8
The Committee received report ES/2030 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/23/0371/FUL.
The application was for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling and garage. The application was before the Committee for determination following the Member “call-in” process.
The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner, who was the Case officer for the application.
The site location map was shared with the Committee with the Senior Planner noting that there was public footpath access running towards the site but access was via a private track which also served the sewage works and the two adjacent properties. The Public Rights of Way were also pointed out as running close to the site – both in terms of the route on the ground and the mapped definitive route.
The aerial photograph was shown, comparing the location of the footpath to the previous map shown and noting that in reality the footpath was running outside of the curtilage of the property and onto the woodland. The relationship between Mere Cottage and Crossing Cottage was shown on the photograph.
Photographs showing the context of the site were shown to the Committee, highlighting the extensions to Crossing Cottage that had taken place. The Principal Planner pointed out the small window in Mere Cottage to note when considering the impact on residential amenity.
Photographs leading up to the site showing the track were shared, with the Senior Planner noting it wasn’t a public footpath but was a permissive path used by the public.
Photographs showing the site overlooking the Mere to the West and open land to the South – part of an RSPB reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The relationship of the property and its neighbours, sitting in an island within the SSSI designated area was demonstrated.
The view showing the edge of curtilage/footpath as it exists was shown, with the Principal Planner noting the scale of fenestration on the existing building and Mere Cottage shown in the background.
Drawings of the proposed replacement dwelling were shown to the Committee and the relationship to the common land boundary and the definitive line of footpath was shown on the drawings.
The Senior Planner told the Committee that the proposal was to replace the existing cottage with a larger two storey and single storey building, and the main sensitive part of the site and area was the western elevation. It was noted there had been concern from some consultees regarding the impact of glazing and the noise associated with the two terrace areas on first floor level.
Elevations, floor plans and balcony plans were shown to the Committee along with a photorealistic image of the property, noting the design would grey down with age, to limit the visual impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty. The Senior Planner noted that the design had considered the impact on residential amenity with a dug-in element.
The results of the light study were shown, it was demonstrated that the property would be below the 25 degree line, therefore impact on neighbouring amenity would be limited, however it was acknowledged that the property was larger than what was currently there and this would influence outlook.
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:
- Time limit
- Plans
- CEMP
- Materials
- Landscaping/earth works
- Contamination investigation/mitigation.
The difference of opinion from principal consultees was noted, but the officers did not consider the application to have unacceptable impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty with the design and mitigations measures that were introduced. The recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management to approve the application for planning permission was outlined to the Committee.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee to the Officers.
Councillor Graham asked Officers if, when making their recommendation for approval, they had taken into account the legislative changes to the CRoW Act, seeking advice from the local landscape authority, which in this case was the AONB Unit. In response, the Senior Planner confirmed that the changes to the CRoW Act were relatively subtle but required local authorities to make decisions with the purpose of conserving/enhancing the AONB. The Senior Planner stated that it would be a judgement from Members, and in this case the Officers considered that whilst the building was larger, this was not precluded by the changes to the CRoW Act, and it was considered that the proposed design, materials, mitigation to fenestration and glazing, contributed to a proposal that was neutral or potentially enhancing the wider area/designation.
Councillor Graham questioned the measures described as being mitigation measures only, adding that she understood the CRoW Act to put responsibility on the Local Authority to conserve and defend what was there rather than mitigate. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that there had been significant engagement with the Council’s Ecology Team to make sure those environmental effects were considered appropriately and extensive consultation with the correct consultees which had led to the recommendation being put forward. He added that the changes to Section 85 wasn’t a presumption against any development taking place, and had to be a judgement of specific impacts; in this case Officers judgement was that it preserves or enhances the AONB.
Councillor Gee questioned the size of the proposed building and that there were four blocks of buildings with a very large footprint, the Senior Planner revisited the map and clarified the size.
Councillor Ewart asked about flooding, questioning what the water table was at Aldringham Fen and whether it moved. The Senior Planner confirmed that he had taken on board the flood risk assessment which suggested the level of excavation would be above the water table and the building was within flood zone 1.
In response to Councillor Ewart, the Senior Planner confirmed that the applicant had changed the property height by 1 metre. They had put forward the changed application in response to the original application not being likely to be approved.
