6
The Committee considered report ES/1448 which related to planning application DC/21/5669/ARM. The application sought Approval of Reserved Matters for a residential development of 161 dwellings, together with associated infrastructure and open space pursuant to Outline Planning Permission (DC/17/3981/OUT as amended by DC/20/1049/VOC) and details to address the requirements of Conditions 22, 23, 32 and 33.
The Committee received a presentation from the Planner, who was the case officer for the application. The Planner explained that the site was allocated for approximately 200 houses in the adopted Local Plan under Policy WLP4.2 and outline planning permission for up to 200 dwellings was granted in May 2019 (DC/17/3981/OUT as amended by DC/20/1049/VOC). The reserved matters related to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed dwellings, together with areas of new open space and the provision of new pedestrian and vehicular accesses into the site from Roman Way.
The site location was outlined, and an aerial photograph was displayed. Photographs of the access, the surrounding roads, and views of the site were shown. The Outline Illustrative Masterplan for 200 homes was highlighted along with a plan showing the application to vary the access from the roundabout to a junction off Roman Way as approved on 29 October 2020. The Reserved Matters site layout plan for the proposed 161 homes was displayed together with illustrations of the site topography and characteristics, section plans showing the changes in levels of the site, the street scene and proposed landscaping illustrations. The location of the 51 affordable homes was shown on a plan, along with the location of the attenuation basin and the Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP). The dwelling types and associated elevations were displayed and described in detail.
The Planner surmised that the principle of residential development on the site was established, and the reserved matters were considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policies in the Local Plan. There were no technical barriers to development and whilst noting local concerns, the proposal complied with the development plan. There were no identified policy conflicts or any material planning harm resulting from the reserved matters proposals. The material planning considerations and key issues were:
- Principle of Development established
- Highway Considerations – access and off-site approved
- Housing Mix / Affordable Housing
- Self-Build and Custom Build Housing
- Layout, Scale and Appearance
- Landscape and Visual Impact
- Flood Risk
- Halesworth Neighbourhood Plan
- Play Equipment
- Public Benefits
The application was recommended for approval subject to receipt of a revised Design Code and Marketing Strategy for the self-build dwellings, matters set out in the Update Sheet (including an additional Condition) published on 13 February 2023 and the Conditions set out in the report concerning:
- Approved plans
- Details of Materials
- Access details
- Access gradient to be no more than 1:20
- Surface water verification report (within 28 days of the completion of the last dwelling)
- Construction surface Water Management Plan
- Details of play equipment
At the invitation of the Chairman, Members asked questions relating to:
- The absence of a second site access onto the B1123 which had been included on the Design and Access Statement approved at the Outline Permission stage
- Whether the southern boundary pedestrian connection that had been indicated in the Transport Assessment at Outline Permission, and which had been in use before lockdown, would be reinstated
- Whether the proposed relocation of the NEAP was contrary to the Outline Permission
- The timescale for maturity of the proposed landscaping and planting schemes; and the location of refuse bin storage and presentation areas
Officers responded that:
- The Outline Permission could not be revisited at the Reserved Matters stage, and Highways had been consulted and were satisfied with the access arrangements for the site
- The southern boundary pedestrian connection had manifested in error over time and Officers had included a full chronology detailing some errors made by the former applicant’s Transport Consultant, the Highway Authority and the District Council in respect of connections to the south, as Appendix A to the report. The Reserved Matters application did not present an opportunity to revisit those issues and it did not allow a further condition to be applied for an additional pedestrian access connection
- The proposed relocation of the NEAP satisfied policy insofar as it was surrounded by development on three sides, was on a level part of the site and offered good connectivity to the rest of the development
- The landscaping and planting schemes would take up to 15 years to reach maturity; refuse bin storage locations would be secured by condition, and the presentation of refuse bins would be at the front of each dwelling in accordance with Building Regulations.
Councillors Goldson, Brooks and Rivett sought clarification of the access road gradient and the road gradients throughout the site. At the invitation of the Chairman, Sam Bye (Suffolk Highways) addressed the Committee to explain that the proposed site access gradient of 1 in 20 was consistent with that identified in the Outline Permission. One road at the top of the site had a steeper gradient of 1:15, however Highways were satisfied that the gradients were within the standard range for a new development and were wholly appropriate for the site. Councillor Coulam asked whether the proposed road layouts varied from those approved at Outline stage. The Planning Manager responded that the proposed road layouts were consistent with that agreed in the Outline Masterplan.
