6
The Committee received report ES/2074 which related to planning application DC/21/4111/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the erection of twenty dwellings on land at Street Farm, Witnesham. Part of the site was allocated for residential development under Local Plan Policy SCLP12.71.
The application was presented to the Committee at the request of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management due to the level of public interest in the proposal and local environmental considerations, particularly flood risk. Ward Members had also requested that it was presented to the Committee.
The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner.
The Senior Planner stated that since the publication of the report the elevational drawing for plot 13 had been updated to remove the adjoined garage, and an amended landscaping strategy had been received which removed the drainage basin on the site frontage. Condition 2 had been updated to reflect these changes.
The Senior Planner shared maps of the site, highlighting its location within the settlement boundary and in relation to allocated sites within the area. The Senior Planner also shared maps showing the site in relation to listed buildings, flood zones two and three around the River Fynn and the ground levels through the site. Plans showing the site in the context of the original allocated site and the additional area included in the application were shared.
The Senior Planner shared aerial images of the site and highlighted the farm building currently on the site which would be demolished.
An application had previously been received for twenty dwellings on this site and this had been approved by the Committee on 25 June 2019 however this had been withdrawn prior to the completion of the s106 legal agreement. The layout of the site in this application was displayed.
The Senior Planner stated that part of the site had been allocated under the local plan for approximately twenty dwellings, and the criteria for development was shared. The Senior Planner shared the proposed layout plan.
The Committee was shown photographs demonstrating the following views through the site:
- Site access
- Site access during a flood event
- From the site to the rear of the neighbouring property
- Existing agricultural buildings on the site
- The view into the site from the lowest part of the site
- The lowest part of the site looking towards Giles Way
- The view through the site to the North-Eastern boundary
- The view through the site to Giles Way
- The views east and south from the site
- The view from the site to Kersey Croft
The Committee was show elevations for all of the plots on the site and indicative street elevations. The Committee was also show a plan of external levels and retaining, and proposed access to the site.
The Committee was shown plans of the flood zones on the site, and the previous and revised drainage plan. The extent of the current hardstanding with limited drainage infrastructure was highlighted.
The Committee were shown the landscaping strategy for the site.
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:
Principle of Development (Majority of site allocated under SCLP12.71)
Design and Layout
Affordable Housing / Viability
Heritage Archaeology
Landscape & Visual Impact
Biodiversity & Ecology
Highways
Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage
Land Contamination
Residential Amenity
Sustainable Construction
Legal Obligations (s106 agreement)
Councillors raised questions concerning:
- Flood zones on the site and flooding from Storm Babet
- Maintenance of drainage and flood protection
- The number of affordable homes proposed
- The withdrawal of the previous application
- Ecological impacts
- Extension of the site from the allocated area
Regarding flooding, the Senior Planner stated that when the site was put forward for inclusion in the local plan this would have been tested, although this was before Storm Babet. The Council had engaged the local flood authority and the Environment Agency as part of the application, and they had no concerns around the application as it was proposed. The Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control stated that the developer would be required to maintain any flood protection and drainage installed on the site. This would usually be passed on to a management company when the site was complete and residents of the site would pay fees for this and other maintenance.
Concerning the number of affordable homes on the site, the Senior Planner stated that constraints on this site were the nearby listed buildings, flood risk limiting the developable area and the higher costs due to changing land levels and risk of contaminants. The Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control added that the cost of development had also increased due to higher CIL rates being introduced. The majority of sites in the district did achieve the number of affordable homes stated in the local plan. When applications proposed a lower number of affordable homes a third-party consultant was engaged to check the reasons being presented. This assessment was based on the application that was put forward, and was not compared to other potential developments on the site with a different layout or housing mix. Affordable Housing was often one of the first things reduced in a development to reduce costs, CIL or Section 106 contributions were required by law and therefore could not be reduced.
Regarding the previous application, the Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control confirmed that this had not proceeded due to agreements between the landowner and the then developer.