Councillor Ewart asked whether there needed to be any mitigation regarding the water table levels rising and in response the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that not for a replacement dwelling and this was covered within the report. The Chair noted that one of the conditions was for a construction management plan.
Councillor Pitchers sought clarification on footpath 43. Councillor Pitchers asked would the footpath stay as it was or would it need to be re-routed. The Senior Planner responded that it would be within Suffolk County Council powers to ensure that the definitive route was open and available for use, but it was not something for the District Council to control.
The Principal Planner confirmed that the definitive footpath alignment was on the map, and that was what needed to be taken into account alongside where the proposed building was, in this case it was close but there would be no direct impact arising from the development.
Councillor Ewart questioned the size of the development and whether it was proportional or oversized in such a special place. The Principal Planner confirmed that the policy states that the replacement dwelling is no more visually intrusive than the dwelling it replaces. In this case the assessment and judgement would compare the quality of what was there and what was proposed to replace it. He confirmed it was appropriate in the context, and whilst the design is subjective, officers were supportive of the scheme and ultimately it would be a judgment for the Committee.
Councillor Ashton asked about the light spill from the proposed property compared to the existing, taking into consideration when the consultees responded, he asked whether this was an improvement on light pollution or was it worse? Secondly he asked if that was a view shared by the AONB team too? The Senior Planner displayed the withdrawn and new applications and a comparison to the existing property, noting that whist the building was bigger and the glazing increased, it would be mitigated by louvres and the intention to use low VLT glazing (level 0.4). Considering both the landscape and ecological impact, none of the principal consultees, Natural England and the Council’s Ecological Team have raised concern about light.
Summarising all factors, the larger footprint, potential increased light pollution, mitigation and usage of upper floor living space, Councillor Ashton asked was it better or worse? The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that the existing property had no controls over external lighting whereas a new building would bring a degree of control and there would be planning conditions to continue to restrict the nature of glazing and illumination. He added in the design changes of the proposal there would be a significant reduction in the amount of glazing overall, but it was difficult to quantify if it would be better or worse, in terms of light spill, as the existing building was uncontrolled. The Chair noted the impact of the different uses of the building on light spill. Councillor Ashton noted all the comments, and concluded it was difficult to be precise as there were some benefits and some disadvantages.
Councillor Graham referred to the mitigation measure of vegetation screening along the border line of the property and asked how they could be sure it would be there for the lifetime of the dwelling and whether it could be enforced. The Senior Planner replied that the normal condition was for a five year period and beyond that there could be an ecological management plan for how it should be managed in the future, this could be in place for a period of time to ensure it was beholden on any future residents. The Principal Planner confirmed that if the planting failed within the first five years, then it has to be replaced to a satisfactory level, and if the application was consented then Officers would follow up to monitor the planting to ensure it established properly to offer the screening required longer term.
In response to Councillor Pitchers question regarding the RSPB consultation and effect on bats, the Senior Planner confirmed that the Council’s Ecological Team did not require that to be taken up. The Principal Planner noted the strengthened Ecology Team and the scrutiny that they give to all applications, adding if they have reviewed the application and determined that further survey work is not required in respect of bats, then members could trust that judgement when making a decision.
There being no further questions from the Committee, the Chair invited the objector to speak.
Mr W told the Committee that the Leiston-Aldeburgh Site of Special Scientific Interest, Sandlings Special Protection Area, RSPB North Warren Nature Reserve all made up the Aldringham Fen’s area and were a special place much enjoyed by many walkers, birdwatchers and tourists in the heart of Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
He said Natural England advised “Your decision should be guided by paragraphs 176 and 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which gives the highest status of protection for the ‘landscape and scenic beauty’ of AONBs. Mr W shared slides showing western elevation large increase in glazing during the applicant’s ownership, noting the 2 AONB lighting guides say glazing in sensitive wildlife sites is to be avoided. Mr W stated these proposals do not avoid they go straight to mitigation contrary to SCLP10.1.
Mr W stated the AONB team say “The glazing on the existing western gable would now be unlikely to comply with the primary purpose of designation. Any new scheme coming forward on this site should be seeking to reduce light pollution levels.”
Mr W stated that the Committee report ignored Natural England’s advice regarding the December 2023 amendment to Section 85 of the Countryside and Wildlife Act 2000 (CROW act).
