beet factory.
84. Provision of an effective bus service and measures to maximise use by occupiers should be secured and in place for the first phase of development.
85. Signalised traffic junction to A1214 questioned, consideration should be given to whether this new junction is justified on this important route into Ipswich and whether more appropriate alternatives should be pursued.
86. Effectiveness of ecological network has not been maximised. Strong and meaningful connections for wildlife through and around the proposal should be included. The masterplan should be based on the ecological network with strong connections to Chantry Park, the former Sugar Beet factory, the river, A14 and the wider countryside.
87. SWT raised concerns relating to insufficient information to determine impact on designated sites or protected and/or UK/Suffolk Priority Species. Concerns are shared by IBC and should be addressed.
88. Site is in proximity of Chantry Park and will benefit future residents. However no consideration appears to have been given as to the additional pressure. IBC considers this to require mitigation and measures/contributions should be secured.
89. Proposals lack certainty as to the impact on the Orwell and Stour European SPA sites and how mitigation will be secured or contributed to.
Belstead Parish Council
90. Belstead Parish Council objects to this planning application. This proposal is one of a number being considered in this area which could amount to an increase in dwellings of possibly 2,000. None of these should be granted planning permission until a full review of the infrastructure needs for the future of this augmented area is undertaken and developer obligations under section 106 can be decided. There is a clear requirement for extra school places, new medical facilities and abovePage all consideration 135 of the highway infrastructure change Planning Committee 25 November 2015 13
needed. The effect on an already problematic area involving the nationally important A12/A14 and all local approach roads to Ipswich without a major survey encompassing the probable future of this area when fully developed would be disastrous.
91. All minor roads through surrounding communities are presently overwhelmed at peak times when the A12 and A14 cannot cope with traffic volumes at the Copdock interchange. This is likely to become a nightmare gridlock unless a major alteration can be achieved.
Burstall Parish Council
92. The number of houses planned has risen and the Local Plan/Core Strategy does not identify the need for this number of houses in the area. Increased housing means less land for communal areas.
93. The possibility of pupils from Wolsey Grange taken into Sproughton Primary School will risk Burstall children being displaced. Therefore building the school must be part of Phase 1 of the development and if consent is granted the construction of this school prior to housing construction should be made a condition.
94. There will have to be a pedestrian crossing over the A1071 to provide access to Sproughton. There are no footpaths or cycle paths planned. A road crossing will further delay traffic using the A1071.
95. Traffic increase will be such that the A1071 will be more heavily congested. A robust and extensive traffic survey is required taking into account all proposed local developments in order to produce a new road strategy to cater for these before any further planning permissions are granted.
96. Loss of high value grade 2 agricultural land.
97. The new development will put great strain on the local GP and Dental services.
Environment Agency
98. Proposal falls outside the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 and therefore we have no objection and no comments to make.
Historic England
99. The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.
Anglian Water
100. The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Chantry Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows.
101. Development will lead to a risk of flooding downstream. A drainage strategy will need to be prepared in consultation with Anglian Water to determine mitigation measures. We request a condition requiring the drainage strategy and covering the issues to be agreed.
102. From the details submitted the proposed surface water management does not relate to Anglian Water operated assets.
Natural England
103. The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, asPage amended 136 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The application site Planning Committee 25 November 2015 14
is in close proximity to the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site which are European sites and also notified at a national level as the Orwell Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The notification features of the SSSI broadly relate to the features associated with the internationally designated sites and so the following comments are applicable in both an international and national context.
104. In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.
105. The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).
106. In advising your authority on the requirements relating to HRA, it is Natural England’s advice that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site. Your authority should therefore determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment (AA) stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out.
107. The Babergh Core Strategy (2014) acknowledges the potential for increased recreational pressures on internationally designated sites through rises in visitor numbers associated with population growth in the district and the need to implement appropriate measures to avoid degradation to these sites (paragraph 3.3.2.2, pg. 63).
108. Taking into account the distance of the proposed development site from the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA, Natural England advises that potential impacts to this site as a result of the development alone can be ruled out. We note that on-site green infrastructure (GI) has been provided by the applicant which appears to be in accordance with the policies of the Core Strategy (i.e. >10 %) and which provides good links to nearby greenspace such as Chantry Park. In line with Policy HS32 of the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No 2) Saved Policies (2006), we advise that the management and maintenance of this GI should be appropriately secured to ensure its long-term sustainability.
109. Whilst the provision of high quality on-site GI within individual developments will, to some extent, minimise the increase in visits made to internationally designated sites through absorbing day-to-day activities such as routine dog walking, it should not be used alone as mitigation for in-combination impacts. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Babergh Core Strategy (2011) ruled out in-combination recreational disturbance impacts from the Plan as a result of an increased district population on the basis that your authority is contributing to a wider mitigation strategy
110. Other Advice - We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:
local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity) local landscape character local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.
111. Protected Species - We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.
112. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy. Page 137 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 15
113. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.
114. Soil and Land Quality - Based on the information provided with the planning application, it appears that the proposed development comprises more than 20 ha classified as ‘best and most versatile’ (Grades 1, 2 and 3a land in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system).
115. Government policy is set out in Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that:
116. ‘Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.’
117. It is recognised that a proportion of the agricultural land affected by the development will remain undeveloped (e.g. public open space etc.). In order to retain the long term potential of this land and to safeguard soil resources as part of the overall sustainability of the whole development, it is important that the soil is able to retain as many of its many important functions and services (ecosystem services) as possible through careful soil management.
118. Consequently, we advise that if the development proceeds, the developer uses an appropriately experienced soil specialist to advise on, and supervise, soil handling, including identifying when soils are dry enough to be handled and how to make the best use of the different soils on site. Detailed guidance is available in Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (including accompanying Toolbox Talks) and we recommend that this is followed.
119. Biodiversity Enhancements - This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
Additional Reply Received following HRA submission
120. The HRA screening report concludes that, provided the mitigation proposals described are implemented in their entirety, this project will not adversely affect the integrity of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA). On the basis of the information provided, Natural England concurs with this view.
Page 138 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 16
121. NOTE: Mitigation contributions on basis of HRA confirmed by Suffolk County Ecology as follows:
£450 towards maintenance of Stour and Orwell Forum Database for new residents to receive information about the SPA from Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB and partners.
£5,000 towards the production of SPA information packs for 475 new households
£800 towards the provision of SPA footpath way marker discs to be installed on the footpaths in the vicinity of the car parks to access the SPA.
£1,500 for one SPA information board to be installed on the site, near to the footpath to Chantry Park
£7,500 for monitoring of visitor disturbance of birds on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA.
Total £15,250
Suffolk Wildlife Trust
122. Reptiles - The reptile survey recorded a small number of grass snakes in the area of semi- improved grassland which is the proposed location for part of the SUDS infrastructure. Reptiles are protected from killing and injury under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) and as such are a material consideration. A mitigation plan for reptiles is therefore required, in accordance with recommendations’ contained within the reptile survey report. The production and implementation of such a plan should be secured by a suitable planning condition, should permission be granted.
123. Bats - Whilst the application includes a survey of trees with bat roost potential, it does not include any bat activity surveys. The Ecological Opportunities and Constraints Report states that habitat on site suitable for bat commuting and foraging will be retained and incorporated into the proposed development. However, the indicative masterplan shows a number of hedgerows being broken by access routes. Suggest that further information is required to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact on bat species as a result of the proposed development.
124. Breeding Birds - Breeding bird surveys at the site have identified that it supports a suite of species, including four on the Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Red list and four on the BoCC Amber list. Five UK/Suffolk Priority Species were also recorded breeding on the site. The survey report concludes that "a total of 227 birds of 25 species were detected on the 29.7 ha survey site, giving a density of 76.4 birds per 10 ha. The findings at Wolsey Grange tend towards the higher end of population densities in comparison with other farmland areas". The proposed development would result in a loss of habitat suitable for nesting birds, particularly a ground nesting species, along with other impacts resulting from the change of land use.
125. Measures identified go some way towards mitigating the impacts of the proposed development but we do not consider that they are sufficient to ensure that there will be no net loss of breeding birds from the site. To help mitigate impacts on skylarks next plots could be provided on nearby arable land such as that already under the applicants control to the north of the proposed development site. Also query how the feeding stations proposed in section 5.1 of the report would be implemented?
126. Ecological Enhancements - In accordance with the NPPF the proposed development should provide net gains in biodiversity. In addition to the measures recommended in the ecological survey reports we recommend following measures, if permission granted:
Hedgehog friendly boundaries
Long term management of existing, retained habitats and newly created spaces and green infrastructure to maximise value for biodiversity Page 139 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 17
Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA)
127. The site is within 4km of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar site. These sites are designated for their European nature conservation importance. The proposed development has the potential to result in significant effect on these sites, either alone or in-combination with other developments. We therefore recommend that the application is subject to HRA by the Local Planning Authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) (as amended) in order to assess the likely impacts on these sites and determine whether any additional mitigation measures are required.
Additional Comments Received (following the submission of additional surveys)
128. Surveys of bat activity were undertaken in September 2015 and focussed on the sections of hedgerows around the site directly affected by the proposed development. Whilst the surveys provide evidence on the use of these features during the autumn season they do not provide information on usage through the spring and summer or across the site.
129. Notwithstanding this limitation, activity from six species was recorded along the hedgerows, including activity on hedgerows 3,4 and 5, parts of which are proposed to be removed. The plans do not show any measures to compensate for the disruption of commuting and foraging routes.
130. Stag beetles have been recorded in close proximity to the site, the removal of hedgerows could have an adverse impact on this species, however mitigation can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition, should permission be granted.
NHS England
131. The proposed development is likely to have an impact on the services of 1 GP practice and 1 branch surgery operating in the vicinity of the application site. These practices do not have capacity for the additional growth resulting from this development.
132. A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal. NHS England calculates the level of contribution required to be £149,880.
133. NHS England therefore requests that this sum be secured through a planning obligation linked to any grant of planning permission, in the form of a Section 106 Agreement.
Highways England
134. A holding response to allow time to assess the proposal was received from Highways England on 3rd September 2015 and on 9th November 2015 the holding response was lifted and a formal recommendation of no objection received.
SCC Highways
135. The Transport Assessment that has been submitted with this application has been thoroughly reviewed by SCC Consultants AECOM over an extended period of time. During this time a number of issues have been raised, discussed in detail and either resolved by the provision of further explanation of information to clarify assumptions or uncertainties within the original Transport Assessment. In summary, the Transport Assessment review key considerations have been to: review and agree trip generation and distribution including flow diagrams, check junction capacity issues and review predicted capacity based on future growth and relevant committed developments; check the impact of the site on the wider highway network, (considering 13 junctions in total); and check and verify that the proposed mitigation addresses the detrimental impacts identified
136. At this stage it has not been possible to agree the some of the base traffic models and validation provided in the Transport Assessment. AECOM have focused on the ‘future base’ and ‘future growth with WG’ modelling in order to compare what the network will be like with and without the WG flows (plus mitigation) in the network. Page 140 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 18
137. There is concern that the highway network surrounding this site is already under pressure during peak hour traffic flows and this only looks to be increased in the future given the committed developments and background growth that is likely to occur in this area. The package of highway works proposed for this development has, in the main part, been able to mitigate the adverse effects of the Wolsey Grange development to an acceptable level. Although there are some junctions where the mitigation provides an overall positive effect on capacity, there are some junctions where the Highway Authority maintains concern where the Transport Assessment predicts capacity & delay problems and where either no mitigation has been proposed (Site 11, 12 & 13), or a predicted negative effect had been identified but not mitigated (Site 5). But the Highway Authority accepts that, although the WG development increases the problems at these locations it is not the primary cause of capacity issues as some are existing issues.
