6
The Committee received report ES/2361. This application sought the redevelopment of a brownfield site to create 58 retirement living apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping at 39 Mill Lane, Felixstowe, IP11 2NL. The application was considered to accord with Local and National Policies and was therefore recommended for approval. This application was presented to the Planning Committee at the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control due to is significance in the locality and importance for delivery of housing for older living needs in the District. The application was considered at Planning Committee on the 25 March 2025; however, members voted to defer the item until further information had been provided in respect of highways matters, with particular regard to on-site parking provision. Additional information had been submitted by the applicant with regards to parking since then, and they had allocated four additional parking spaces.
The Committee received a presentation from the Head of Planning and Building Control, which was largely the same as the one given in March. The Head of Planning and Building Control noted that this was a good example of the Committee providing scrutiny, looking at opportunities and gaining them through the deferral and the application returning to Committee the following month.
Councillor Deacon moved to have closer access to the presentation screens and there was a discussion regarding the mobile screen location which Democratic Services agreed to check.
A new slide had been included to show the accessibility of the site in relation to the surrounding area amenities. The proximity to various amenities were shown with the closest being 400m away (5mins walk). It showed distances to the Town Centre and wider Felixstowe amenities from the site. The Head of Planning and Building Control emphasised the sustainability of the location for walking and cycling. It was noted that employees could feasibly live within a 20 minute walk of site.
A series of photographs of the site before and after demolition were shown to Members. The previous block plan showing 25 parking spaces was shown followed by a revised plan with 4 additional car parking spaces identified, making a total of 29 spaces and an increased ratio of 0.5 spaces per flat.
The Applicant had provided details of a range of their properties across the country to show the parking spaces and ratio as a comparison. This showed that the ratio was as low as 0.34 at some sites. Local comparison sites at Bury St Edmunds, Haverhill and Diss all had a ratio of less than 0.5.
The application was recommended for approval subject to a conclusion on the primary healthcare and ambulance service mitigation funding, the securing of RAMS funding to address Habitat Regulations requirements and if required, the completion of a Section 106 agreement.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee.
Councillor McCallum asked what time of day the pictures of the car park were taken. The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested this was referred to the applicant’s agent to answer, but they looked like day time photographs. He added that they wouldn’t make a decision based on what you saw on the photographs, but they were there to show the parking arrangements alongside the parking ratios.
Councillor McCallum noted that of the 19 Churchill sites shown, 12 were won on appeal and only 7 were authority approved. She asked if the appeals were all based around parking issues. The Head of Planning and Building Control wasn’t sure and asked the applicant’s agent to clarify. It was explained that the chart demonstrated how a decision was made, whether locally or through the planning inspectorate. The Head of Planning and Building Control asked the Committee to focus on the parking ratios shown as national examples.
The Chair said it was providing full transparency and a range of information to consider. He said the main thing they had been focused on was the number of allocated spaces. He added there were cars parked in the photographs, so the applicant was providing information that could be taken at face value and no assumptions had to be made about it.
Councillor Ninnmey said it was good to see an increase in parking numbers following the previous meeting. The Committee also raised the issue that those living locally had concerns about the access road reducing to one lane due to the railway bridge. He asked if there were any considerations to installing an additional bridge (as at Maidstone Road) for use by those walking/cycling/using a buggy.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that Highways were consulted, and their concluding response was for recommendation with no further conditions. He said the bridge was a disproportionate request for a development of this nature and that the footway provided safe and suitable access. There was no need for further exploration.
Councillor Smithson asked for clarity around point 7.66 of the report. Sheltered Housing was liable for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) but the rate in the CIL charging schedule was set at zero. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the CIL charging review adopted in 2023 set the district’s CIL charging rates. It was established that C3 developments of this type (care homes etc), although CIL liable, did not have viability to provide CIL and make those payments. Therefore, the CIL rate was set at zero. They go through the liability process but there was no charge. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that it did not mean that infrastructure effects of the development were not considered. It was still a level of housing growth that would be taken into account when considering how CIL was distributed and allocated across the district. He said it was regrettable having areas that were exempt from CIL but that didn’t mean they couldn’t benefit from the wider CIL pot.