Slides were shown giving a comparison of the size, scale and design, noting at 3,530 sqft, it would dominate 1,200 sqft Mere Cottage, Mr W stated the AONB say this contravenes SCLP11.2 and 800 sqft Sheepwash Cottage.
Mr W referred to the proposed western elevation and said the size and scale was responsible for many adverse impacts, noting the AONB said the spread westwards into the site was incongruous when considered in the context of the existing built character in the vicinity of the site. Mr W considered the sprawling views would block the views of the wider landscape contravening SCLP10.4 (a-e). He added Crossing Cottage proposals did not represent sustainable development.
The excessive size and scale, introduction of first floor glazing, compounded by upside down living accommodation with 29 feet of balcony and dropping the dwelling by 1 metre, would not protect or enhance the AONB. He noted there would be no guarantee that vegetation required to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed dwelling would remain intact for the lifetime of the site. To conclude Mr W told the Committee that the layout of the proposed dwelling with its 5 bathrooms, meant it could easily be used as 6-bedroom property. If this were then let out, as Crossing Cottage now is, it would be a party house i.e not ‘normal occupation’, with all the attendant light, noise and visual disturbance in what is currently a tranquil, wildlife-rich, dark skies area If approved, there should be a condition that restricts occupation to residential only.
The Chair invited questions to the Objector.
Councillor Graham asked about the current Crossing Cottage being used as a holiday let and the impact from noise and people coming and going. Mr W confirmed it had an impact as large groups used it and there had been fireworks and parties. Mr W added he was concerned that it was portrayed as a residential property but could easily turn into a holiday let and reiterated he would like to see a restriction added so it was not a holiday let.
Councillor Ewart noted that the new build would be 1.2m lower than their property, questioning what would be overlooked? Mr W confirmed it would not be their property but the other cottage, Sheepwash Cottage affected and they were concerned about the overbearing nature.
There being no further questions, the Chair invited the Applicant’s Agent tto speak.
Mr P told the Committee that the application was for a replacement dwelling, which was to be the applicant’s principal dwelling and not a holiday let. The application had attracted concern due to the size, design and particularly the external glazing and potential for increased light pollution. He told the Committee that they had a comprehensive and cogent officer report that concluded that the proposal was of a high quality contemporary design that would not cause serious harm and was therefore fully policy compliant. Mr P stated that they had worked hard to address all of the consultee and residents concerns over the past four years and the revised scheme significantly reduced the impact of the glazing by restricting it to less than 25% of the floor areas, creating balcony upstands, use of fixed louvres and the use of low visible light transmission glass. The use of VLT will provide a VT of 0.4 as recommended by the South Downs national park guidance and guidance from the AONB. Mr P shared with the Committee a contemporary design dwelling to the north of Thorpe Ness which had large areas of first floor glazing, pointing out that light pollution was not raised as an issue and permission was granted, with the building winning a Quality of Place design award in 2023.
Mr P stated Crossing cottage was of little architectural merit, had been over extended, with poor energy efficiency. The replacement building has been designed with sustainability in mind and above current building regulations would be employed with the inclusion of passive environment devices and the use of non-fossil fuel heating. The proposal would not cause serious hard and was policy compliant. Mr P asked the Committee to adopt the Officer’s recommendation and grant approval.
The Chair invited question to the applicant’s agent.
Councillor Ewart asked where they would put the 1m of soil and nature disturbance created by digging down. Mr P replied that the soil would be excavated with the intention to reuse on site and it would be spread and landscaped, the details of which would be subject to a condition. Mr P added if the details of that were not considered acceptable and there was the need to move some of the soil off site a detailed scheme would be submitted and that would need to be consented before development on the ground could start.
Councillor Ewart referred to foul waste and what consideration had been given. Mr P told the Committee that foul waste was currently discharged to quite an old septic tank, and sewage was not treated in any way, the liquid was dissipated. Mr P stated what was proposed in lieu of that was a proper modern private packaged treatment plant where the effluent was treated and discharged to ground.