138. In consideration of the likely impact of this development it is the Highway Authority’s view that the traffic forecasting provided within the TA is somewhat ‘over-robust’ as it makes no deductions for the following positive effects that are reasonable to account for given the location of this site and the local facilities available:
Pass-by trips (e.g. to visit the leisure uses on route home from work); Shared trips (e.g. to visit Tesco and the proposed leisure uses as part of the same overall trip); Mode shift due to enhanced public transport, walking & cycling facilities or the Travel Plan. Internalisation where residents work on or close to the site and therefore don’t travel by car.
139. In addition, the growth factors applied to the base flows do not appear to take account of the ‘alternative assumptions’ facility within TEMPRO, which avoids double counting growth associated with committed developments that are being modelled explicitly: the growth factors were therefore considered robust. It can therefore reasonably be said that the main forecasts are somewhat over-robust because they have not taken account of a number of features which, together, would have reduced the effect of both background growth and traffic generated by this site.
140. The Wolsey Grange site is well located to take advantage of good sustainable transport options and there are already good cycling facilities which link the site. The site is close to several large shopping outlets, a higher education centre and there is also a large supermarket within walking distance to the site. A new ‘discount supermarket’ has recently obtained planning approval to be located on Scrivener Drive. The applicant has worked with the Highway Authority and Ipswich Buses to agree an extension to a high frequency bus service to connect the site from an early point during the development programme. All of this supports the theory that, although there are some junctions where future ‘theoretical’ capacity assessment has been predicted to be exceeded; it is more likely that this will not occur or be directly caused by the effects of the Wolsey Grange development.
Summary:
141. The Highway Authority’s position at this point in view of determining this application is that we are satisfied that the impact on the local highway network will be acceptable and consequently we would not recommend that this application is refused on highway grounds, subject to agreement of a satisfactory package of highways mitigation to be agreed in due course and implemented at appropriate timescales. Although some of the details for the highways mitigation are still to be resolved, it is felt that a satisfactory package of mitigation can be agreed and any potential changes to what has already been proposed can be dealt with by way of planning condition or legal agreement.
Page 141 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 19
142. Section 106 Contributions:
£250,000 contingency for unmitigated affects £20,000 for two shelters on Poplar Lane and an RTPI screen at the collection stop £15,000 for additional shelter and RTPI screen within the development £33,916 Public Rights of Way £250,000 bond for bus calculated at £50,000 per year, and reduced by £50,000 per year £1,000 per annum Travel Plan support until 5 years post completion £818,606 Travel Plan Bond Implementation of Travel Plan Implementation of Travel Plan Group Welcome pack 2 x car club vehicles Electric vehicle charging infrastructure Smarter Choices scheme to provide for residents and workplaces close to the development Section 278 and Section 38 Agreements
Conditions:
School Travel Plan Individual commercial units to comply with site wide travel plan Agree a scheme for extension of bus service which is to be provided prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling and maintained for 5 years.
143. Due to the need to amend junctions a condition notwithstanding the details submitted prior to the commencement of works to each junction details shall be agreed
144. Bus turning details to be agreed, including metalled surface, 12m space to turn in forward gear, lighting and measures to prevent other vehicles using the space
County Archaeologist
145. The site lies in an area of archaeological potential as recorded by information held by the County Historic Environment Record. The site has been subject to geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation.
146. There is documentary evidence for the 'lost' mediaeval chapel and hamlet of Felchurch is possibly on or close to the site. The evaluation carried out to date has not identified the site of a chapel or burials, but has identified archaeological remains relating to medieval occupation. It is possible that the chapel site is outside the development area.
147. The proposed works would cause significance ground disturbance and has the potential to damage any archaeological deposits and below ground heritage assets that exist.
148. Given the reasonable efforts made to identify the chapel site, and the lack of positive evidence that exists, it is my advice that there are no grounds to consider refusal of permission in order to achieve preservation in situ of any important heritage assets. However, there are archaeological remains on site and in accordance with the NPPF any permission granted should be the subject to a planning condition to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage asset before it is damaged or destroyed.
Page 142 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 20
Suffolk County Council Section 106
149. Education - We currently forecast to have sufficient surplus places available at the secondary school level and therefore do not require developer contributions for secondary age pupils arising.
150. The agreed strategy (CS7 and Masterplan) at primary school level is for an on-site land reservation and contributions towards build costs. As such a contribution of £2,493,333 is required.
151. Depending on the timing of the delivery of this scheme, a mechanism ought to be included to allow SCC to build the primary school in an alternative location.
152. Pre-School - The agreed strategy is for the on-site early years setting to be integrated with the primary school. The early years contributions required is £276,924
153. Play Space Provision - Issues to consider include:
In every residential area there are a variety of supervised and unsupervised places for play, free of charge. Play spaces are attractive, welcoming, engaging and accessible for all local children and young people, including disabled children, and children from minority groups in the community. Local neighbourhoods are, and feel like, safe, interesting places to play. Routes to children’s play spaces are safe and accessible for all children and young people.
154. Libraries - Capital contribution towards libraries arising from this scheme is £102,600
155. Waste - A waste minimisation and recycling strategy needs to be agreed and implemented by planning conditions. Refer to the Waste Planning Policy Statement, the Suffolk Waste Plan and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy in Suffolk.
156. We would request that waste bins and garden composting bins will be provided before occupation of each dwelling and this will be secured by way of a planning condition. We would also encourage the installation of water butts connected to gutter down-pipes to harvest rainwater for use by occupants in their gardens.
157. Supported Housing - In line with Sections 6 and 8 of the NPPF, homes should be designed to meet the health needs of a changing demographic population. Following the replacement of the Lifetime Homes standard, designing homes to the new ‘Category M4(2)’ standard offers a useful way of fulfilling this objective, with a proportion of dwellings being built to ‘Category M4(3)’ standard.
Additional Comments Received
158. Policy CS7 and the adopted Masterplan provides for a primary school site reservation of 1.2 ha, which will allow for future expansion of the school beyond 105 places. However as this school site reservation is slightly larger than that which is required to directly mitigate the impact from this scheme a land value credit for the 'extra' school land needs to be made to the applicant.
159. A land value credit of 0.5ha is required to comply with Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The capital contribution of £2,493,333 for the school build costs is therefore reduced by £124,000, to £2,369,333.
160. The County Council will be able to serve six months written notice at any time after the construction of the 150th dwelling has commenced, which will trigger the transfer of the site to SCC. The option notice period will run from the 150th dwelling construction for a period expiring 5 years after the occupation of the last dwelling.
Page 143 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 21
161. Planning Obligation Trigger Points:
Early Years: £276,924 payable in 5 equal stages prior to 100, 175th, 250th and 400th dwelling occupations Education: £2,369,333 payable in 5 equal stages prior to 100, 175th, 250th and 400th dwelling occupations Library Contribution: £102,600 payable in 5 equal stages prior to 100, 175th, 250th and 400th dwelling occupations
SCC Rights of Way Officer
162. Public Footpath 16 is recorded through the proposed development area; Public Footpaths 13 and 14 are adjacent.
163. We would recommend the legal diversion of a section of Public Footpath 16 where it currently dogleg's, onto the proposed footway, otherwise we request that the legal alignment of Footpath 16 is indicated on the masterplan to ensure the route is not affected by future plans.
164. No objection in principle. As a result of anticipated increase in use of public rights of way we would be seeking a contribution towards improvements, which will be submitted with Highways Development Management response.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer - Suffolk Constabulary
165. Consultation provided to Traffic Management, Partnership and Local Policing:
166. Traffic Management Officer - No objection to the application but worth bearing in mind the number of vehicles that will use this area.
167. Vehicle traffic will be affected much further afield and I am particularly concerned about the Copdock Mill roundabout which can be very busy in all directions.
168. We have no objections but the scale of the development will undoubtedly affect road users further from the proposed development than just the junctions in the immediate area.
Suffolk Fire and Rescue
169. Access to buildings for fire appliances and firefighters must meet with the requirements specified in Building Regulations Approved Document B (Fire Safety).
170. Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service also requires a minimum carrying capacity for hard standing for pumping/high reach vehicles of 15/26 tonnes, but 12.5 tonnes as details in the Building Regulations Approved Document.
171. Suffolk Fire and Rescue Authority recommend that fire hydrants will be installed within this development. However, it is not possible at this time, to determine the number required for firefighting. The requirement will be determined at the water planning stage when site plans have been submitted by water companies.
172. If the planning authority is minded to grant approval, the Fire Authority will request that adequate provision is made for fire hydrants by the imposition of a suitable planning condition at the planning application stage.
Suffolk County Council - Flood and Water
173. SCC is reasonably satisfied that the outline site can be drained without worsening flooding off the site in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 103 and DEFRAs non-technical standards. However, before the detailed phase 1 can be developed the SW strategy and FRA needs to be revised and agreed. Page 144 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 22
174. Suffolk County Council Flood and Water Team would suggest a revised FRA and Surface Water Drainage Strategy is sought by means of planning conditions.
Policy
175. With regard to policies CS2 and CS3, the development is located within the Babergh Ipswich Fringe which is an edge of urban area and an appropriate location for strategic housing and employment development.
176. Policy CS7 is the key policy which allocates the land for development of approximately 350 homes and approximately 6ha of employment uses. The policy also requires the production of a Masterplan to support the proposed development, which has been produced and addresses the key requirements of policy CS7 criteria.
177. The proposed development is for the erection of 475 dwellings which is significantly above the quantum (approximately 350) set out in policy CS7, and 6ha of employment land. Consequently, the impacts of the overall proposed development will need to be fully tested within the planning application process.
178. The application material submitted addresses the majority of the sustainability criteria identified in Policy CS15. However, the local planning authority needs to be satisfied that an appropriate level of infrastructure is provided with the scheme and that the relevant requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) are met.
179. In accordance with Policy CS18, the phase 1 full application provides a mix of dwelling types and tenures consistent with the proportionately higher need for smaller house types set out in local housing need evidence.
180. The affordable housing contribution for the phase 1 full application falls short of the Policy CS19 requirement for 35% on-site affordable housing. However, it is yet unknown what the overall on-site contribution to affordable housing will be. Documentary evidence should be provided by the applicant to demonstrate to the Council the scheme viability issues in meeting the policy requirement contribution or alternatively inform why such requirements cannot be met.
181. Policy CS21 requires new development to make appropriate contributions to infrastructure in order to ensure that development is sustainable and any adverse impact is mitigated against. The area has known infrastructure constraints at present and Policy CS7 has set out a number of specific infrastructure improvements and enhancements which development in this area would be expected to make, notably highways improvements and school provision. However, as the proposed scheme now exceeds the level of growth anticipated in Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy, then the adequacy of infrastructure provision will need to be assessed by service providers on the higher number.