The Chair invited Mr Mellish to make his representation. He raised concerns about parking, access for service or emergency vehicles and the methodology of the surveys. He was also concerned about where contractors would park their vehicles during construction. He expressed concerns about road safety and that traffic calming measures, such as camera enforced 20mph limits or traffic lights on the bridge, were required.
There were no questions for Mr Mellish.
The Chair invited the Applicant’s Agent, Rosie Roome to speak.
She told the Committee that Churchill reviewed the site plan in detail and added 4 spaces which resulted in a ratio of 0.5 spaces per apartment. She referred to the table in the presentation and said the 10 closest sites to Felixstowe (other than Diss) all had lower parking ratios than were now proposed. 19 other sites referred to all recently obtained planning permission and all had a lower parking ratio than this proposal. She clarified that one had a parking issue, but they were just the latest schemes that had been accepted. She had obtained photos of the car parks last week as requested by officers. She was informed by the Lodge Manager at Bury St Edmunds that most owners gave up their cars when they moved in as they did not use them, and this was a common occurrence across Churchill sites. She said it was critical that they provided choice in the housing market. She recognised it was not for everyone but this development provided an option for someone wanting to downsize that was accessible to the town centre. There was non-restricted parking on the majority of the roads in the surrounding area excluding Mill Lane (although parking laybys were available) and Garrison Road car park was within 400 metres. She pointed out that it was 2 minutes to the bus stops where there were regular services to Ipswich and around Felixstowe and the bus stops would be enhanced with real time passenger screens. The train station was around a 16-minute walk but it could also be reached by bus. There were 4 convenience stores nearby and the town centre was 850 metres away. This would replace the need for car trips for most residents.
She explained that the construction environment management plan would be conditioned, and the council would retain control. She stressed that the proposal would regenerate a vacant brownfield site into a highly sustainable location and there were economic benefits, such as increased spending in the town centre and environmental benefits with new planting and creation of habitats. She also pointed out that they would be providing new accommodation, freeing up family homes in the town.
The Chair invited questions to the applicant’s agent.
Councillor Smithson agreed there was a need for additional retirement homes. However, this was not a care home, but was aimed at the 55+ age group and yet the average resident age was 81. In terms of the benefits, pressure on GP services would be much greater, and costs would be more than people would spend locally. She worried about car parking for visitors and for those in their 80s and less able to get about, who may have carers, cleaners and other people coming in. She asked how this car parking would meet those needs. There were 58 properties on this development which was more than most of Churchill’s other sites.
The agent explained that Churchill had over 200 developments across the country and was something they would build, maintain and manage throughout. There was a Lodge Manager on site and all sites were managed and looked after. There was an age restriction of 60 with a 55 year old partner. The average age across the developments was late 80s and the average age of purchaser was 81. It was very much a needs-based move with only a certain type of person choosing to live in this type of accommodation. Some moved in with a car, but found they didn’t use it, as they could walk to all the services they needed. Others don’t wish to drive anymore and had chosen to be more central. Car ownership wasn’t 1:1 at all, and they worked out the ratio to meet the needs of the type of people who bought these properties.
Councillor Hedgley asked what percentage of residents had cars at other sites and had to use on street parking. The agent explained that residents with cars used the on site car park, although the reality was the car parks were empty and there were sufficient car parking spaces.
Councillor Plummer noted that as a cyclist she was happy with the distance from the development to the town centre. She asked if there was a cycle store in the plan. The agent confirmed there would be a Sheffield cycle store with 12 spaces. Based on research of other sites, this was more than enough.
Councillor Ninnmey asked why there was not a designated in and out of the site as had been there previously. The agent responded that Churchill reviewed the site and carried out feasibility options and the most efficient use was to come in and out of the site away from railway bridge. Councillor Ninnmey was still worried about the potential for accidents there. The agent explained that an independent organisation had carried out a road safety audit at the request of the Highways authority and as a result of the audit’s recommendations amendments had been made and Highways were happy it was safe.