Councillor Ewart referred to the report and asked how they were dealing with solar panels or not or battery transferable energy. Mr P stated that the details of what energy saving measures would be incorporated in the building were not yet finalised and would be dealt with as part of the building regulations should planning permission be granted. The details of the energy saving measures to be incorporated into the design and dwelling would have to be submitted for officer approval. It was intended to design with Passive principles, eg air source heat pump rather than boiler and Solar Panels or Photovoltaics would be dealt with as part of the detailed scheme with officers. Mr P confirmed it would be built with high standards of energy efficiency and they wanted to make it as sustainable as possible.
Councillor Ewart asked about flood risk and the proposal to dig down by a metre, asking what mitigation would be put in place. Mr P confirmed the site was not in flood zone 1, the Environment Agency’s lowest flood risk area, and in order to demonstrate no risk they worked with a consultant engineer to produce a flood risk assessment which included an addendum which followed on from proposed lowering of level of building. The consultant concluded the proposal would not result in hitting ground water and there would be no need for dewatering – the professional conclusion was that it was perfectly acceptable re flood risk, particularly as it was a replacement dwelling rather than new building.
Councillor Graham referred to the comparable home example shared and asked if it was a fair comparison, noting the property displayed on the scheme was on the northern edge of Thorpe nest. Mr P confirmed that the site he referred to lied within an AONB, within heritage coast and in close proximity to a site of special scientific interest. He added the point he was making was light pollution was not identified as an issue. The application did not attract any objections from consultees, third party residents and he mentioned it as it was of a similar design, with a large area of glazing at first floor and that property won pride of place design awards 2023.
Councillor Graham appreciated the measures to make the building visually unobtrusive, but had concern regarding the living level on upper level and the balcony. Councillor Graham added that type of building invites noise disturbance and activity in an area prized for its tranquillity. Mr P stated that the clients had a long association with Thorpe Ness having owned the property for approximately 20 years. During that time they have let the building as short time holiday lets. Mr P’s understanding was is that they have reached the age where they are about to retire and want to live there as their principal dwelling, one of the reasons is the quality of the landscape and wildlife that surrounds it, which is why they have designed it with first floor level living accommodation. The principal use of the balcony would be to sit out and observe the wildlife.
There being no further question for Mr P, the Chair invited Councillor Whitelock, Ward Councillor, to speak.
Councillor Whitelock noted Mr P’s comments regarding the house on North End Avenue and suggested the reason it had the amount of glazing was because it overlooked the sea and not the SSSI.
Councillor Whitelock told the Committee that it had been recorded that a previous ward member spoke in favour of this development due to other projects in Thorpeness road being similar in character, Councillor Whitelock pointed out that the Ward Members changed in 2023 and all three current Ward Members were not in favour of permission being granted. This project was not on Thorpeness Road, it was half a mile away from Thorpeness Road via a single farm track, it was in a highly sensitive wildlife area – surrounded by Leiston, Aldeburgh Special Site of Scientific Interest, overlooking RSPB North Warren Reed beds, home to bittern, marsh harrier, and the River Hundred which feeds the reed bed is home to otters. Councillor Whitelock was at Committee as Ward Member, guided by residents views, this project had attracted an unusually high amount of emails asking for it not to be accepted. The reasons for not accepting were from residents, Parish Councils and statutory bodies. Councillor Whitelock understand that Suffolk Preservation Society, Parish Councils and resident were opposed and opposition was generally on the grounds of the visually sprawling and intrusive nature of building - 40% increase in size. Light disturbance on a highly sensitive area - whilst efforts have been made to reduce its impact, it has not eradicated it. Most of Windows are on the west side overlooking the reed bed. Councillor Whitelock added what had not really been discussed was the proposed excavation of the site to lower the level by 1 metre, it was not fully clear how all of that soil was going to be dealt with, it had been talked about it being spread over the site, but she also understood that a lot of the soil could be removed by vehicles. An HGV down half a mile of farm track used by cyclists and walkers had caused the Parish Council to express concern and she was expressing alarm. Councillor Whitelock was also concerned as near by construction would take place for Scottish Power Renewables East Anglia 1 North and East Anglia 2,and there would be two cable corridors very close to the site, Councillor Whitelock saw the site as partly a refuge for local wildlife. She was confused as to why this had been recommended for approval, as it contradicts two East Suffolk conditions, Full Council passed a motion to further conserve and enhance national landscape with its biodiversity and ecological emergency motion and the District Council committee report had failed to acknowledge the planning hierarchy which seeks firstly to avoid impacts. Finally, the statement by Natural England said that the decision should be guided by 1.6 and 1.7 of NPPF. The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance area of natural beauty, and the application should be assessed carefully as to whether proposed development would significantly impact or harm that statutory purpose.