182. In conclusion, the planning policy team is supportive of the principle of the scheme which is proposed on an allocated strategic site in the Babergh Core Strategy. The development would make a substantial contribution to the identified future housing needs of the District, in a sustainable location within good proximity to existing services, facilities and employment centres which can be enhanced. The key issue is the departure from the development plan with residential development numbers significantly exceeding those set out in Policy CS7. Therefore, the decision maker will need to be satisfied that adequate infrastructure improvements can be made in the locality to satisfactorily mitigation the impact of the development scale. Subject to demonstrating mitigation is satisfactory, the application is supported in principle.
Page 145 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 23
Heritage and Design
183. The proposal would not cause harm or loss of significance to the setting of Poplar Farm, a designated heritage asset.
184. The proposal accords with the broad design parameters provided by the Strategic Master Plan document that has been prepared to guide the considerations of planning applications submitted for the development of the site.
185. The application site adjoins the curtilage of Poplar Farm, a Grade II Listed Building, which is within a large curtilage and viewed against a woodland backdrop to the East.
186. The first phase of the development would not impinge upon the immediate setting of Poplar Farm. The property would continue to be experienced as one of a group of dwellings on the northern side of Poplar Lane. No harm or loss of significance to the setting of Poplar Farm within the meaning provided by the NPPF would therefore occur.
187. The planning application also seeks to establish the principle of development the land on the southern side of Poplar Lane, the Strategic Master Plan makes provision for a specific design response to respect the existing rural character of the land at this point. The intended mitigation arrangements therefore seek to safeguard the setting and significance of Poplar Lane as a designated heritage asset.
188. As originally submitted pedestrians may have been tempted to make use of a private drive which could have given rise to future difficulties, but the layout plan has subsequently been amended to address this point.
189. In conclusion the detailed aspect proposal would not cause harm or loss of significance to Poplar Farm and subject to adherence to the intended design response for the development of the land on the southern side of Poplar Lane, the principle of developing the wider area would not conflict with the provisions of the NPPF in relation to designated heritage assets.
Economic Development
190. No objection
191. The site was identified in policy CS7 Strategic Site Allocation as part of the provision of 6ha of employment land. This application identifies 4ha of that 6ha requirement and the types of employment related uses that could take place there.
192. The Indicative Strategic Masterplan shows access through the employment site to Thompson and Morgan and the future development land to the south west. This corridor must be provided in any detailed application to ensure that the further 2ha of employment land can be delivered and to provide an improved access for Thompson and Morgan via the new junction with the A1214.
Arboricultural Officer
193. A small number of trees are proposed for removal but they are generally of limited value and their loss will not have a significant impact on local amenity.
194. All remaining trees scheduled for retention will be afforded adequate protection if undertaken in accordance with the Pegasus Group arboricultural report. An appropriate condition should be used for this purpose also including a detailed method statement and auditable monitoring schedule.
Page 146 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 24
Strategic Housing
195. No objection
196. The Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Strategic Housing Market Assessment confirms a continuing need for housing across all tenures and a growing need for affordable housing. The most recent update of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, completed in 2012 confirms a minimum need of 134 affordable homes per annum.
197. The mix of affordable housing offered in this application is acceptable. However, all 27 units of affordable housing are shown in one location within the proposed development. It is considered good practice not to develop this number of affordable dwellings in one location within a scheme and therefore it is recommended that no more than 15 affordable dwellings should be located in any one part of the development. Therefore the affordable housing should be separated into two blocks of affordable housing spread across the site.
198. We also note that Phase 1 includes no single storey bungalow accommodation. The 2011 Census data confirms that Babergh has an ageing population and as a result there is a need for appropriately designed accommodation built to a Lifetime standard.
199. It would also be appropriate for any open market apartments and smaller houses on the site to be designed and developed to Lifetime-Homes standards, making these attractive and appropriate for older people.
Recommended Conditions
Properties must be built to current Homes and Communities Agency Design and Quality Standards and be to Lifetimes Homes standards. The council is granted 100% nomination rights to all the affordable units in perpetuity. The Shared Ownership properties must have a 75% staircasing bar, to ensure they are available to successive occupiers as affordable housing in perpetuity The Council will not support a bid for Homes & Communities Agency grant funding on the affordable homes delivered as part of an open market development. Therefore the affordable units on that part of the site must be delivered grant free. The affordable units delivered on the local needs part of the site will need further consideration regarding any grant application to the HCA and a support for grant cannot be guaranteed in this instance. It is recommended that RP partners consider this matter carefully. The location and phasing of the affordable housing units must be agreed with the Council to ensure they are integrated within the proposed development according to current best practice. On larger sites the affordable housing should not be placed in groups of more than 15 units. Adequate parking provision is made for the affordable housing units It is preferred that the affordable units are transferred to one of Babergh’s partner Registered Providers
Public Realm/Open Space
200. There is an adequate provision of open space and green infrastructure, including play space within these proposals, however the facilities only lend themselves to benefit the community who will eventually live on the development and the immediate area and to this end the Local Authority should not be responsible for the long term governance and maintenance of the facilities. The developer should make provision for a charge to be made to each property that is then used to engage a management company who will maintain the facilities in perpetuity.
Page 147 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 25
Environmental Health - Land Contamination Issues
201. The developer has submitted a very thorough investigation and having reviewed the report I am happy to agree with the conclusion that the likelihood of contamination adversely impacting on the proposed development is low.
Environmental Health - Sustainability Issues
202. The applicant has incorporated the energy efficiency and sustainability measures as stipulated in Policies CS12-15 of the Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031 (February 2014) into the design of the proposed development.
203. As a large-scale development, the applicant has proposed the installation of a renewable energy/low carbon system in order to achieve a 10% reduction in predicted carbon dioxide emissions. Further clarification is required to ensure the feasibility of the anticipated carbon dioxide emissions reductions.
204. Post-Code for Sustainable Homes Standards: The applicant has acknowledged that the Code for Sustainable Homes is no longer in force, and has mentioned clarification of the subsequent required standards.
205. The applicant is required to ensure that the residential units achieve a 19% carbon dioxide emissions reduction against a Part L (2013) compliant baseline. This equates to same standards previously required for a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 rating.
206. As the dwellings are able to achieve a Level 4 rating, the applicant is strongly encouraged to construct the units in line with the mentioned preliminary-assessment. This will ensure sustainability standards above and beyond the minimum requirements.
BREEAM:
207. The applicant has clarified that the non-residential elements of the proposed development will secure a BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the feasibility of this standard through the submission of the associated preliminary-assessment and subsequent Design/Post-Construction stage certificates.
208. Building for Life 12: The applicant has provided an initial assessment which details how the development can achieve the highest ‘12-Green’ rating. It is therefore possible to approve this rating and to request that the same standards are secured at the post-construction stage.
Renewable Energy/LZC Technologies
209. In accordance with Policy CS13, the applicant has proposed to include a renewable/low- carbon technology installation which will reduce the predicted carbon dioxide emissions of the development by at least 10%. In order to ensure the feasibility of the associated carbon dioxide emissions reductions, the applicant is asked to submit full technical details of the proposed system.
Environmental Health - Other Issues
210. The Wolsey Grange: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (IA) identifies that the noise climate at the site is dominated by road traffic noise from the A14, A1071 and A1214. There are some additional noise sources from existing commercial/industrial areas (e.g. Thompson and Morgan).
Page 148 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 26
211. The 5 measurement points used to identify the existing noise climate close to existing noise sources all find external noise to be above the 55dB upper BS8233 and WHO guideline levels for serious annoyance.
212. BS8233 states that "it is desirable that the external noise level does not exceed 50dBLAeq,t with an upper guideline value of 55dBLaeq,t which would be acceptable in noise environments". In addressing the impact of noise in outdoor areas, a design standard of 55dB has been chosen. This is the higher of the WHO/BS8233 values, meaning that design value chosen will find 'moderate annoyance' acceptable - BS8233 states the guideline values should only be exceeded if "a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted". The site is therefore not ideal for residential development and such development would thus only be appropriate if you consider there are significant wider social and economic benefits of the development.
Construction Noise
213. The IA identifies that predicated noise levels from construction noise would have "a significant adverse effect on the prevailing noise climate at the earliest sensitive receptor on Poplar Lane" during worse case periods whereby plant is within 5m of the site boundary nearest the receptor - in these periods noise can be up to 10dB (up to a doubling of noise levels) above the 70dB threshold identified in the IA. During 'average' periods noise level will be of 'moderate adverse significance'.
214. Section 6.11. identifies that with a 2.4m high standard site hoarding barrier, noise levels at the ground floors of these dwellings will be below or marginally above the 70dB threshold. This will not, however, protect upper floors during times when construction takes place. Recommend that a condition be attached to the effect that a 2.4m high standard site hoarding barrier must be erected around the construction site perimeter prior to any construction taking place.
215. Table 6.3 of the IA identifies that the vibration level at existing receptors would be negligible apart from during worst case periods at Poplar Lane which will be of minor adverse effect.
216. Recommend that a condition be attached to the effect that a Construction and Environment Management Plan be submitted to the LPA for approval prior to construction works beginning on site.
Traffic Noise
217. The impact of the development on future traffic noise is assessed in the IA and predicts that long term traffic noise will increase by less than 1dB, and thus is likely imperceptible.
Noise from Fixed Plant
218. Noise from fixed plant will mainly be dealt with at the detailed design stage. Noise limit of 43dB has been set for the proposed commercial area (equal to typical background noise measured at point closest to Thompson and Morgan). Recommend that this be attached by means of a condition. A further condition should be attached to the effect that once detailed layout is determined a further assessment(s) based on BS:4142:2014 should be made.
219. Due to the shared interface proposed between the employment land and residential dwellings measures should be taken to increase the separation/shielding between these uses, and a condition attached so that at the detailed design stage a noise assessment based on BS4142:2014 should be carried out, based on the cumulative noise limit.
Page 149 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 27
Residential Development
220. Existing noise levels are above BS8233 upper values and WHO guidance values to avoid serious annoyance in external areas and would also be significantly above BS8233 internal guidance levels.
221. An acoustic barrier of 2m high with a surface density of 15kg/m3 should be installed alongside the A1071, and the location and specification of this barrier be secured by means of a condition.
222. The barrier will protect the ground floor only and two glazing performance standards would be needed across the Phase 1 dwellings in order to ensure internal noise levels can be met. If approved recommend that the requirement for the glazing performance standards be attached by condition.
223. Dwellings, particularly at the edge of the development, will be affected by traffic noise of such an intensity that windows will need to remain shut all of the time in order to achieve a good internal noise standard for habitation, including sleep. If windows were partially left open it is likely that such noise will have a significant and adverse impact on the internal noise climate of those dwellings, causing disturbance and premature wakening and sleep loss. However, you may decide that windows may still be openable for rapid or purge ventilation, or occupants choice.