Councillors Goldson and Gee expressed their concerns that the site sloped down toward Flood Zones 2 and 3 and questioned what mitigations would be in place. The Planning Manager emphasised that the development site was in Flood Zone 1 and was therefore not at risk of flooding. The site did not currently contribute to flooding in the area and the development once built would utilise Surface Drainage Systems (SUDS) including pipes, swales, and a substantial attenuation basin to manage surface water. The Chairman invited Leigh Parratt on behalf of the Suffolk Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) to speak. Ms Parratt explained that as a result of the LLFA holding objection the applicant had been required to undertake further infiltration testing across the site and more testing at the location of the attenuation basin. Subsequent additional technical and engineering details had been submitted and the attenuation basin would be substantially increased in size to ensure it had sufficient capacity to hold surface water run-off and release it at a controlled rate to the wider drainage system. Subject to the revised details, the LLFA were able to recommend approval of the drainage system.
In response to Councillor Goldson, the Head of Planning and Coastal Management urged the Committee to acknowledge that the site was an allocated site, and that the principle of development could not be revisited. Highways and LLFA matters had been satisfied and the report before Members was comprehensive.
Councillor Goldson asked what the capacity of the attenuation basin would be, how it would be maintained, what the seep rate would be, and what the dimensions of any pipe work that would connect to the basin would be. Ms Parratt responded that the basin was not a tank, but an open conveyance grassed basin, of sufficient capacity for the proposal. There would be no outlet pipe as the basin would seep by infiltration. There would be 3 inlets utilising the proposed drainage swales. Councillor Goldson further queried what would happen if the basin were to overflow. Ms Parratt cautioned that the basin was designed not to overflow and would be constructed in accordance with current day design standards which allowed for future climate change and urban creep. The Planning Manager advised that the Outline Permission and S106 agreement required the developer to maintain and manage the development and that the applicant had submitted a management strategy with the application.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Charlotte Slater spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Local Plan policies regarding layout and design. Ms Slater contended that Local Plan Policy WLP 4.2 was clear that it may be necessary to restrict building heights to one or one and a half stories on the crest of a hill. In acknowledging that the wording of the policy was that ‘it may’ rather than ‘must’ be necessary, Ms Slater considered that the policy should resonate with Councillors who had attended the site visit as the site would be visually overbearing as most of the dwellings were two-storey homes with a proposed landscaping scheme that would take decades to grow. There were precedent bungalow developments in Barley Meadow and Allington Road and the proposal before Members neglected the visual sensitivity of the site as only two of the 161 dwellings would be bungalows.
Ms Slater referred to the Great Yarmouth & Waveney Settlement Fringe Landscape Sensitivity Study (2016) which had found that the site was highly visible and as a sensitive area one which could not accommodate large-scale development. Additionally, Local Plan Policy WLP 8.35 stated that development would not be permitted where it would have an adverse effect on and impact on sensitive landscapes Locally sensitive and valued landscapes including Rural River Valleys and Tributary Valley Farmland character areas. Ms Slater urged the Committee to note that those two policies would be contravened by the proposal.
Ms Slater turned to Local Plan Policy WLP 4.2 which stated that site density should not exceed 30 homes per hectare. Had the proposal complied with that policy, the proposal would be limited to 143 dwellings rather than 161. Ms Slater emphasised that whilst outline permission was for up to 200 homes, site-specific policies should be engaged due to the visual sensitivity of the site. In summary, Ms Slater contended that the application should be rejected on the grounds of Local Plan Policy contravention on house heights and density which had been designed to prevent such a development.
The Chairman invited Members to ask the Objector questions. Councillor Rivett asked whether any landscaping amendments would assuage the objection. Ms Slater responded that changes should instead be made to the proposed dwelling heights as landscaping proposals would take many years to mature.