The Chair asked if the crossing and live updates on the bus stops were provided by Churchill. The agent confirmed that the real time passenger information would be provided by Churchill.
Councillor Deacon asked where the crossing would be located. The agent explained it was not a zebra crossing but a dropped curb that would be made into a more formal dropped curb arrangement. The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that there would be tactile paving on each side of the crossing and it would be where the road narrows to a single carriageway.
Councillor Reeves referred to the 19 Churchill sites shown in the presentation and asked why there was such a high number of appeals and if it was based on parking. The agent explained there were different reasons why they end up at appeal, such as the application not being determined in a timely manner due to lack of resources. She said it was not the way they wanted to go but this was circumstances of the planning system unfortunately.
The Chair said it was notable, but it was information that they didn’t need to be party to, and they didn’t know the circumstances.
Councillor MCallum felt the table was put in there for a reason and the appeals were highlighted. Therefore, she was still curious to know how many were taken to the Inspectorate based on parking concerns. The agent replied that from the list only one had parking issues at appeal. In the letter provided (appendix 1) parking was raised at Wigginton and the Inspectorate found against the Local Authority and upheld Churchill’s methodology. She confirmed it was more the parking ratio that she was trying to demonstrate in the additional information provided.
The Chair asked if the appeals were upheld. The agent confirmed that they were all upheld.
Councillor Reeves referred to Mr Mellish’s point regarding construction traffic and if there would be 20 contractors on site at any one time and where they would park. The agent did not have the details of the construction but referred Members to the Construction Management Plan, which was submitted with the application. This would be conditioned as part of the application and reviewed to make sure all parties were happy prior to implementing.
The Chair invited Councillor Folley to speak as Ward Councillor. She thanked the committee and explained she had spoken to Councillor Franklin of Felixstowe Town Council. The site was not suitable for off street parking of any type and there had been 3 serious car accidents in the last year. Whilst operating as the British Legion there were regular accidents of varying nature at least once a week. This led them to implement a separate entrance and exit due to the bend. She was also concerned about construction traffic. She had met with Churchill at a Town Council planning meeting where they promised to save the memorial garden that contained veteran ashes. However, this had since been dug up. Many local people, even those not directly affected by parking issues, were not happy. The bridge was dangerous with no give ways or signals and it was a blind bend. She explained it had always been dangerous and a car ended up on its roof last year. Adding an extra 58 units on the doorstep of an already bad accident site was unsatisfactory.
Speaking as a disabled woman, it was not possible to walk from the site up to Tesco without stopping due to the steep gradient. Mobility scooter batteries drain going uphill and she questioned how someone aged 81 would manage. She felt the comparison sites were not comparable as this one was on a peninsula with water on three sides.
She felt residents would need to travel to do their big shop as all of the convenience shops on the plans have increased their prices. She also knew plenty of people in their 80s who were still competent to drive who would want to keep their vehicles. She urged the committee to reconsider the application.
The Chair invited questions to Councillor Folley.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if there was an accident report for the bridge in the last few years. He noted that unless a road was blocked police do not come out to road traffic accidents and the majority are dealt with via insurance and not recorded for use in these situations, so you rely on local knowledge.
In response the Chair confirmed that you can drill down on crashmap.com to find reported accidents, although there does tend to be over reporting.
There were no further questions for Councillor Folley.
Chair invited clarification from Officers.
The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that the construction management plan was a condition of planning permission. As this was a brownfield site there would be future development on the site and they would look for efficient development of the site. This will always bring construction effects but it would try to be mitigated, with highways consultation at that stage. Many areas have to suffer through the construction phase but mitigation rather than planning refusal was appropriate.
He explained that crashmap does provide information on incidents and there was an accident reported in 2023. A road safety audit has been completed although they are not always required on planning applications. The safety of access and accessibility of the site have all been considered. He appreciated the previous site had two accesses but Highways don’t always consider that to be the safest as that means two crossings for pedestrians/cyclists which would increase the accident risk.