224. The NPPF and PPG recommend that planning decisions should be avoided where the perception of noise is noticeable and disruptive and such that it has a significant impact. However, neither NPPF nor the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) expects noise to be considered in isolation to other social, economic and environmental benefits. PPG also states:
225. "The planning process should avoid this (significant adverse effects) occurring, by using appropriate mitigation..." and "such decisions must be made taking into account the economic and social benefit of the activity..."
226. In mitigation the IA recommends a high standard of acoustic double glazing and demonstrates by calculation that via a high standard of acoustic glazing and alternative acoustic ventilation, internal noise levels will meet acceptable criteria. I would advise you that these mitigation measures can be regarded as appropriate if you consider there are significant wider social and economic benefits of the development.
227. In external areas noise level in phase 1 gardens will meet the noise limit of 55dB. This limit finds 'moderate annoyance' to be acceptable and therefore some loss of amenity will result. Some plots require 1.8m high garden fences in order for this limit to be met and I would recommend that this requirement be attached by means of a condition.
228. Plots 93, 95 and 24 will have portions of garden where this limit cannot be met. I do not feel that allowing any external garden areas to be exposed to noise levels likely to cause serious annoyance is acceptable as all garden amenity land should be able to be used as such.
229. In respect of the outline dwellings, post phase 1 it is identified that noise levels are significantly above BS8233/WHO guidance values. A 4m high acoustic barrier between residential land and the A14 would significantly reduce boundary noise from the A14 and should be subject to a condition if approved. Even with this barrier dwellings most exposed to noise from the A14 may require acoustic ventilation. I would find this totally unacceptable as these areas are clearly unsuitable for residential development. Dwellings further back 'may be able to rely on a natural ventilation solution'. I would recommend refusal of any dwellings which would be reliant on mechanical ventilation.
230. The IA identifies that it may not be possible to achieve the required standard for external amenity areas in a small number of gardens in the North-West corner of the site adjacent to Page 150 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 28
the proposed attenuation basin and further south adjacent to Poplar Lane. I object to any plot which does not meet the standard to avoid serious annoyance. School
232 The IA identifies that the noise levels are significantly above the 'serious annoyance' threshold for external noise. Therefore, this is not an ideal location for a school.
233 Internal levels can only be met by the use of acoustic glazing. This package would only be appropriate for ground floor and would rely on windows remaining shut. I would strongly recommend that a condition be attached to the effect that further noise assessment once the details are determined.
234 The IA states that it would be possible to avoid the need for mechanical ventilation through careful siting and design. I would again state that it would be totally unacceptable for any of the teaching areas of the school to rely on mechanical ventilation. If the school is to have an upper storey it must be capable of being adequately ventilated by passive means, otherwise I would recommend refusal.
235 External areas of the school are likely to be above the 55dB threshold. It may be possible to use the school building itself to screen some external teaching areas to below 55dB, with non- sensitive areas (such as the car park) to be located at more exposed areas. I would advise that mitigation measures can be regarded as appropriate if there are significant wider social and economic benefits of the development.
236 Existing commercial/industrial units
237 Loading and warehouse activity may be perceptible in the proposed dwellings at the shared interface to the east of Thompson and Morgan. This has the potential to result in loss of amenity for residents. Recommend a condition for a noise assessment to be carried out to assess the impact of the operation of both Thompson and Morgan and the Holiday Inn at proposed new dwellings once the detailed design is known.
Lighting
238. Proposed residential development could be at risk from loss of amenity from external lighting at existing and proposed commercial development. Recommend a condition for a lighting assessment prior to development of residential properties.
Play Area
239. Recommend ensure the separation distances as set out in BDC Supplementary Planning Guidance for the provision of outdoor recreation facilities and open space HS32
Additional Comments Received 1st September 2015
240. Suggest conditions be attached to any permission:
Sample of residential properties to be indefinitely tested and certified to demonstrate that the scheme of glazing has been effectively installed and design values are being met.
In respect of the school condition that details of all extract ventilation, air handling and other noisy plant along with a scheme of attenuation and Noise Assessment shall be submitted to the LPA prior to construction.
Details of kitchen extract ventilation and odour abatement submitted to the LPA for approval prior to construction.
In respect of the employment land a condition that any employment/commercial units including a commercial kitchen shall be required to submit details of kitchen extract ventilation and odour abatement to the LPA for approval prior to construction.
Page 151 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 29
Suffolk Preservation Society
241. Residential development on this site to the west of London Road represents a significant extension to the residential area of Ipswich into previously undeveloped land within the parish boundary of Sproughton. The society therefore concurs with Ipswich Borough Council’s recommendation that the application in its current form should be resisted until a masterplan for the west side of Ipswich is developed. The site forms part of, and has implications to, a wider area which crosses the Babergh District and Ipswich Borough boundary and a strategic approach to its development should be taken.
242. The Society also has the following strong objections to the design and layout of the full planning consent element of this application for 145 dwellings.
Design and Layout
243. The application Design and Access statement sets out 3 residential character areas (The Gateway, Rural Edge and Neighbourhood Housing) and includes individual characteristics for each area. Nevertheless The Society contends that the resulting layout is largely uniform in its approach to the built form and streetscape. The design of the dwellings is generic, lacking quality and imagination, and the hierarchy between statement gateway dwellings and neighbourhood housing is unclear. Although there is no distinct built character in the immediate vicinity, the Society would like to see greater effort to instill a sense of local character and distinctiveness into this new residential area through its design, detailing and choice of materials.
244. Moreover the proposed layout is devoid of a sense of place due to a lack of a focal point and public realm space beyond the play area to the far south west of the site. Buildings at the entrance from Poplar Lane are orientated so that they present blank elevations and fencing to the spine road, rather than being designed appropriately for a corner plot.
245. The Society also notes that the affordable element of the development is clustered to the north edge of the site. This approach to design is contrary to design guidance on developing inclusive sustainable communities (such as Building for Life 12 – CABE 2012) which recommends that dwellings of the same size should not be grouped together and that streets should be tenure blind so that it is not easy to differentiate vbetween private and shared ownership or rental properties. We fail to understand why this approach is not being followed in this instance.
Car Parking
246. On street parking spaces (both visitor and allocated) dominate the street scene to an unacceptable level in some parts of the development compromising the success of the scheme both from within and when viewed from outside. Of particular note is the north edge of the development where the parking for the affordable homes is all to the front of the homes which negatively impacts on dwelling outlooks and safe pedestrian movement and dominates the streetscene when viewed from the A1071 Hadleigh Road.
247. In other places car parking seems to have been designed without consideration for the end users or the future functionality of the proposed development. As an example the parking courts which serve units 38 to 41 and 104 to 107 are located without passive surveillance and allocate spaces at some distance from the dwelling. Parking that is not well overlooked is unlikely to be well used and will encourage more on street parking.
Conclusion
248. The Society contends that the implications of developing this site on the wider area should be addressed via a masterplan for the area to the west of Ipswich and we therefore urge that this application is resisted at this time. Furthermore we do not consider that the design and layout of the proposed scheme of 145 dwellings is of sufficiently high quality and would recommend this scheme goes before the Suffolk Design Review Panel for an independent and expert analysis.
Page 152 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 30
REPRESENTATIONS
249. One representation supporting the application has been received and the comments are summarised as follows:
Need for new housing Parking plan sensible Plan for new play area, school and employment land work together Benefit many people and bring economic benefits to the area
250. Sixty-one representations objecting to the application have been received and the comments are summarised as follows:
Over development not compliant with the Core Strategy Creeping coalescence towards Sproughton Cumulative effects Need for comprehensive masterplan Loss of agricultural land Special Landscape Area Traffic congestion Inadequacies in Transport Assessment Impact on transport infrastructure Impact on bats and birds Loss of privacy Noise pollution from construction and extra vehicle movements Surface water run-off Character Design with three storey properties adjacent to the A1071 Lack of affordable housing Impact on health services
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
251. In light of the representations received, an assessment of national and adopted development plan policies and having regard to site constraints and other material considerations the main planning considerations are considered to be:
Principle of Development
The National Planning Policy Framework
252. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27th March 2012. It provides that the NPPF "does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise".
253. The NPPF came into full effect on 27th March 2013. Under paragraph 215 the NPPF provides that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”. The relevant Local Plan policies set out above are considered to be consistent with paragraphs 14, 17, 34, 56, 57, 58, 61, 64, 109, 112, 134 and 173 of the NPPF. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes.
Page 153 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 31
Local Plan Policies
254. The NPPF requires Councils to identify and update on an annual basis a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide for five years’ worth of housing against their identified requirements. Relevant policies for the supply of housing land should not be considered up to date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. For sites to be considered deliverable they have to be available, suitable, achievable and viable. The June 2015 Annual Monitoring Report confirms that Babergh currently has a calculated 6.3 years supply of deliverable housing sites (including a 5% buffer required by the NPPF).
255. With respect Babergh District Council Core Strategy policies, Policy CS7 allocates the site and other adjoining land to provide:
256. “approximately 6 hectares of land to create a quality ‘gateway’ business/employment area in addition to the existing employment uses within the allocated area; and
257. A new community of approximately 350 homes”
258. The June 2015 Annual Monitoring Report confirms that Babergh currently has a calculated 6.3 years supply of deliverable housing sites (including a 5% buffer required by the NPPF).
259. The application proposal exceeds the expected 350 homes, with a total of 475 proposed. As such, whilst the development of the site is considered to be acceptable in principle, the extent proposed exceeds the policy expectation.
260. In compliance with Policy CS7 the site was subject to a Masterplan, which was presented to Committee on 22 July 2015 and endorsed with the resolution “That the content of the Strategic Master Plan Document, Babergh Ipswich Fringe, be noted as an informal planning document that will be used with immediate effect to guide the consideration of future planning applications on the site”.
261. During the Masterplanning process, the proposal for the site has evolved, on an iterative basis, changing land uses, increasing the housing numbers’ and relocating the primary school. These changes related to more detailed assessments of the site being undertaken involving EIA screening and consultations, including with the Design Review Panel. This process included the increase in the numbers of houses proposed to ensure the viability of the proposal. The report to Committee on the Masterplan confirmed that “without a modification to the quantum of development and type of employment uses it will not be possible to address existing traffic problems and achieve a proposal that is capable of implementation”.
262. Whilst the proposal is recognised as exceeding the expected approximate number of dwellings detailed within Policy CS7, it should also be noted that that the policy recognises that viability is an important factor. The NPPF, inter alia, states at paragraph 173 (Ensuring Viability and Deliverability):
263. “Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan- making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable development to be deliverable.”
264. In the light of this clear policy guidance within NPPF, detailed consideration has been given to the extent of development as part of the viability-informed Masterplan process. The extent of the development as now proposed is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with the detailed requirements of Local Plan Policies and other material considerations, with particular regards to the viability of the proposal and its implementation. These specific details are part of the considerations of this application addressed later in this report. Page 154 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 32
Strategic Approach 265. The context of the site in the wider area of potential and cumulative development is an issue that has been raised in response to consultation, with particular regards to the need for a comprehensive plan covering this area to ensure co-ordinated development of the area.
