5
The Committee received report ES/2133. The Officer explained that there was an update for case item A.6, Stoney Flat, Stoney Cottage, Grundisburgh. Even though the compliance date was set for 12 December 2024 they have already complied, and the fence has been lowered. This case will be closed and removed from the next Enforcement Report.
There were no questions from Members.
On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Smithson it was
RESOLVED
That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 19 September 2024 be noted.
The Chair then invited the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management to give an update on a recent application which had gone to appeal.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management ran through a presentation relating to application DC/22/3746/FUL Land off Keightley Way, Tuddenham St Martin. The appeal reference was AP/24/0061/APP. This application was for 25 new houses on a site that was allocated in the Local Plan.
He gave a brief history of the application explaining that it had been to the Planning Committee twice before. The first time a decision was deferred until after a site visit and then subsequently it was agreed to defer to allow officers to seek third party advice on the safety, integration and connectivity of the proposed development with the existing community. The independent highway report had been received and the application was then due to return to Planning Committee for a decision. However, in the meantime the developer submitted an appeal due to non-determination.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management shared the process and timeline, explaining the appeal was submitted in September and registered at the start of October so it was now live. The Planning Department must complete the questionnaire and notify all consultees and those who made representations by 25 October. The Council had five weeks (until 22 November) to submit the statement of case. All parties, including the public, can submit any final comments by 6 December. The Planning Inspector sees all comments submitted during the application, but it was recommended that further comments were made to the Planning Inspector.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management shared images of the site location plan, site aerial photo and the proposed site layout plan. He explained that it was accepted as a well-designed proposal with the right mix of homes and met the policy requirements of this site. The main cause of contention related to the lack of footway between Keightley Way and No1, High Street. The pavement could not be implemented as part of the plan due to the steep bank on the north side of the High Street.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the Planners procured an independent highways consultant to review the application. This was sent to the highway authority (Suffolk County Council) and the Parish Council for comment. He then ran through the recommendations from the review report and the highway authority’s responses. He explained these would have been very material in their considerations when considering it again at Planning Committee for determination.
There were 14 recommendations made in the independent review. Those marked with a green cross were matters that didn’t significantly impact the appeal and those with a red R were material considerations which would influence how to defend the appeal.
He went through each recommendation in turn. Recommendations 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 were marked with green crosses and not considered significant, 10 and 11 had some influence and 3, 4, 5 and 7 were marked with red Rs and were considered to be material and of relevance.
The highway authority stood by its original recommendations so was at odds with the independent consultant review.
The consultant’s review provided some concluding advice which relied upon paragraph 114 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which stated that there should be safe and suitable access to the site for all users. It was the lack of footway that concerned Members when reviewing the application before. Whilst it was accepted that the development was not likely to generate a significant volume of vehicle movements, access to and from the site by walking when accessing the local bus stops and facilities would be undertaken along a section of road that had no footway or minimal footway provision.
The consultant report also referenced the Manual for Streets guidance paragraph 7.2.14 where shared surface streets could be acceptable if there were less than 100 cars per hour at peak. If traffic data was provided by the applicant it would confirm the volume of traffic that used this route on a typical day and in turn advise the highway authority of the associated risk of impact on non-motorised movements.
Paragraph 116 of the NPPF stated that applications should give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas. Because the applicant has not provided traffic data in the assessment work it was considered that a safe route cannot be determined and therefore does not comply with the NPPF.
In addition, it was considered that the site has not demonstrated that it was able to conform to Suffolk Costal Local Plan, Policy SCLP7.1: Sustainable Transport. A planning condition could be provided that required a scheme of works to facilitate safe movement of pedestrians if the volume of movements exceeded 100 vehicles per hour (two-way) at peak hours. However, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management believed that the traffic survey should be at planning application stage and not at a discharge of conditions stage.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management concluded that the reason to defend dismissal of the appeal, or what would be the recommendation for refusal should it be presented to the committee for determination, was due to lack of conformity with the following policies and that he had specifically focused on pedestrians and not cyclists:
- Para 114 of the NPPF - no safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.