The Chair invited question to Councillor Whitelock.
Councillor Ewart asked Councillor Whitelock what the overarching issue was that residents were bringing forward. In response, Councillor Whitelock said it’s hard to understand when looking at the slides the very special nature of the site, while the design is making an effort to improve what is there, most of the residents are unhappy with the size increase and that it is being dropped into the site, removal of so much soil, light spill and the impact of construction itself.
There were no further questions for Councillor Whitelock.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management clarified the following points:
- Nature of occupancy, the proposal should be looked at with the building being a permanent residence – C3 Residential Dwelling. If this was to be used as a holiday let in the future, due to the scale of it, it could be seen as a sui generis use requiring planning permission, so there would be a control in place over large properties being used in that way.
- Picking up on Councillor Whitelock’s point, he agreed that it was important that East Suffolk has declared a motion of biodiversity and ecological emergency through Full Council. He confirmed that the key considerations from a planning perspective was the development plan, which does have strong regard to biodiversity, endorsed by the four ecologists in post to support the planning decision making process.
The Senior Planner confirmed to Councillor Pitchers that the current building was constructed of brick. The Principal Planner confirmed that there was a construction management plan in place, with condition 14 being concerned with vehicles, delivery hours, materials and plan. A separate condition for the construction environment management plan also existed, and this was more concerned with ecological impacts.
Councillor Gee noted the long list of organisations against the proposal and the consensus of opinion between all of them being overlooking and shadowing of adjacent properties. They were concerned about the replacement building size, 38-40% increase, the visually intrusive impact and the impact on the wildlife and integrity of the SSSI. Councillor Gee stated the application did not accord with the objective of policy SLP 5.3. and the proposed scale and amount of glazing failed to accord with SLP 10.4, noting if it failed to respect the policies than there was a problem. The Principal Planner confirmed that the objections had been taken into consideration by the Officer.
Councillor Ashdown noted the very thorough officer report, and that they had heard from objectors and on behalf of applicant that it was a permanent residence that where they wanted to live. He acknowledged the very modern design and its eco- friendly nature, as near carbon neutral as it could be, adding it was of a high specification and the wood exterior meant it would dull down in the future, leaving it not so obtrusive. He stated the modern design was up to the individual, acknowledged the sprawling area and first floor living accommodation was not uncommon, he concluded that providing conditions were in place, he would be supporting it.
Councillor Graham liked modern developments but was concerned about this one. Referring to the Landscape Officer comments, she felt the overriding point in the application contravenes Suffolk Coast Plan 5.3, due to the size and felt there were too many opportunities for it to be a recreational house with noise in an area of tranquillity so was minded to oppose.
Councillor Pitchers, had listened carefully to the debate and although it was a large development it wouldn’t stick out to due wooden cladding. Noting that the light could be slightly less than the existing property and the reassurance from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management regarding the holiday let and building work conditions, he would be minded to vote in favour.
Councillor Wakeling liked the building but the issue was the location of it along with the increase in size and the relationship to the other buildings. He had concerns about the upside down living and potential light spill and was minded to oppose.
Councillor Plummer liked the building but was concerned about the whole construction phase as it was in a difficult area to get construction traffic to.
Councillor Ashton noted the Committee had been together for over a year with a general presumption in favour unless there was a good reason why not. He noted the modern building was an improvement, it was energy efficient, but the building was significantly large and out of proportion with neighbours. They hadn’t had evidence that the light spill would be worse, and there was mitigation but nothing to say it would be better. Councillor Ashton cited that the development was more visually intrusive contrary to criterion (c) of SCLP5.3.
Councillor Ewart thanked colleagues for their contributions and noted concerns about the building size.
The Chair noted the excellent work of the planning team.
There being no further debate, on the proposition of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Wakeling it was proposed that the application was refused on the grounds that it did not meet Local Plan policy SCLP 5.3, 10.3 and 10.4. It was by a majority vote
RESOLVED
To REFUSE the application for planning permission.