Concerning ecological impacts, the Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control confirmed that there were conditions relating to ecology to ensure there was no impact on the river and protected species. This application pre-dated new rules around Biodiversity Net Gain and so this would not be required.
Regarding the inclusion of an additional area of land, the Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control stated that this application had come forward shortly after the previous one had been withdrawn. The previous application had also been for twenty dwellings on the same area, although more of these dwellings were on the originally allocated site. Due to flooding constraints, if development was confined only to the allocated area it was likely that no development would happen at all and the site would remain as disused agricultural buildings.
The Chair invited Mr Richard Nicol to address the Committee.
Mr Nicol stated that he wished to talk about the impact the development would have on the community. Mr Nicol shared a picture of the unallocated part of the site showing the view that would be destroyed. Half of the dwellings would be outside the allocated land and on quite a steep hill. Houses had already been built on the lower site, and although there had been a request for more at the time it was felt this would not be appropriate due to the impact on the countryside. This development was a step too far and would ruin the village. Mr Nicol shared photos of flooding at what would be the entrance to the site, the proposed retention basin would be under this flooded river and therefore would not be fit for purpose. Mr Nicol shared photos of No 5 Giles Way showing flooding in February 2024. A lot of faith was placed in the water retention plan, and more work was needed to ensure it would work and not add to the flooding issues in the village.
The Chair invited questions.
Councillor Daly asked what the land outside of the allocated area was used for. Mr Nicol stated that this was farmland.
Councillor Ninnmey stated that when sites were originally allocated this was subject to public consultation and inspection. Since then more land had been added, outside the village envelope to enable this scheme to be developed. What consultation took place to do this. Mr Nicol stated this had been presented to the Parish Council and they had objected to the development. The original idea of only developing the farm site had been approved, why this had been extended was not clear. There was no demand for these houses.
Councillor Deacon asked Mr Nicol whether he was speaking on behalf of the parish council. Mr Nicol stated he was a member of the Parish Council but he was speaking today on behalf of the residents. The community had little faith in the planning system which was why more people had not made representations. Village has already had been disrupted by other development and people did not think their representation would make any difference.
Councillor Bennett asked how had other development happened in the village to make people feel this way. Mr Nicol stated another development a had progressed similarly to this one. It had been approved by the Parish Council but more houses had then been included. These houses had been flooded as the retention basin had not been built and no one from the Council had checked whether it had or not. Mr Nicol stated that disruption from this had been enormous, and people had still not recovered from the flooding this had caused.
Councillor Smithson asked Mr Nicol if he objected to some housing being built, or to the risks associated with this site. Mr Nicol stated that building in the allocated part of the site would be appropriate, but there was a risk of flooding with development of a wider site and this was a step too far.
The Chair invited Councillor Simon Barlow of Swilland and Witnesham Grouped Parish Council to address the committee.
Councillor Barlow stated that the local plan policy allocated approximately twenty dwellings to this site but this number was unachievable during to constraints from flooding. The number of dwellings should therefore be reduced to the size of the allocated site rather than extending the site into open countryside. The Parish Council objected as the site was relatively steep and development on the higher ground would be harmful to views. The inclusion of only three affordable homes was not enough. Site access was on a dangerous bend where accidents occurred regularly. Flood water did go across the site during Storm Babet and the Parish Council had requested a revised flood risk extent (Section 19 report) from Suffolk County Council. Planning approval should be deferred until this was done. Underwater retention was planned, but adoption of this by Anglian Water was unlikely leading to maintenance issues down the line. Flood risk was high in the village likely due to uncontrolled surface runoff from other development. The Parish Council asked for either a site visit or for the application to be deferred until more up to date information was available.