The Head of Planning and Coastal Management countered Ms Slater’s statement and read paragraph 101 of the Report on the Examination of the Waveney Local Plan, 2019. The Inspector had stated that although the site ‘would represent an incursion into the open countryside, based on my observations during visits to the area, it would from most vantage points appear to be a logical extension of the existing, modern housing developments in the vicinity. The Great Yarmouth & Waveney Settlement Fringe Landscape Sensitivity Study (2016) credibly identifies that the site lies within an area with moderate capacity for development and there are not alternative sites available for housing in/around Halesworth and Holton which are in landscapes with a higher capacity for new development. The Head of Planning and Coastal Management urged Members to note that the impacts should be considered against the need for allocating sites for housing, and his view was that this site was the least worst of the potential options in and around Halesworth.
The Chairman called upon Halesworth Town Councillor Peter Dutton to address the Committee behalf of the Town Council in objection to the application. Town Councillor Dutton argued that past interpretation of policies referred to previously by Ms Slater had led to a proposal that would deliver a large intrusive housing estate on a steep sided hill which Halesworth residents did not want. He stated that East Suffolk Council’s own landscape advisor had reported that in her opinion the proposal would result in the development being an abrupt transition to the wider rural landscape in terms of integrating into the wider setting; and that the western edge would then form the new fringe of development. Within the proposed development, the location of the play space was not on the periphery but had been shown to be in a more central position which would lack connectivity to the totality of the development and not be a suitable location for access to bus stops on Dukes Drive. Turning to Local Plan Policy WLP 8.21, Town Councillor Dutton expressed his dissatisfaction with the proposal for shared surfaces for pedestrian and vehicular use; poor accessibility to bus stops and cautioned that the proposed road crossing points on Roman way would encounter farm and large traffic that regularly used the road. His opinion was that the narrowness of the road between the pedestrian islands and the verges would be inadequate to cope with large agricultural machinery which already had to use the verges or the other side of the road to avoid oncoming traffic.
The Chairman invited questions to Town Councillor Dutton. Councillor Goldson asked how open space assets recently transferred to the town council from the district council would connect with the new development. Town Councillor Dutton advised that there would be a lack of connectivity between the new development and existing open spaces and was particularly concerned with access to bus stops on Dukes Drive. The site path along the southeast boundary of the site should, in the view of the Town Council be extended to link up with Barley Meadow. That extension would enable access for pedestrians and cyclists between the two residential areas and enable residents from the Dukes Drive area to use a direct route to the proposed play area. Councillor Goldson was concerned that the site would be an island and responded by asking whether a footpath to Dukes Drive could be established. The Planning Manager advised that existing development prevented the establishment of such a footpath and consequentially the applicant would not be able to deliver a footpath in that location.
Councillor Plummer sought clarification of the concerns relating to pedestrians crossing Roman Way. Town Councillor Dutton clarified that residents of Newby Close had expressed concerns about the safety of two of the crossing points due to the volume and nature of vehicles using Roman Way and the proximity of the junctions of Newby Close and Chediston Street.
The Head of Planning and Coastal Management countered Town Councillor Dutton’s statement and read again from paragraph 101 of the Report on the Examination of the Waveney Local Plan, 2019. The Inspector had reported that “the site offers the benefit of being within close walking distance of Halesworth town centre via Chediston Street. This street lacks continuous footways although, bearing in mind the volume of vehicular traffic, I envisage that most people would feel safe and content to walk or cycle along it. Wheelchair users or pushers of buggies might be less willing to use this street, although there are not alternative sites which would provide significantly better, non-car access to the town centre for all potential residents.” And concluded that “it is clear that the site has been allocated for development in preference to others on a robust, objective and reasonable basis.”
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Applicant Mr Chris Smith, Development Planner at Hopkins Homes, to address the Committee. Mr Smith informed the Committee that the plans for the allocated site had been developed and refined in consultation with Planning Officers, the Lead Local Flood Authority and Suffolk County Council Highways to provide a development which included 51 affordable homes, nine self-build plots, a neighbourhood play area and over 4 hectares of new public open space and green infrastructure. Mr Smith emphasised that all statutory consultees were content with the technical and environmental mitigations proposed and offered assurance that all the Section 106 obligations secured with the Outline Approval would be discharged by the developer.