266. Whilst it is recognised that the site is in an area of potential growth and will form part of a cumulative impact, subject to the residual impacts not being unacceptable it is considered that this application should be considered on its own merits. When considering the Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031 Core Strategy in January 2014, the Local Plan Inspector considered this issue, with particular regard to the requirement for a comprehensive masterplan for a wider area in advance of the development. The Inspector agreed that whilst a masterplan for the wider area “has much to commend it, it is not clear why development of the Ipswich Fringe site should be delayed to allow this to take place. Moreover there is a good argument that such a masterplan would have been more appropriate before the development of the Suffolk One Scheme, lying between the Ipswich Fringe site and the majority of the urban area. The Suffolk One development, has to a significant extent, linked the Ipswich Fringe site and the main urban area, and increased the suitability of the site for further urban development.”
267. The Inspector further concluded that “Although it is reasonable to consider this site as part of the wider development of this part of Ipswich, this would include areas of remaining land which have a wider range of constraints and more complex delivery issues. There is no reason to delay the development of the Ipswich Fringe site whilst the deliverability of this wider area is considered. In any event, a more substantial development beyond the allocated site would be in excess of the Council’s requirements for the current plan period”.
268. As such, it is clear that the Inspector did not consider that it would be appropriate to delay the development of this site to require such a masterplan, and in the light of this decision as a material consideration it is not considered appropriate to refuse the application on this basis.
Environmental Impact Assessment 269. The site falls within the category for urban development as set out in the EIA Regulations but does not reach the indicative thresholds set out in Planning Practice Guidance. A Screening Request was received in this respect which concluded that the proposal “is not considered to constitute development which is of a size or type which would cause significant environmental impact”. As such this does not affect the principle of the proposal, with specific environmental impacts considered accordingly within the application.
Sustainability, Resilience to Climate Change and Sustainable Transport and Construction
270. The NPPF gives significant weight to sustainable development. Specifically, stating at paragraph 14 that … “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.”
271. At paragraph 17 the NPPF further states, inter alia, that planning “… should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate….and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources …”
272. Adaption to, and resilience against, climate change is a key consideration in the achievement of sustainable development in the terms envisaged under the NPPF, as is sustainable transport.
273. This is echoed in the Core Strategy Policy CS13 which states that “All new development will be required to minimise dependence on fossil fuels and make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of climate change through adopting a sustainable approach to energy use.” The policy also states that “…the Council will support proposals for development that include on- site low and zero carbon technologies including, where appropriate, proposals to retro-fit existing buildings as part of schemes to extend or convert those buildings.”
Page 155 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 33
274. Core Strategy Policy CS15 builds on the requirements of Policy CS13 by setting out more specifically the tests that will be applied in assessing new development proposals in terms of sustainability. Key here are the requirements for new development to “address climate change through design, adaptation, mitigation and by incorporating or producing sources of renewable or low-carbon energy” and to seek to minimise energy demand, minimise the need to travel by car and - where appropriate to the scale of a proposal - to require applications to be supported by Transport/Travel Plans.
275. The ‘sustainability’ of the proposal and its resilience to climate change can be broken down into a number of key issues, such as the accessibility of the proposed development, the developments resilience to climate change and building performance. Other important aspects of sustainable development such as quality design, ecology, and safeguarding heritage are discussed later in this report.
Location of the Development and Sustainable Transport
276. Local Plan Policies generally direct new residential development to identified settlements to reduce the need to travel. This principle is continued in the Core Strategy, with the site as a Strategic Allocation, these have “been selected as locations that can be aligned with the capacity of existing infrastructure, or can be planned at a scale that is sufficiently viable to include new or improved infrastructure, and planned to include employment land, green infrastructure and access to services including transport.”
277. This is in compliance with the NPPF which states at paragraph 34 that “decisions should ensure that developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.” It goes on to state that “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”.
278. The application site is situated on the edge of the existing urban area of Ipswich. In the immediate vicinity of the site are Suffolk One sixth form and a veterinary practice between London Road and Scrivener Drive, also in this location there are extant planning permissions for Fred Olsen headquarters and an Aldi store. To the south-west of the site is ‘The Interchange’ retail park, with Currys, Multiyork, PC World, B&M, Pizza Hut and Costa Coffee, with Tesco, Mothercare, Burger King and Toys R Us further south. At the retail park, from the park and ride, and around the site on the A1214 and A1071 are bus stops which provide access into Ipswich, including the railway station and town centre and also to the wider area, including Hadleigh, Sudbury, Claydon and Colchester.
279. In light of the variety of services which are available within close proximity to the application site and the availability of alternative forms of transport, a reasonable conclusion can be formed that the site is sustainably located. To further assist sustainable transport, the applicants have prepared a Travel Plan for both residential and commercial properties to promote sustainable modes of transport.
Drainage
280. A key issue when considering ‘resilience’ is whether the development has been designed to adapt to climate change, such as an increased risk of flooding. To this end, the application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment, surface water drainage strategy and a foul water drainage strategy.
281. The application site itself is located outside flood zones 2 and 3, where there is little or no risk of flooding from rivers. The main issue therefore, is the risk of flooding from surface water, with particular regards to the impact of the development upon flood risk downstream. The application includes a sustainable drainage system to deal with surface water drainage, including infiltration and attenuation basins.
Page 156 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 34
282. Suffolk County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority confirms that the site can drain without worsening flooding off the site, in accordance with the NPPF and proposes conditions to agree the specific details of the strategy for disposal of surface water.
Energy
283. Core Strategy Policies CS12, CS13 and CS15 set out the requirements for sustainable design and construction standards including the use of renewable and low carbon energy.
284. Policy CS12 requires strategic site allocations to achieve the Building for Life Silver Standard and non-residential developments to achieve the BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard or equivalent. However, this standard was based on the previous Building for Life Assessment, which has been replaced by Building for Life 12, which is a traffic light scheme with red, amber and green standards based on 12 questions. Achieving 9 green standards attains ‘Built for Life’ and achieving 12 green standards ‘Outstanding’. The Building for Life 12 clearly states that there is no correlation to the gold and silver standards used previously.
285. The Building for Life 12 assessment provided with the application sets out the approaches taken in the design of the proposal to meet the criteria, which in combination with conditions are such that the proposal is considered to be capable of achieving 12 green scores. In the light of this the proposal is considered to comply with the updated Building for Life Standard, and therefore comply with Policy CS12 in this respect.
286. For non-residential elements, in compliance with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS12, the proposal is expected to achieve an ‘excellent’ standard.
287. Policy CS13 requires development of Strategic Allocations to use on-site renewable, decentralised, or low carbon energy sources with the aim of achieving a 10% reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions of the development. The proposal includes a renewable/low carbon installation which will reduce the predicted carbon dioxide emissions of the development by at least 10%, which can be appropriately secured by way of condition.
288. It is considered that conditions are appropriate to secure at least 10% of the energy from renewable, decentralised or low carbon sources, to achieve an ‘Excellent’ BREEAM standard and to demonstrate Building for Life 12 criteria in order to secure these details given the evidence that this can be achieved.
Conclusion (Sustainability, Resilience to Climate Change and Sustainable Transport and Construction)
289. In summary, the location of the development is considered to be sustainable and resilient. The development has been designed with climate change in mind, with appropriate drainage and renewable energy considered and secured by means of condition. As such the proposed development is considered to represent sustainable development within the meaning set out by the NPPF and to respond to climate and social change.
Design and Layout
290. Local Plan Policy CN01 requires all new development to be of an appropriate scale, form, design and finish. Delivering quality design is a core aim of the NPPF stating, in Paragraph 56, that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and indivisible from good planning, such that Policy CN01 is consistent with the NPPF.
291. The built development in the area around the site is a mixture of estate development and functional employment buildings. The two buildings with a significant relationship to the site are the Holiday Inn and Suffolk One. In the wider area there is the new veterinary site and the Interchange retail park. These buildings combined with the enclosure of the site by the A14, A1071 and A1214 provide the backdrop for this site.
Page 157 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 35
292. The Design Review Panel (DRP) assessed the Masterplan proposed, including looking at the densities of the site and the design proposed. Indeed, the Panel recommended that 3/4 storey buildings could be appropriate in certain locations, including the entrance to Poplar Lane. With particular regard to the detailed design, the DRP considered that the edges of the site have the opportunity to assist with establishing character for the scheme, there being no overriding character or specific context to the immediately surrounding area. Therefore, the DRP “saw no need in this location to mimic the Suffolk vernacular” and the development “could instead have its own identity”.
293. The Masterplan identifies three character types for housing, Gateway, Low Density to Poplar Lane and Core Family Housing. This typology is further expanded as part of the application, with Gateway, Neighbourhood Housing and Rural Edge as the identified housing types proposed for the full part of the application. The details of housing in respect of the outline application site would form part of reserved matters details.
294. The Gateway character area is located at the entrance to Phase 1 fronting the SuDS attenuation basin. These properties are a mix of 2.5 and 3-storey properties with materials proposed to be red brick with slate. The design and character of these properties creates an entrance to the site from both Poplar Lane and the A1071 and is considered to provide an identifiable character to the site at the point of entrance, providing a strong sense of place and character.
295. Neighbourhood Housing character area makes up the main part of the residential areas proposed. These properties are predominantly 2 storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. These properties would have a wider mix of materials with a mellow red and buff brick, with red pantiles. Corner three storey properties fronting the A1071 would also be part render, creating landmarks in the development.
296. Rural Edge character properties are located close to the open and green areas within the site. These properties would predominantly be 2-storey detached dwellings, with 2.5-storey dwellings in key locations. The combination in heights and mix in materials, predominantly in buff brick, interspersed with mellow red and render creates an edge of area character and landmarks to the pedestrian junctions.
297. The overall layout of the outline application site will form part of the reserved matters details; however, the principles of the land use are as set out in the approved Masterplan. In respect of Phase 1 (to which the full planning application relates), the layout provides an entrance zone to the site, a neighbourhood zone, and a more open edge of development. The layout combined with the different housing types provides for landmark buildings, which join the various routes through the site, for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The indicative layout for the outline application site would further develop this form and character.
298. Concerns have been raised in respect of the three-storey properties fronting the A1071. However, the three-storey properties are limited to two corner properties at plots 52-57 and 80-85, would be set back over 30m from the edge of the A1071 and would be screened by the landscaping along the embankment. As such the proposal is not considered to have an overbearing impact on the A1071, or skyline and would be in keeping with the overall context of the proposal.
299. With regards to density, the indicative number of dwellings proposed in Policy CS7 would equate to a density of 37 dwellings per hectare. However, this proposal for 475 dwellings would equate to 42 dwellings per hectare, although this will vary across the site, with a less dense character to the rural edge type dwellings in particular. Phase 1 would have a density of 43 dwellings per hectare. This is in compliance with Local Plan Policy HS27, which requires residential development to be in excess of 30 dwellings per hectare, with paragraph 3.100 of the supporting text to Policy HS27 identifying levels of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare as acceptable. Policy HS27 is consistent with the NPPF, with particular regards to paragraph 58 which states, inter alia, that development should “optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development”. The increased number of dwellings proposed has led to an increase in the density of development on the application site, however, given the expectations of the Local Plan the increase in density proposed is not considered to be unacceptable such as to warrant refusal on this basis. Page 158 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 36
300. The full application provides the details for residential development in Phase 1, creating an individual character for the Phase 1 site. Given the character intended and that this should be retained it is considered appropriate to remove permitted development rights for some alterations and extensions, which can be secured by means of condition. Furthermore, there is the expectation that a Masterplan derived character will be developed across the outline part of the site such that a condition is also considered to be appropriate in this respect.