With reference to the memorial garden and ashes, which was very sensitive, this had not been raised in any of the objections received previously.
He said the map showed proximity to shops and the bus services passed in front of the site. It was a previously developed brownfield site that was sustainable, which should be the first port of call for development.
He pointed out paragraph 7.4 of the report which set out the 2019 strategic housing market assessment, which identified that the population aged 65 and over was going to increase by 46.3% between 2018-2036. There was an acute need for older living accommodation which needed to be accommodated in the future in local plans and developments. From September the Local Plan would be out of date and there would no longer be a 5-year supply. This was influential on sites such as this and therefore need to be supported.
The Chair moved to debate.
Councillor Deacon pointed out that he still used his car. He said the site was known locally for accidents and any on street parking would be detrimental and increase danger. He believed the stats presented were irrelevant and even this morning he was faced with a vehicle head on. He said there were several units of accommodation in Felixstowe, which were meant to have adequate parking but did not. He urged Members to think carefully about this application. He was pleased to see brownfield development, but they needed to think about the parking situation.
Councillor Reeves concurred that there was a very serious incident 2 years ago.
Councillor Hedgley had listened but hadn’t changed his mind from last time. No one was being forced to live there and if they wanted parking and didn’t want to walk they wouldn’t live there. He said he would support as these sort of places were needed.
Councillor McCallum had listened to Councillors Hedgley and Deacon and noted the 4 additional parking spaces but felt the road wasn’t suitable and did have concerns about the parking. However, at the end of the day it would be down to people purchasing, and she was leaning towards accepting the proposal.
Councillor Ninnmey said he had looked at Churchill sites in other places he knows well, where they were in town, so walking for shopping etc was more feasible. This wasn’t that well located and it was a stretch for an 81 year old to make that walk. He was worried about the road safety issues and felt the highway control was inadequate. He felt that as a council and together with the highways authority they should be looking at the point of view of safety of all people, due to increased numbers using the site. He was minded to vote against the application.
The Head of Planning and Building Control said that they could pursue CIL funding for highway improvements.
The Chair was concerned about the road safety but measures should be implemented to calm traffic and reduce speed rather than prevent development. There was a proven need for this type of development and the site was derelict and an eye sore and subject to antisocial behaviour for a long time. A lot of good could come from the development so he would support it.
Councillor Deacon was very much in favour of this type of build but was worried about on street parking and asked if the applicant could consider more parking. The Chair pointed out that the applicant has already revisited the parking and personally he thought the ratios were about right.
Councillor Smithson asked if these 58 dwellings would be taken off the 2,500 target for Felixstowe. The Head of Planning and Building Control said 905 home a year were allocated in the Local Plan for the district which would be 1,640 a year from September. There was no upper limit for the number of homes and using brownfield sites limited the need to use greenfield sites.
Councillor Ninnmey referred to the road traffic assessment and didn’t think the solution provided addressed the problems in the area where the main issue was speed.
Councillor Plummer took reassurance that the developer wanted this to succeed and that they understood their business. If there was a problem because of parking at the site the Town Council would go back to them. The district needed more developments like this.
Councillor Reeves was inclined to vote for it unwillingly, due to the need for this type of accommodation but still remained concerned about the location.
Councillor Smithson asked if there could be any conditions relating to speed or the pedestrian crossing as she had safety concerns. The Head of Planning and Building Control said if there was a local desire and support, the Town or District Council could bring forward road safety proposals.
On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley seconded by Councillor Bennett it was
RESOLVED
Authority to APPROVE planning permission subject to a conclusion on the primary healthcare and ambulance service mitigation funding, also the securing of RAMS funding to address Habitat Regulations requirements and, if required, the completion of a Section 106 agreement. In accordance with the conditions set out below, with final wording of conditions to be agreed.
Conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following plans/documents:
04 October 2024:
01-PHL-101 REV.D - PRELIMINARY SITE ACCESS VISIBILITY PLAN
01-ATR-101 REV.C - PRELIMINARY SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS - REFUSE
06 September 2024:
40046FX-PL02 B - PROPOSED SITE PLAN
19 June 2024:
40046FX-PL07 REV B - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A-A & B-B
40046FX-PL08 REV B - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS C-C & D-D
40046FX-PL09 REV B - PROPOSED STREET SCENE ELEVATION E-E
13 June 2024:
ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT APPRAISAL AND METHOD STATEMENT
23 May 2024:
40046FX-PL03 REV.A - PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN
40046FX-PL04 REV.A - PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN
40046FX-PL05 REV.A - PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
40046FX-PL06 REV.A - PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
04 March 2024:
40046FX - PL01 - SITE LOCATION PLAN
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Reason: For avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. Each of the permitted C2 use apartments hereby permitted shall be occupied only by:
o Persons aged 60 or over; or
o A spouse/or partner (who is themselves over 55 years older) living as part of a single household with such a person or persons; or
o Persons who were living in one of the apartments as part of a single household with a person or persons aged 60 or over has since died; or
o Any other individual expressly agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation.
Reason: The development is specifically designed to be sheltered accommodation for the elderly and does not have the necessary parking or amenity space that would be required for a residential development occupied by people of pre-retirement age.
4. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and its suggested mitigation measures.
Reason: To ensure an acceptable living standard for future occupiers from external noise sources.
5. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. No further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.
An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and the Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM)) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.
Following completion of the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
6. Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. 01-PHL-101 Rev. A with an X dimension of 2.4 metres and a Y dimension of 32.1 and 32.8 metres tangential to the nearside edge of the carriageway and thereafter retained in the specified form. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction to visibility shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow over 0.6 metres high within the areas of the visibility splays.
Reason: To ensure drivers of vehicles entering the highway have sufficient visibility to manoeuvre safely including giving way to approaching users of the highway without them having to take avoiding action and to ensure drivers of vehicles on the public highway have sufficient warning of a vehicle emerging in order to take avoiding action, if necessary.
7. No other part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the new vehicular access has been laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No. DM-000-03; and to be linked in with existing carriageway levels, with an entrance width of 4.5 metres. Thereafter, it shall be retained in its approved form. Prior to the new access being brought into use, all other means of vehicular access into the site from Mill Lane shall be effectively stopped up and closed in complete accordance with a scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the access is laid out and completed to an acceptable design in the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the highway and to avoid multiple accesses that would be detrimental to highway safety.
8. Prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied, the new access onto the highway shall be properly surfaced with a bound material for a minimum distance of 5 metres measured from the nearside edge of the metalled carriageway, in accordance with details that shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory access and to avoid unacceptable safety risks arising from materials deposited on the highway from the development.
9. The gradient of the vehicular access shall not be steeper than 1 in 20 for the first five metres measured from the nearside edge of the highway.
Reason: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the public highway in a safe manner.
10. The gradient of the access driveway shall not be steeper than 1 in 12 measured from the nearside of the edge of the highway.
Reason: To avoid unacceptable safety risk from skidding vehicles and provide for pedestrian and cycling access.
11. Before the development is commenced details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway including any system to dispose of the water. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the access is first used and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form.
Reason: To prevent hazards caused by flowing water or ice on the highway.
12. No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the proposed off-site highway improvements indicatively shown on Drawing No. 01-PHL-101 Rev.D have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety prior to occupation.
Reason: To ensure that the necessary highway improvements are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety and sustainable travel.
13. No part of the development shall be commenced until a photographic condition survey of the highway fronting and near to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety, to ensure that damage to the highway as a result of the development is repaired at the developer's cost and satisfactory access is maintained for the safety of residents and the public.
14. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a Construction Management Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following matters:
a) parking and turning for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors
b) loading and unloading of plant and materials
c) piling techniques (if applicable)
d) storage of plant and materials
e) provision and use of wheel washing facilities
f) programme of site and all associated works such as utilities including details of traffic management necessary to undertake these works
g) site working and delivery times
h) a communications plan to inform local residents of the program of works
i) provision of boundary hoarding and lighting j) details of proposed means of dust suppression
k) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction
l) haul routes for construction traffic on the highway network and
m) monitoring and review mechanisms.
n) Details of deliveries times to the site during construction phase.
o) Layout of facilities above to be included on a plan.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety to avoid the hazard caused by mud on the highway and to ensure minimal adverse impact on the public highway during the construction phase. This is a pre commencement condition because an approved Construction Management Plan must be in place at the outset of the development.
15. Prior to the occupation of the new development the two local bus stops shall be improved to provide RTPI screens details of which previously shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To promote and facilitate access to sustainable transport modes and to provide safe and suitable access for all users in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (Dec 2024).
16. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on Drawing No. 40046FX-PL02 Rev.B for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles have been provided and thereafter the area(s) shall be retained, maintained and used for no other purposes.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient areas for vehicles to be parked are provided in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to the safe use of the highway.
17. Before the development is commenced details of the infrastructure to be provided for electric vehicle charging points 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.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable travel provision and compliance with Local Plan Sustainable Transport Policies.
18. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown in Drawing No. 40046FX-PL02 Rev.B for the purposes of secure cycle storage has been provided, and thereafter, the area(s) shall be retained, maintained, and used for no other purposes.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient areas for secure cycle storage are provided in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) to promote sustainable travel.
19. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown in Drawing No. 40046FX-PL02 Rev.B has been provided for the purposes of parking for mobility scooters, and thereafter, the area(s) shall be retained, maintained, and used for no other purposes.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient space for the on-site parking of mobility scooters is provided and maintained where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety for users of the highway.
20. The areas to be provided for the storage and presentation for collection/emptying of refuse and recycling bins as shown on Drawing No. 40046FX-PL02 Rev.B shall be provided in their entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.
Reason: To ensure that space is provided for refuse and recycling bins to be stored and presented for emptying and left by operatives after emptying clear of the highway and access to avoid causing obstruction and dangers for the public using the highway.
21. No development shall commence until details of the strategy for the disposal of surface water on the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (LPA).
Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal, to ensure that the proposed development can be adequately drained.
22. No development shall commence until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the strategy for the disposal of surface water on the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The strategy shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure clear arrangements are in place for ongoing operation and maintenance of the disposal of surface water drainage.
23. Within 28 days of practical completion of the last dwelling or unit, surface water drainage verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, detailing and verifying that the surface water drainage system has been inspected and has been built and functions in accordance with the approved designs and drawings. The report shall include details of all SuDS components and piped networks in an agreed form, for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority's Flood Risk Asset Register.
Reason: To ensure that the surface water drainage system has been built in accordance with the approved drawings and is fit to be put into operation and to ensure that the Sustainable Drainage System has been implemented as permitted and that all flood risk assets and their owners are recorded onto the LLFA's statutory flood risk asset register as required under s21 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in order to enable the proper management of flood risk with the county of Suffolk.
24. No development shall commence until details of a Construction Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) detailing how surface water and storm water will be managed on the site during construction (including demolition and site clearance operations) is submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA. The CSWMP shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan for the duration of construction. The approved CSWMP shall include:
Method statements, scaled and dimensioned plans and drawings detailing surface water management proposals to include:-
i. Temporary drainage systems
ii. ii. Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and watercourses
iii. iii. Measures for managing any on or offsite flood risk associated with construction
Reason: To ensure the development does not cause increased flood risk, or pollution of watercourses or groundwater.
25. Within 3 month(s) of commencement of development, precise details of a scheme of landscape works (which term shall include tree and shrub planting, grass, earthworks, driveway construction, parking areas patios, hard surfaces etc, and other operations as appropriate) at a scale not less than 1:200 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that there is a well laid out landscaping scheme in the interest of visual amenity.
26. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following commencement of the development (or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for a period of 5 years. Any plant material removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the first available planting season and shall be retained and maintained.