Councillor Ninnmey asked what the community believed would be the appropriate number of dwellings for the allocated site. Councillor Barlow stated that community would like to see a development within the boundaries of the site as allocated which respected the countryside surroundings and which did not contribute to flooding in the village. Councillor Barlow stated his own home had been flooded during Storm Babet, and respecting the flood risk should be the main aim of any development here. The flood zones were out of date due to the impact of climate change, this should be understood first and then the development planned. Properties built on this site may have been flooded during Storm Babet. Section 19 investigation should happen first then decisions could be made.
Councillor Daly asked what concerns were around landscape impacts. Councillor Barlow stated houses would be very prominent and visible due to the elevations on the site. It was accepted that the site had merit for development but this needed to be appropriate.
The Chair invited Ben Elvin, the applicants agent, to address the Committee.
Mr Elvin stated that there were constraints on the site, but the application had been carefully considered and the issues balanced. The applicant had worked hard to address the issues as they had come forward and this application had been ongoing for nearly three years. The application was the second attempt at delivering this. Discussions had taken place with Parish Council, Environment Agency and the local flood authority. There was a belief that another development in the village had led to flooding, but this did not mean this one would. Due to flooding in the village, officers had pushed for more information and protections to ensure it would not contribute to flooding, and comments from the Environment Agency and the local flood authority had now been removed.
Councillor Daly stated that previous speakers had expressed concern about long term management of flood mitigation and drainage measures. How would the applicant ensure this would be managed properly. Mr Elvin stated this would be engineered properly, and the management of this would be passed onto a management company and the residents of the dwellings who would be cumulatively responsible for the management of the site.
Councillor Smithson asked how many properties would be detached. Mr Elvin confirmed there would be three detached bungalows and two detached houses.
Councillor Smithson asked why an area outside of the allocated land was being included, and whether a slightly smaller development could be done on just the allocated site. Mr Elvin stated that due to the flood risk on the allocated site, it would not be viable to develop the site and therefore there had to be development outside of the site.
The Chair invited Councill Clery, Ward Member for Carlford and Fynn Valley to address the Committee.
Councillor Clery stated that this area was very badly affected by flooding in Autumn 2023. The community as a whole had been burnt by other developments which had not been carried out properly. Swilland and Witnesham were an organised Parish Council and had provided a thorough response to the application including references to the local plan. This site had a lot of challenges and was pulling the local plan in a lot of directions. Councillor Clery urged the committee to listen to the community and their concerns, and to hold a visit to the site to enable them to make an informed decision.
Councillor Ninnmey asked Councillor Clery for his views on the extension of the site. Councillor Clery recognised that the majority of the allocated site was a flood zone, and so the majority of the properties had to be built outside of the site. It seemed that the site could no longer be considered appropriate for development.
The Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control stated that 12% of housing growth was distributed across the rural area of the district in the local plan. Two sites around this village had been allocated – this one for twenty dwellings and another for thirty. If sites went forward with less housing, then the number of sites achieved overall would be less. Good points had been raised around the area that had been allocated. If the development was restricted only to the allocated area, this would only allow for approximately a quarter of the proposed dwellings to be built. To achieve the twenty dwellings allocated to this site the development had been spread out beyond the original boundary.
With regard to the Wittons Meadow development this had been recognised as a prospective contributor to flooding. The authority had put conditions on this site to deal with the flooding, the developer had failed to do this and had been issued with a stop notice when this had become an issue. When Wittons Meadow was complete the surface water should be dealt with. The Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control stated that the conditions for this site went further than required for an application in recognition of the issues. Regarding the section 19 investigation there had been no indication that consideration of the application should be delayed for the results of this report. It was in the interest of property owners to maintain flood protection to their own houses and to contribute to a management company
Councillor Bennett stated that it was frustrating that this application would be determined before the Section 19 report was completed and he asked why should the committee not wait for this report. The Head of Planning, Coastal Management and Building Control confirmed the committee could do this if they wishes. There was not a material consideration which would require officers to delay presenting this application to the committee.
On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Smithson it was by a majority vote
RESOLVED
That the application be deferred so that a site visit could take place.