Amenity Space, Open Space and Recreation
301. Policy HS31 of the Local Plan requires development sites of 1.5ha or more to provide 10% of the site area as public open space. The Core Strategy does not set a standard but takes the approach that development should address deficiencies and meet adopted local standards. In this case, the standards are set out in the adopted ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy’. This is consistent with the NPPF which requires the provision of open space but leaves the setting of standards to Local Authorities.
302. The proposal includes the provision of several areas of green space, providing links across the site, joining up with the existing woodland on Poplar Lane and providing areas for green infrastructure surrounding the attenuation areas. These also link to the existing public footpaths providing a green corridor for access through the site.
303. Whilst there are no specific details, 2.2ha of the outline application site would provide public open space and 5.39ha of green infrastructure, not including the attenuation basins. Details can be secured through the reserved matters applications.
304. With regards to the Phase 1 detailed application, the proposal includes 1.14ha for public open space including 0.063ha for a children’s play area (Local Equipped Area for Play). In addition to this will be green infrastructure, not including the attenuation basins. The combined area amounts to 4.76ha, or 40% of the Phase 1 site area.
305. Given the level of amenity space proposed, including access across the site with ‘trim trail’, cycling and walking routes, together with access to formal pitches for various sports available at the neighbouring Suffolk One, the site is considered to offer appropriate open space provision.
306. The management of the open space, along with the public realm would be undertaken by a management company. The section 106 planning obligation can secure the appropriate management of the proposed public open space and ensure public access. An obligation is therefore recommended to achieve this.
Residential Amenity (Noise and Disturbance, Other Amenity Considerations)
307. A core planning principle in the NPPF in paragraph 17 is that Local Planning Authorities should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”.
308. The development would potentially impact on the amenity of existing residents, and be impacted upon itself, by a number of environmental impacts that require consideration.
Air Quality
309. An Air Quality Assessment formed part of the application submission. This assessment confirmed that whilst the construction has the potential to risk some harm to air quality, with good site practice and mitigation measures the impact on air quality would be negligible. With regards to the potential impact of development generated traffic the assessment of the development is that it would not cause any exceedance of the air quality objectives. As such subject to conditions the proposal is not considered to risk harm to consider refusal on this basis.
Page 159 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 37
Noise and Disturbance
310. The existing noise environment at the site close to the A14, A1071 and A1214 is above the 55 dB LAeq,T upper BS 8233:2014 and WHO Guideline levels for serious annoyance. However, mitigation measures have been proposed and can be secured by condition, which is regarded as appropriate. Whilst the site in this respect may not be without some compromised amenity nevertheless, there are wider benefits from this proposal in respect of the provision of housing and employment land and the associated economic benefits. It is considered that these merits are of greater weight in the delivery of the Councils Core Strategy and new homes. Furthermore, Environmental Health have confirmed that appropriate mitigation measures are available and can be secured by means of condition, such that the proposal is not considered to be unacceptable to consider refusal in this respect.
Lighting 311. Policy EN22 of the Local Plan relates to lighting. It aims to minimise light spill and pollution to safeguard residential amenity, the character of an area and highway safety. The baseline condition for the site is generally unlit, but enclosed in part by the lit A1071 and A1214, with the Holiday Inn also a source of light. Proposed residential development in the outline area may be at risk of loss of amenity from lighting at the existing and proposed commercial uses. However, Environmental Health recommends a condition for a lighting assessment such that the outline layout can address this issue, such that the proposal is not considered to be unacceptable in this respect.
Land Contamination 312. With regards to land contamination, Environmental Health confirms that the site has been subject to a thorough investigation and the likelihood of contamination adversely impacting on the proposed development is low.
Construction Impacts
313. The impacts from construction upon the locality including dwellings in Poplar Lane require careful consideration given the scale of the project and the long build out programme, Phase 3 being anticipated to come forward from 2023. The applicant would be required to prepare a detailed construction management plan and sign up to a Considerate Contractor Scheme. This would mitigate impacts in terms of construction noise, pollution in terms of materials, dust etc., traffic routes and measures to liaise with the community to address local concerns.
314. Furthermore, to provide additional protection Environmental Health recommends that site hoarding barriers are erected prior to construction. This will protect ground floors of neighbouring properties, but will not provide any mitigation of construction noise to upper floors. As such a condition to limit the hours of working is proposed to provide additional protection and control in this respect.
Other Issues 315. Officers have not identified any issues with regards to overlooking, loss of light, outlook or overbearing impacts. With regards to existing neighbouring properties Phase 1 proposals do not abut existing residential properties, and in respect of the outline proposal there is sufficient space to ensure that existing residential properties are not unacceptably affected and this would form part of any reserved matters considerations. Furthermore, the play area has been located to safeguard residential amenity, in compliance with Policy HS32.
Highway Safety
316. From assessing the consultation responses received it is clear that the impact on highway safety is an issue of some concern.
317. Alterations are proposed to the Poplar Lane junction to create new three-way traffic signals, a new access to the A1071/Hadleigh Road junction creating a cross-roads junction, alterations to the A1071, A1214 junction, a new junction to the A1214 from the site, alterations ‘The Beagle roundabout’ and alterations to the ‘Tesco roundabout’. Page 160 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 38
318. The applicants have prepared a Transport Assessment (TA) that has considered the impacts of the development on highway safety. This has been assessed in detail by Highways England and Suffolk County Council Highways Authority.
319. Highways England have raised no objection to the proposal, their jurisdiction relating to the A12/A14 Copdock Interchange, which additional flows from the application site are predicated to only minimally affect.
320. Suffolk County Council has assessed the proposal and various works proposed to increase highways capacity as necessary in relation to this application. They confirm that the TA is ‘over-robust’, not allowing for trips undertaken on route home, shared trips, change in mode of transport or for residents who work on or close to the site and don’t travel by car. Furthermore this does not take account of ‘alternative assumptions’, which avoids double counting growth associated with committed developments. As such this combined with the package of highway works proposed is such that Suffolk County Council Highways consider that the adverse effects have been mitigated to a level which is not severe.
321. With regards to the various junctions Suffolk County Council Highways consider that there are some areas which need further consideration. Your Officers consider that these revisions may reasonably be dealt with by means of condition and this is recommended.
322. Concerns have been raised in respect of pedestrian crossings provided in the junction design at to the A1071/Hadleigh Road junction proposed. Modification required to the hatching on the A1071/B1113 (The Beagle) roundabout and to the lining of the new junction to the A1214. However, given the robustness of the Assessment that has been recognised it is considered that these alterations can be satisfactorily dealt with by means of a condition to agree the final details of the works to the junctions.
323. The remaining outstanding issue raised by Suffolk County Council Highways in regards to this proposal is the requirement for a continuous footpath both sides of Poplar Lane. The footpath design formed part of the Masterplan and design process for this development. Poplar Lane is a ‘no-through’ country road, and is a rural lane in character and form, which character the Masterplan deliberately wished to be retained as far as possible as part of this proposal. The provision of footpaths on both sides of the road would compromise this rural character, and in the light of this and given that a footpath is provided with appropriate crossing points to a road that would continue to be a ‘no-through’ route is considered to be acceptable.
Impact on Heritage
324. In accordance with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is a general duty placed upon local planning authorities which requires them to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings when considering whether to grant planning permission. With regards to the proposal there are Listed Buildings and archaeological remains which form the relevant heritage assets in this respect, taking each in turn below:
Listed Buildings
325. Excluded from the red line site area, but located centrally within the site, is Poplar Farmhouse, a Grade II property originating from the late 16th or early 17th Century. Elsewhere in the wider locality there are various other Listed Buildings, including Springvale, Red House and its’ associated barn, Prync’s Lodge and The Chantry as well as various Listed Buildings in Washbrook and Copdock. The subsurface remains of a medieval chapel may lie to the south of Poplar Farmhouse.
326. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that 'in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority … shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses'. Page 161 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 39
327. Poplar Farmhouse is screened from Poplar Lane by dense planting and from other views by mature trees. The setting of the Listed Building currently includes the neighbouring Poplar Farm Cottages and Thompson and Morgan, whilst the original agricultural setting including field patterns have been eroded and the property separated from its associated land by the A14. Furthermore, the immediate setting of the Listed Building has been affected by the various alterations, including a tennis court and swimming pool in the immediate grounds.
328. The area of woodland adjacent to Poplar Farmhouse is outside the site area and would be unaffected by the proposal, whilst the landscaping screening on the site would be retained. Given the level of screening the landscaping provides it is considered that the proposal would have a less than substantial impact on the setting of the Listed Building. As such it is considered that the setting and significance would not be unacceptably affected, despite the loss of the wider agricultural setting and residential development in close proximity to the Listed Building. As such the proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm to this heritage asset.
329. The Listed Buildings outside the application area are well separated from the site, with some but limited, inter-visibility. This, combined with the infrastructure and adjoining existing development, is such that the proposal is not considered to result in harm in this respect.
330. The proposal as a site providing housing provision and associated infrastructure and economic benefits is considered to represent a public benefit to overcome the limited and less than substantial harm to the Listed Building.
331. This would be in line with Saved Local Plan Policy CN06 which seeks to protect listed buildings (statutorily listed and non-statutory) along with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which recognises that less than substantial harm is not unacceptable if this can be weighed against public benefits. The public benefits of delivering the CS7 allocation have been noted above.
Archaeological Remains
332. The site lies within an area of archaeological potential and as such has been subject to geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation. There is documentary evidence of the ‘lost’ mediaeval chapel on or close to the site, although evaluation to date has not identified this within the application site.
333. The proposed works would cause significant ground disturbance that has the potential to damage any archaeological deposit and below ground heritage assets that exist. On the basis of work to date Suffolk County Council Archaeology confirm that there are no grounds to consider refusal of permission in order to achieve in situ preservation, subject to conditions to ensure the appropriate recording. Subject to this the principle of what is proposed is acceptable insofar as it would satisfy the tests set under Saved Local Plan Policy SD13.
Landscape Character
334. The application site is within the Special Landscape Area designation, which is recognised within the strategic allocation of the site within Policy CS7. Policy CS7 in this regard required the Masterplan to be based on and designed around a green infrastructure network linking formal and informal green spaces, wildlife areas and natural landscape settings and features, particularly the Gipping Valley footpath, Chantry Park and Belstead Brook Park. The Masterplan and application proposal provide green links through the site, linking existing landscaping such as the woodland (which falls outside the redline application site) and roadside areas of landscaping with new areas of landscaping, including the attenuation basins and LEAP. As such, whilst the proposal is recognised to alter the character of this site it is considered to comply with the requirements set out in this respect in Policy CS7 and subsequently the expectations of the Masterplan.
Page 162 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 40
Biodiversity
335. The NPPF states (at paragraph 109) that development should “minimise impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible”. This is supported by Policy CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy.