- Para 116 of the NPPF - does not give priority first to pedestrian movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
- Policy SCLP7.1: Sustainable Transport seeks that all available opportunities to enable and support travel on foot or public transport should be considered and taken; that sites should be located close to and provide safe pedestrian access to services and facilities; and, that development should reduce conflict between users of the transport network including pedestrians, cyclists, users of mobility vehicles and drivers and does not reduce road safety.
Due to the lack of footway between Keightley Way and No.1 High Street for approximately 71 metres the new occupants of this development would not have a safe pedestrian access into the village and to facilities to the east of the village. As no site-specific traffic data was included in the assessments submitted with the application it was considered that a safe and suitable route for all users to access local facilities cannot be determined and therefore this did not comply with the NPPF or Local Plan.
The above would form the response to the appeal from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management. Although there is no objection from Suffolk County Council and this is an allocated site in the Local Plan, SCLP 7.1 expects matters like this to be addressed.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained it was a written representations process so there wouldn’t be a hearing or public enquiry and it would be determined based on the written submissions received. However, because of this the Planning Inspector has complete freedom as to what their decision will be. The Inspector must bear in mind all and every consideration previously presented, and they can make a decision for more reasons than just non-determination, for example the Inspector might not like the design or drainage. However, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management expects the focus to be on highways.
The Chair thanked the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management for the comprehensive presentation and invited questions from Members.
Councillor Hedgley asked for a copy of the presentation and said he knew that the Parish Council and lead objector had already been contacted. He accepted that it was a difficult situation for the Planners as they recommended approval and now have to justify refusing it. He expressed his appreciation for all the work that had been done.
Councillor Ewart raised three points, the first regarding when the application timed out, the second if the planners were stymied and delayed by the responses received from Suffolk County Council and finally that she was concerned that Highways are not giving responses about how things really are, citing the Yoxford roundabout that was not being looked at in conjunction with a housing development 50 metres away. She asked if there was any way to support the planners further.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the application was quite old; it was originally submitted in 2022. It was progressed by the Principal Planner which ensured a good proposal came forward. However, there was a long lead time for it to reach the Planning Committee and obviously the recent tragic circumstances have added to the delay. It also took some time for the Council to engage the independent consultant. He explained it was for the appellant to decide their own best interests and they knew the independent consultant report would probably support the Planning Committee’s view. They were faced with either waiting for it to go back to Committee or take it straight to appeal, which they probably would have done anyway had it been refused by Committee.
He explained that there was a conflict between Suffolk County Council Highways and the independent consultant and that it would be interesting to see what the Planning Inspector concluded. He was confident they have a sound position to take to the appeal though.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the planners do work closely with the highway authority and there were a lot of projects going on across the District and County, including the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. He was confident that the highway authority did look at the planning applications thoroughly. He pointed out that highway impacts must be presented as severe and not just a slight impact, or demonstrate there isn’t the evidence presented to make a confident decision. He appreciated that this can be at odds with local opinion.
Councillor Ninnmey stated that although he didn’t make it to the site visit he was aware of the concerns about the lack of pavement. It was stated in the Local Plan that there were difficulties with this site and although it was a small development it was important to look at the accumulative effect on the existing community. If there was already a known difficulty surely the traffic assessment should be done.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management stated that there were instances where accumulative effects are considered, for example the land north of Conway Close and Swallow Close, Felixstowe. This current application could see some leniency and there could be a lower threshold required to undertake surveys.
Councillor Byatt stated that he knew the road well as it was a shortcut to Ipswich. He asked if the activities at the village hall and pedestrians travelling there had been considered as part of this application. He said that the stretch of road was never designed for that volume of traffic and the lack of footpath worried him immensely. He was concerned that Highways had not made a big deal about this. He also raised concerns about pedestrians walking to the pub at the bottom of the hill.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that Members did see the village hall as part of the site visit. He appreciated the concern of adding more people to the network and was aware of the pub and bus stop at the end of the village that didn’t have a footway.
The Chair pointed out that was one of the main discussion points. He thanked the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management and invited Councillor Fisher to take over the chair.
At this point Councillor Packard left the meeting briefly. He returned at 2.53pm and sat in the public gallery.