Town & Country Planning Act 1990 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 78(1) By Mr Anthony Hardy (Capital Community Developments LTD) At Land North of Gardenia Close and Garden Square Rendlesham Suffolk Statement of Case By East Suffolk Council Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/X3540/W/19/3242636 ESC Ref: DC/19/1499/FUL 1. Introduction 1.1 This sets out the Statement of Case of East Suffolk Council with regards to the proposed development of 75 dwellings on Land North of Gardenia Close and Garden Square, Rendlesham, Suffolk. This has been prepared by East Suffolk Council (“the Council”). In respect of highways, drainage, archaeology and county infrastructure matters, the Council is working with Suffolk County Council (“the County Council”) to provide supporting information for its case and if necessary, will draw upon County Council Officers to provide evidence. 1.2 In respect of matters relating to Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations 2017), the Council was the Competent Authority, however this is now the Planning Inspectorate; this matter is covered further in the Statement of Case. It should also be noted that during the course of this appeal this legislation will be replaced by The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and further consideration will need to be given to what effect this has on the appeal. 1.3 This Statement of Case has been produced in accordance with the updated Statement of Case guidance. It does not attempt to reproduce information which is already available, or which may instead be agreed in the Statement of Common Ground. It focusses on areas of difference and reflects on the appellants statement of case and new submissions in addressing each reason. The word count has been refined as far as is possible to ensure that the inspector is well informed. Although this exceeds the 3000 word recommended limit it is also noted that the appellant’s statement of case exceeds 16,000 words and therefore the Council trusts that Inspector will consider the Councils submission to be fairly produced in accordance with guidance. 1.4 The development which forms the subject of this appeal (“the appeal proposal”) is described as the following: “A phased development of 75 dwellings, car parking, public open space, hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure and access.” 1.5 The application was validated by the Council on the 9th April 2019 and given the reference number DC/19/1499/FUL. It was determined by delegated powers on the 8th July 2019, the decision notice is provided as Appendix 1. There was no representation of support from Rendlesham Parish Council or Statutory Consultees, and therefore the Council’s Planning Committee referral process was not triggered. 1.6 The refusal reasons cover the following matters: 1. The principle of development and its conformity with the allocation in Policy SSP12 of the East Suffolk - Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan - Site Allocations and Area Specific Policies. 2. Affordable housing provision – the mix of size and tenure of proposed affordable dwellings. 3. The design and layout of the development. 4. The effect of the adjacent Anglian Water sewage treatment works and its associated Cordon Sanitaire. 5. Impact of the design on the residential amenity of existing and future residents. 6. The impact of the development on the integrity of habitats sites (under the Habitats Regulations 2017) 7. The accommodation of existing sewers in the layout of the proposal. 2 8. The ability to secure affordable housing and contributions to mitigation through a necessary legal agreement. 1.7 In respect of reason 1, based on the clarification of that reason in this statement of case, the Council confirms that it does not seek to defend the specific points in that reason but that they are instead covered by other reasons. This reason will not be defended in isolation and focus will instead be placed on defence of reasons 3 and 5. 1.8 Based on information received as part of the appeal submission in response to reasons for refusal 4 and 7, the Council is satisfied with the information enables the Inspector to consider the effects of those aspects of foul drainage infrastructure interacting with the proposal. There is no longer a requirement for the Council to defend these reasons. 1.9 In respect of reasons 2 and 8, these are capable of being addressed over the next month through the statement of common ground and section 106 agreement and therefore evidence on these reasons may not be required and there is scope that the Council will not defend these. Equally, the Council has engaged with the appellant regarding reason 6 and the appellant has the opportunity to present a package of mitigation and information to enable the Council to withdraw its defence of this reason. 1.10 It is therefore possible for this appeal to consider this proposal with a focus solely on design impacts raised in reasons 3 and 5 and the conflict of this proposal with the development plan and NPPF. 1.11 The refinement of this appeal to a design focussed and policy compliance case was anticipated and communicated with the Planning Inspectorate and appellant upon receipt of the start letter where the Council requested for this appeal to be considered through an Informal Hearing. The Council remains content that an Informal Hearing is the most appropriate manner to address this appeal, particularly as we have indicated that the design matters should be addressed through a roundtable session, as the Rosewell process supports. 1.12 This statement of case is written to support the Council’s latest position on the above reasons for refusal and in response to the statement of case from the appellant dated November 2019. This includes the defence of the position of the Council’s development plan and its five-year housing land supply position. It should be noted that five-year supply should not be a matter for debate in this appeal and that is further covered in section 5. 2. The Appeal Site - A full description of the site will be agreed in the Statement of Common Ground 3. The Development Plan – The relevant development plan documents and polices to be referred to are covered in the officer report but updated attention to these will be covered in the Statement of Common Ground 4. Relevant Planning History – The full planning history will be agreed in the Statement of Common Ground. 3 5. The Council’s Case Status of the development plan 5.1 The Council benefits from an up to date and NPPF compliant Core Strategy (2013) and Site Allocations and Area Specific Policies Document (2016) along with the Rendlesham Neighbourhood Plan (2015) forming the development plan as a whole for decision making in this location. 5.2 The decision must be made in accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Inspector must determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 38(6) therefore involves a two-stage process; namely consideration of whether the proposal is in accordance with the plan and then, whether there other relevant material considerations indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. 5.3 The appellant’s case is based on the status of policy SP2 of the Core Strategy and the engagement of the tilted balance. Their claim remains one which has been made in many appeals over recent years. It is a matter that the Council takes very seriously having had to defend its position considerably and effectively over recent years. The appellant’s Statement of Case makes no mention of any public inquiry appeal decision received since the 20th March 2018 email they rely upon. These decisions were fundamental enough to influence the withdrawal of two public inquiry appeals over the past year. 5.4 The appellant disappointingly relies upon an informal email (as their Appendix 1) from Ben Woolnough to the planning consultant sent on 20th March 2018. This relies on the Council’s so- called ‘own admission’ which is now nearly 2 years old, a period over which we have had two revisions of the NPPF. If the appellant had adequately researched the position of the development plan in highly relevant appeal decisions and housing land supply assessments since that email, then the following section would have been unnecessary. It should be clarified that the appellant failed to provide a follow on email (Appendix 2) to the planning consultant which updated that position on 19th November 2018 providing feedback on the outcome of the Bell Lane decision (Appendix 5), which was also attached to that email. 5.5 In order to set the full scene of how circumstances have evolved since the email the appellant relies upon, the following documents and important appeal decisions are relevant and essential reading in chronological order. The have all been cited in recent other appeals, including the most recent relevant appeal provided as Appendix 7. • Appendix 3 - 2018 Housing Land Supply Assessment o Provides commentary and calculations on the alternative use of the emerging standard methodology over the outdated housing requirement of SP2 (Paragraphs 7-9) • Appendix 5 – Bell Lane Appeal – Public Inquiry held 26 June 2018 - Decision letter dated 20 July 2018 o This addresses the status of SP2, its relationship with housing need and the relationship with its follow-on area based and housing distribution policies. (Paragraphs 12-19 and 104) • Appendix 6 - The Aldeburgh appeal – Public Inquiry held 10 September 2018 - Decision letter dated 21 November 2018. o This dealt again with the status of SP2, housing need, the tilted balance and status of development plan policies (Paragraphs 13 and 14) 4 • Appendix 4 - 2019 Housing Land Supply Assessment (Paragraphs 33 and 34) 5.6 In respect of the five-year housing land supply position.