336. The application site is located close to a number of important ecology/biodiversity designations due to its proximity to both the Stour and Orwell estuaries. The estuaries are covered by the following designations:
The Orwell and Stour Ramsar site (A UN designation that relates to internationally important wetlands)
The Orwell and Stour Special Protection Area (SPA) as designated under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (EU designations relating to habitats important to birds)
Orwell and Stour Site of Special Scientific Interest
337. None of these designations extend to the site, but notwithstanding this the development has the potential to have an impact on the habitats and species using them, such that Regulations 59 to 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ("the Habitats Regulations") apply.
338. Due to the site constraints paragraph 118 of the NPPF is relevant, which states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:
if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;
the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites."
Designated Sites
339. The Core Strategy acknowledges that there is the potential for impact on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries through increased recreational pressures from development in the district. Natural England however confirms that “taking into account the distance of the proposed development site from the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA, Natural England advises that potential impacts to this site as a result of the development alone can be ruled out”. The provision of Green Infrastructure on site will, to some extent, minimise the visits to the designated sites but should not be used alone as mitigation for in-combination impacts. Page 163 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 41
340. As such a Habitats Regulation Assessment has been undertaken and Natural England confirm that subject to the mitigation set out in the report the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact in this respect. Accordingly Suffolk County Council Ecology provided figures for this mitigation, and which are proposed to be secured by means of a Section 106 agreement.
341. To further minimise impacts on the estuaries management and maintenance of the Green Infrastructure can be appropriately secured to ensure its long term sustainability, in accordance with Natural England’s advice.
Agricultural Land
342. In terms of the site itself, the site comprises more than 20ha of the ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land. The NPPF (at paragraph 112) states that: “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality”
343. The proposal would result in the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. Approximately half of the agricultural land in Babergh District is Grade 2, such that the proposal is not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of a significant natural resource. Furthermore, the development of the site has significant benefits with regards to the provision of housing and commercial employment land and the associated economic benefits, which are considered to outweigh this.
344. In addition, a condition to safeguard the soil resources of the site and the long term potential of the site can be imposed to provide a safeguard in this respect. As such the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact to warrant refusal in this respect.
Protected Species Various species have been identified on the site, taking each in turn below:
Reptiles 345. Areas of potential reptile habitat exist on the site, such that proposed works could potentially cause foreseeable harm to reptile species protected under nature conservation legislation. As such specific reptile surveys were undertaken. The surveys identified that the application site is unlikely to support reptiles, although a small number of grass snakes were found in an area of grassland which is proposed for part of the SuDS and green infrastructure.
346. The application does not include any specific mitigation measures as no reptiles were identified within the development area, and the landscaping proposed would benefit habitats. However, a condition to secure protection in this respect and mitigation measures is proposed, which is agreed by Suffolk Wildlife Trust.
Bats
347. A bat survey was submitted with the application, and following concerns raised by Suffolk Wildlife Trust an additional survey was undertaken. Activity from six species of bats was recorded along the hedgerows of the site, including hedgerows 3 (to the North of Poplar Lane between site entrance and woodland area), 4 (South of Poplar Lane) and 5 (North of A1214, from adjacent to boundary with the Holiday Inn), parts of each of which are proposed for removal (although it is noted that in respect of hedgerows 4 and 5 this is indicative as part of the outline proposal).
348. The removal of parts of these hedgerows is considered to risk disruption to commuting and foraging routes. New planting will improve the connectivity between the hedgerow and off- site habitats, whilst tree planting will minimise gaps. This will provide mitigation in this respect and subject to this and a scheme of mitigation and enhancement secured through condition the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact in this respect to warrant refusal. Page 164 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 42
Birds
349. The survey at the site identifies that it supports various breeding birds. The proposal would result in a loss of habitat for nesting birds. However, measures are proposed that Suffolk Wildlife Trust confirm would mitigate the impacts. They suggest additional mitigation for Skylarks along with further enhancements in biodiversity, which could be adequately controlled by means of condition or obligation.
Dormice 350. There is a dormouse population identified in the locality, in particular at Belstead Meadow, however the site has limited connectivity with this area, in particular due to the road network that encompasses the application site. In the light of this and the lack of suitable habitat on site it is not considered that the proposal risks harm to this species and Suffolk Wildlife Trust raise no objection in this respect.
Stag Beetles 351. Stag beetles are a UK and Suffolk Priority Species recorded in the proximity of this site. The proposal includes removal of hedgerows and planting that could have an adverse impact in this respect. However, Suffolk Wildlife Trust proposes a condition to ensure adequate mitigation and protection for this species. In addition the additional planting and green infrastructure would provide additional habitats, such that in combination the proposal is not considered to have an impact to consider refusal in this respect.
352. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006, is so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 in relation to protected species.
Cumulative Impact
353. The application site is situated within an area of potential growth such that the impact on the development is not related solely to the existing situation, but the cumulative result of development in the locality.
354. Highways impacts are the main consideration in this respect and the Transport Assessment is considered by Suffolk County Council as ‘over-robust’. It does not take into account pass-by trips, shared trips, changes in transport mode or for residents who work in or close to the site. Furthermore, growth factors applied to the traffic flows do not take account of ‘alternative assumptions’, which would avoid double counting growth of committed developments.
355. With regards to the SPA Stour and Orwell Estuaries the cumulative impacts are considered and have been confirmed within the HRA to be mitigated against, specifically to avoid ‘in combination’ impacts.
356. Furthermore, with Green Infrastructure and a school proposed for the site to provide for future residents it is considered that the proposal has not only considered cumulative impact, but would not have an unacceptable impact to consider refusal in this respect.
Crime and Disorder
357. The NPPF in paragraph 58 states that developments should “create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion”.
358. The proposed layout creates back to back garden layouts, ensuring that rear gardens are not exposed and do not create blank spaces. The frontages of properties provide natural surveillance to streets, pedestrian routes and public open space, in particular the children’s play space. Areas are well defined, with courtyard parking serving small numbers of properties encouraging ownership and a community.
Page 165 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 43
359. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues.
Planning Obligations and Viability
360. Core Strategy Policy CS21 requires that social and physical infrastructure is provided in association with development proposals. Core Strategy Policy CS19 requires all housing development to provide 35% affordable housing on-site, and that tenure types, mixes and sizes should reflect established needs in the district. This is in line with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and the provisions of the NPPF.
361. Set out below are the requests for contributions towards infrastructure:
Health The NHS has requested £149,880 to mitigate the need for extra health care provision to serve the residents of the development.
Education The County Council has requested £2,369,333 for primary school provision and £276,924 for early years provision.
In addition, a site of 1.2ha has been set out for the provision of a school, which is part of the application and can be secured by way of the Section 106 Agreement.
Public Rights of Way Contribution of £33,916
Libraries Contribution of £102,600
Highways Bond of £250,000 contingency for monitoring and addressing unmitigated problems if they occur, returned after 10 years if not used for this purpose.
Phase 1 Bus stop infrastructure £20,000
Phase 2 additional shelter and screen £15,000
Bond to provide bus service of £250,000, reduced by £50,000 per year, limited to 5 years
Travel Plan support contribution of £1,000 per annum until five years post completion of the whole development
Travel Plan implementation bond to cover the full residential element of the development £787,526
Bonds in respect of any parties to the S106 Agreement shall be in the form of Parent Company Guarantees and the monies attributable to these sums will be on a take up basis.
Ecology Mitigation on Stour and Orwell SPA from Habitats Regulation Assessment £30,000 (to include Green Infrastructure and SPA mitigation measures)
Page 166 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 44
Viability
362. National Government PPG states that where the deliverability of the development may be compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. A site is viable if the value generated by its development exceeds the costs of developing it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to be undertaken. Where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the Local Planning Authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations.
363. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal with the application which has been assessed by your Viability Officer and the District Valuer. The site has unusually high infrastructure and costs on account of its location on two key roads into Ipswich, and the need to level and service the site to enable it to be developed. Evidence of all these costs have been supplied to the District Valuer who has assessed them against internal Quantity Surveying estimates and supported the figures. In addition, the site bears the cost of a new school when in effect only half a school is required and land for the school is being provided by the development.
364. It is primarily for these reasons that the original scheme for 350 homes was not viable, even if the affordable housing provision were to be reduced to very low levels. The revised scheme including a provision of 35% affordable housing and contributions as set out above would still be in deficit and not viable. The revised scheme for 475 homes with 20% affordable housing, including the contributions as set out above, offers a competitive return to the landowners but does not project a reasonable profit for the development. The return is projected at marginally above zero and is also therefore in deficit. However, with growth in the market and design engineering the District Valuer has stated that the proposal would be marginally viable and capable of being delivered such that the developer might recover their reasonable profit. Taylor Wimpey have confirmed that they will accept the development risk for the scheme in regard to loss of profit and they will not seek a viability review for at least 5 years. This protects the 29 affordable homes in the first phase. The scheme is expected to be built out over 15 years and if growth assumptions and the market perform well the overall 20% affordable offer can come forward in the course of future phases.
365. In order to mitigate the risk of loss of profit 1/3 of the 20% provision will be starter homes. Starter homes fall under the definition of Intermediate Affordable Housing in Annex 2 of the NPPF, which are charged with 6% profit, but the developer also has to bear the risk of selling.
366. The proposal does represent a reduction in the level of affordable housing from that required by Policy CS19. However, the NPPF is clear at paragraph 173 that development should not be subject to such obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. Developer profit is a key element of scheme viability. Furthermore, at paragraph 176 the NPPF goes on to state that “where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms, the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements”. In the light of this it is considered that the infrastructure requirements are necessary for the development, and although contrary to policy the reduction in affordable housing is necessary to ensure that this strategic site allocation is both viable and capable of delivery.
367. In the light of this and the extent of the detailed assessment of viability at masterplan stage and during the application period it is considered that the proposal with a reduced level of affordable housing should not be considered unacceptable to warrant refusal in this respect.
Page 167 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 45
Phasing
368. To allow for the development of the site over time, bearing in mind the viability of the proposal and the incremental impact that would result as the development progresses, a scheme for the phasing of the payments is proposed as set out below. This includes a date at which a pro-rata amount would be payable if the development has not reached the amount of development expected, such that services can be supported appropriate to the level of development.
Trigger Points Amount and Reason
Prior to first occupation £33,916 Public Rights of Way £30,000 for HRA £20,000 for bus shelters and RTPI screen
£1,000 First payment of Travel Plan Evaluation and Support Contribution (then to be paid annually until 5 years post completion)
The occupation of 100th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 1st instalment healthcare rata basis September 2020 £20,520 1st instalment library £473,866.60 1st instalment education £55,384.80 1st instalment early years
Prior to first occupation of 2nd phase £15,000 for additional bus shelter and RTPI screen residential development/ 146th dwelling
The occupation of 175th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 2nd instalment healthcare rata basis September 2022 £20,520 2nd instalment library £473,866.60 2nd instalment education £55,384.80 2nd instalment early years
The occupation of 250th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 3rd instalment healthcare rata basis September 2024 £20,520 3rd instalment library £473,866.60 3rd instalment education £55,384.80 3rd instalment early years
The occupation of 325th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 4th instalment healthcare rata basis September 2026 £20,520 4th instalment of library contribution £473,866.60 4th instalment education £55,384.80 4th instalment early years
The occupation of 400th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 5th instalment healthcare rata basis September 2028 £20,520 5th instalment library contribution £473,866.60 5th instalment education £55,384.80 5th instalment early years
369. In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.
Page 168 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 46
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOUSING NEED
370. Core Strategy Policy CS19 requires all housing development to provide affordable housing on-site, and that tenure types, mixes and sizes should reflect established needs in the district. This is in line with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and the provisions of the NPPF.