Reason: To ensure the submission and implementation of a well-laid out scheme of landscaping in the interest of visual amenity.
27. No development shall commence or any materials, plant or machinery be brought on to the site, until the approved scheme of protective fencing has been implemented. At no time during the development shall there be any materials, plant or equipment stored, or building or excavation works of any kind undertaken, beneath the canopies of the trees and hedges. All fencing shall be retained and maintained until the development is complete.
Reason: To protect the trees/hedgerow during the course of development in the interest of visual amenity
28. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation, and enhancement measures identified within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Tetra Tech, February 2024), Reptile Survey Report (Tetra Tech, February 2024) and Nocturnal Bat Survey Report (Tetra Tech, February 2024) as submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.
Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected and enhanced as part of the development.
29. Prior to commencement, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall:
- identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for biodiversity likely to be impacted by lighting and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and
- show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places.
All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that impacts on ecological receptors from external lighting are prevented.
30. No development shall take place (including any demolition, ground works, site clearance) until a method statement for reptiles and hedgehog has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the method statement shall include the:
a) purpose and objectives for the proposed works;
b) detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, where relevant, type and source of materials to be used);
c) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans;
d) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction;
e) persons responsible for implementing the works;
f) initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant);
g) disposal of any wastes arising from works.
The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected as part of the development.
31. Prior to work above slab level, an Ecological Enhancement Strategy, addressing how ecological enhancements will be achieved on site, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Ecological enhancement measures will be delivered and retained in accordance with the approved Strategy.
Reason: To ensure that the development delivers ecological enhancements.
32. Prior to the commencement of development, an invasive non-native species protocol shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, detailing the containment, control, and removal of cotoneaster sp. and three cornered leek on site. The measures shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure that invasive non-native species are appropriately controlled.
Biodiversity Net Gain Condition
33. This permission is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun.
A biodiversity gain plan must address all of the matters under paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 37C(2) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
In addition, where development is not to proceed in phases, the matters specified under Article 37C(4) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 must also be addressed.
Biodiversity Net Gain Details
The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition (biodiversity gain condition) that development may not begin unless:
(a) a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and
(b) the planning authority has approved the plan.
The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan in respect of this permission is East Suffolk Council.
There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply. These are set out in the relevant legislation.
Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements listed in the legislation are considered to apply.
If the permission which has been granted has the effect of requiring or permitting the development to proceed in phases. The modifications in respect of the biodiversity gain condition which are set out in Part 2 of the Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning) (Modifications and Amendments) (England) Regulations 2024 apply.
In summary: Biodiversity gain plans are required to be submitted to, and approved by, the planning authority before development may be begun (the overall plan), and before each phase of development may be begun (phase plans).
Irreplaceable habitat
If the onsite habitat includes irreplaceable habitat (within the meaning of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024) there are additional requirements for the content and approval of Biodiversity Gain Plans.
The Biodiversity Gain Plan must include, in addition to information about steps taken or to be taken to minimise any adverse effect of the development on the habitat, information on arrangements for compensation for any impact the development has on the biodiversity of the irreplaceable habitat.
The planning authority can only approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if satisfied that the adverse effect of the development on the biodiversity of the irreplaceable habitat is minimised and appropriate arrangements have been made for the purpose of compensating for any impact which do not include the use of biodiversity credits.
The effect of section 73D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
If planning permission is granted on an application made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (application to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached) and a Biodiversity Gain Plan was approved in relation to the previous planning permission ("the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan") there are circumstances when the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan is regarded as approved for the purpose of discharging the biodiversity gain condition subject to which the section 73 planning permission is granted.
Those circumstances are that the conditions subject to which the section 73 permission is granted:
i) do not affect the post-development value of the onsite habitat as specified in the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan, and
ii) in the case of planning permission for a development where all or any part of the onsite habitat is irreplaceable habitat the conditions do not change the effect of the development on the biodiversity of that onsite habitat (including any arrangements made to compensate for any such effect) as specified in the earlier Biodiversity Gain Plan.