371. Strategic Housing confirms that there is a continuing need for housing across all tenures and a growing need for affordable housing. With regards to housing need local to the site, the majority of demand is for one and two bedroom properties, with 83% registering for 1 or 2- bedroom dwelling. 372. The details are not confirmed in respect of the outline proposal, which will be expected to consider housing need at the time that the reserved matters come forward in this respect.
373. With regards to Phase 1, a total of 29 units of affordable housing are proposed. Of these there would be 6 one bedroom properties, and 16 two-bedroom properties, 6 three-bedroom properties and 1 four-bedroom property. This provides 75% smaller properties, which is considered to be an appropriate mix for the housing need recognised in this locality.
CONCLUSION – OVERALL PLANNING BALANCE
374. The NPPF states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, there is a presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for development that adheres to the NPPF, or a development plan which is up to date, and consistent with the NPPF. If a proposal does not accord with the policies within paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF (to the extent they are relevant) it can reasonably be concluded that it is not sustainable development and consequently there is no presumption in favour of granting planning permission. In this case, the proposed development is considered to comply with the definition of sustainable development set out by the NPPF, with particular regards to the economic, social and environmental roles set out at paragraph 7.
375. Although the proposal departs, in turns of the approximate number of properties proposed within the strategic site allocation (Policy CS7), this was part of the consideration of the Masterplan and forms part of the viability of the site to ensure delivery, a key requirement of the NPPF.
376. The viability work is accepted as demonstrating that the scheme can only fund a reduced scheme of affordable housing, along with planning obligations as required to make the development acceptable. This is not considered to be unacceptable given the aims of Policy CS7 in order to bring forward the development of this site within the expectations of Policy CS7 strategic site allocation.
377. This proposal is considered to be deliverable and will make a substantial contribution to the Council’s overall strategic housing requirements and 5-year land supply, in an appropriate sustainable location, on the fringe of Ipswich. The scheme would not result in a hazard or inconvenience to users of the public highway or have a significant impact on the wider highway network. The layout and design of the housing proposal reflects the constraints of the site, having regards to the Masterplan and indeed comments from the Design Review Panel to create an independent character for the site.
378. When taken as a whole, and a matter of planning judgement, the application is considered on balance to represent a sustainable, viable and deliverable scheme of a strategic site allocation wherein the benefits and mitigation are such that the proposal is considered to be appropriate. Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.
Page 169 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 47
RECOMMENDATION
(1) That the Corporate Manager Development Management be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to provide:
Phasing to secure implementation of infrastructure and overall phasing of the development
Estate management
Provision of public open space
Affordable housing
Diversion of footpath 16 onto proposed footway
Travel Plan
Transport Management Association or Travel Plan Management Group for coordination of travel plan
Welcome pack for employees and residential dwellings on occupation
Smarter Choices scheme to provide for residents and workplaces close to the development
Section 278 and Section 38 Agreements
Right to transfer of school land at occupation of 150th dwelling
Bond of £250,000 contingency for monitoring and addressing unmitigated problems if they occur, returned after 10 years if not used for this purpose.
Bond to provide bus service of £250,000, reduced by £50,000 per year, limited to 5 years
Travel Plan implementation bond to cover the full residential element of the development £787,526. This was reduced following clarification of requirements from Suffolk County Council Highways Department.
(Bonds in respect of any parties to the S106 Agreement shall be in the form of Parent Company Guarantees and that the monies attributable to these sums will be on a take up basis)
Contributions to Education, Healthcare, Libraries, Public Rights of Way, Highways and Special Protection Area Orwell and Stour Estuaries as below:
Page 170 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 48
Trigger Points Amount and Reason
Prior to first occupation £33,916 Public Rights of Way £30,000 for HRA £20,000 for bus shelters and RTPI screen
£1,000 First payment of Travel Plan Evaluation and Support Contribution (then to be paid annually until 5 years post completion)
The occupation of 100th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 1st instalment healthcare rata basis September 2020 £20,520 1st instalment library £473,866.60 1st instalment education £55,384.80 1st instalment early years
Prior to first occupation of 2nd phase £15,000 for additional bus shelter and RTPI screen residential development/ 146th dwelling
The occupation of 175th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 2nd instalment healthcare rata basis September 2022 £20,520 2nd instalment library £473,866.60 2nd instalment education £55,384.80 2nd instalment early years
The occupation of 250th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 3rd instalment healthcare rata basis September 2024 £20,520 3rd instalment library £473,866.60 3rd instalment education £55,384.80 3rd instalment early years
The occupation of 325th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 4th instalment healthcare rata basis September 2026 £20,520 4th instalment of library contribution £473,866.60 4th instalment education £55,384.80 4th instalment early years
The occupation of 400th dwelling or on a pro £29,976 5th instalment healthcare rata basis September 2028 £20,520 5th instalment library contribution £473,866.60 5th instalment education £55,384.80 5th instalment early years
(2) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant outline planning permission subject to the following conditions including:
Outline Application - Up to 475 dwellings, 4ha employment land (A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 and sui generis), 1.2ha primary education, public open space including play areas, associated landscaping, SuDS and highway improvements
Standard time limit Approved plans Reserved matters Archaeological scheme of investigation and recording Flood Risk Assessment and strategyPage for 171 disposal of surface water to be agreed Planning Committee 25 November 2015 49
Surface water drainage scheme for each phase Foul water strategy Ecological mitigation measures Reptile mitigation plan to be agreed Additional skylark mitigation measures to be agreed Stag beetle protection measures Bat mitigation and enhancement including early landscaping scheme for bat commuting and foraging Lighting scheme Scheme for soil management Scheme for biodiversity enhancement Biodiversity management plan for long term management of open spaces for biodiversity Ecological management plan Remove permitted development rights for new houses, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, B, C, D and E and Part 2 Class A Remove permitted development rights for employment land, Schedule 2 Part 3 Class A Employment uses limited to Class A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 and sui generis uses limited to car showrooms, retail warehouse clubs, petrol station and garden centre. Site hoarding to be erected around construction site perimeter prior to commencement Construction working hours Construction Management Plan Acoustic barrier details to be agreed to A14 Glazing performance standards including scheme for testing Cumulative noise limit for commercial area Noise assessment on detailed layout Details of kitchen extract ventilation and odour abatement for any commercial kitchen Noise assessment of commercial/residential interface Noise assessment required for school School glazing to achieve internal noise levels Details of all extract ventilation, air handling and noisy plant at the school along with a scheme of attenuation and Noise Assessment Details of kitchen extract ventilation and odour abatement for the school Noise assessment required to assess impact of Thompson and Morgan and Holiday Inn on proposed dwellings Garden areas external noise limit Fencing Lighting assessment of existing and proposed commercial premises impact on proposed residential dwellings Scheme for fire hydrants and hardstanding for fire capacity Waste minimisation and recycling strategy Waste bins and garden composting bins to be provided Water butts Landscaping scheme and implementation Tree protection including method statement and monitoring schedule Commercial buildings to achieve BREEAM excellent standard to be achieved, with scheme submitted prior to first use Building for Life 12 Standard, evidence to be submitted prior to occupation Energy Statement to demonstrate renewable energy and carbon dioxide emissions No commercial building to be occupied until hours of operation are agreed for that user Materials Levels School Travel Plan Green Travel Plan Individual commercial units to comply with site wide travel plan Notwithstanding junction details submitted additional details shall be submitted to and approved in writing Page 172 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 50
Bus turning details to be agreed, including metalled surface, 12m space to turn in forward gear, lighting and measures to prevent other vehicles using the space Footpath improvements Highways mitigation A1071/B1113 and A1071/Hadleigh Road prior to occupation of Phase 2 Highways mitigation Tesco roundabout Prior to 300th occupation Highways mitigation A1214 prior to works starting on employment land Notwithstanding details submitted additional details to be submitted and agreed as follows:
o Drg. 5244-SK-22 Rev F – A1214 new signal junction – changes to road markings and signs. o Drg. 5244-SK-25 Rev C – A1071 / B1113 Roundabout – Additional two lane entry o Drg. 5244-SK-26 Rev C – A1214 Scrivener Drive / Tesco Roundabout – additional mitigation may be required or further work to demonstrate not achievable. o Drg. 5244-SK-11 Rev G – A1071 / Haleigh Road signal – changes to pedestrian / cycle facilities o Drg. 5244-SK-20 Rev I – Poplar Lane improvements – changes to some details and additional footway o Drg. 5244-SK-21 Rev E – A1071 improvements
Road layout to be agreed Provision roads and footpaths prior to occupation HGV movements subject to Deliveries Management Plan Areas for loading, unloading, parking and manoeuvring to be agreed Parking spaces provided and made functionally available prior to first occupation Details to show means to prevent discharge of surface water onto the highway
Full Application - 145 dwellings, public open space and play areas, green infrastructure, landscaping and boundary treatments, SuDS and pumping station, highway improvements and an electricity substation
Standard time limit Approved plans Archaeological scheme of investigation and recording Surface water drainage scheme for phase Foul water strategy Ecological mitigation measures implemented in accordance with reports Reptile mitigation plan to be agreed Additional skylark mitigation measures to be agreed Stag beetle protection measures Lighting scheme Bat mitigation and enhancement including early landscaping scheme for bat commuting and foraging Scheme for soil management Scheme for biodiversity enhancement Biodiversity management plan for long term management of open spaces for biodiversity Ecological management plan Remove permitted development rights for new houses, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, B, C, D and E Site hoarding to be erected around site perimeter prior to commencement Construction management plan Construction working hours Acoustic barrier details to be agreedPage to 173 A1071 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 51
Glazing performance standards including scheme for testing Provision of fencing prior to first occupation Scheme for fire hydrants and hardstanding for fire capacity Waste minimisation and recycling strategy Waste bins and garden composting bins to be provided Water butts Tree protection including method statement and monitoring schedule Landscaping scheme and implementation Materials Levels Building for Life 12 standard Energy Statement to demonstrate renewable energy and carbon dioxide emissions Agree a scheme for extension of bus service which is to be provided prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling and maintained for 5 years. Notwithstanding junction details submitted additional details shall be submitted to and approved in writing Highways mitigation to Poplar Lane, A1071 prior to first occupation Provision road and footpaths prior to occupation Visibility splay for Poplar Lane Parking spaces provided and made functionally available prior to first occupation Details to show means to prevent discharge of surface water onto the highway
(3) That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured by the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to refuse outline planning permission on appropriate grounds.
Page 174 Planning Committee 25 November 2015 52