The Applicant responded to questions from Members:
- The designated site access was on Roman Way which would enable residents to access bus stops; third party land could not be used to provide alternative connectivity to the site
- The quantum of bungalows on the site was agreed in consultation with Officers. 40% of all dwellings would meet building regulations M4(2) standard. The mix and quantum of affordable housing was acceptable to the East Suffolk Affordable Housing Team
- Extensive cut and fill works would provide the gradients as shown on the section illustrations
- The building heights and locations aligned with the Outline approval, had been subject to consultation with Officers, and could not be amended
- The chimneys shown on the dwelling elevations were aesthetic as the dwellings would be heated with air source heat pumps
- The Outline Permission included a condition relating to land contamination.
In response to a question from Councillor Rivett, Mr Smith was content to extend the proposed detailed landscaping and maintenance scheme that accompanied the application from 5 years to 10 years.
The Chairman invited Members to debate the proposal. Councillor Goldson opened the debate and expressed his concerns about the height of the dwellings, access to the site, frustration with the previously agreed variation of condition which had removed the roundabout, the risk of flooding and issues with the attenuation tank on the development on the opposite side of Roman Way; Councillor Goldson was doubtful that the proposal satisfied policy. Councillors Goldson and Gee were dissatisfied with circumstances that enabled the outline permission and subsequent variation of condition to be agreed. The Chairman reminded Members that matters relating to the principle of development, other developments or previous decisions could not be revisited. Councillor Coulam was of the view that the housing need of the elderly population had not been considered with the dwelling types.
The Head of Planning and Coastal Management countered that the report before Members was clear that the proposal satisfied policy and accorded with the conclusion of the Planning Inspector previously stated. Members could be assured that the Outline Permission was lawful. Further, paragraph 7.44 of the report identified that the housing mix accorded with Policy HAL.HSG1 which set out that the provision of larger housing developments required a mix of larger properties and at least 15% of properties should be 4 bedroom. The proposed layout showed that 43, or 26% of the proposed 161 homes would be 4-bedroom properties. The Planning Manager concurred that bungalow developments had been built out elsewhere and there was demand for family homes. Furthermore, he advised that the site was already subject to rainwater, was not flooded, did not cause flooding and that the development would benefit from SUDS infrastructure.
Councillor Rivett cautioned that the concerns of some Members were not evidenced by the responses of the statutory consultees and was content that the extended landscaping time period would benefit the development. The cross-section illustrations showed how the building height concerns would be mitigated by the contouring of the site. Councillor Rivett was content that there were no planning reasons for refusal and moved that the application be approved. Councillor Cloke seconded the proposal to approve the application. Having been duly proposed and seconded, the Chairman moved to the vote on the proposal to approve the application and it was by a majority
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED subject to an additional condition on landscaping to cover a period of ten years post-planting, rather than five years.
Clerks Note: Councillor Pitchers left the meeting at 3.57pm, before the vote on Agenda item 6 and did not return.
Conditions:
1. The development hereby approved shall be begun within the time limits specified on the outline permission and is subject to any conditions imposed thereon.
Reason: In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended)
2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the following plans, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority:
1001 received 20.12.2021, 004 D received 29.09.2022, 002 F and 003 H received 02.02.2023, 007 C and 009 B received 28.07.2022, 101, 102, 103 A, 104 A, 105, 106, 107 A, 108 A, 109 A, 110 A, 111 B, 112 C, 113 B, 114, 115 A, 116 A, 117 A, 118 A, 119 A, 120 A, 121 A, 122 A, 123 A, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 B, 129 B, 130 A, 131 A, 132 B, 133, 134 A, 135, 136, 137 B, 138 B, 141, 142 A, 143 B, 144 A, 145 B, 146 A, 147 A, 148 B, 149 A, 150 A, 151 A, 152, 153, 154 A, 155 A, 162 A, 163, 164 A, 165, 166, 167 A, 168, 169, 170, 201 A, 202 A, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 A, 208 A, 209, 210 A, 213 A, 214 A, 215 A, 216 A, 217, 218 A, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224 A, 401 and 501 received 20.12.2021, 301 A, 302 A and 303 received 24.05.2022, LA5227-005, LA5227-006, LA5227-007 and LA5227-008 received 10.10.2022, 8956 AIA Rev A received 19.12.2022; Sustainability Statement Revision A received 05.01.2023.
Engineering Layout Sheet 1 2101-519-070B (08-12-2022)
Engineering Layout Sheet 3 2101-519-072B (08-12-2022)
Engineering Layout Sheets 2,4-5 2101-519-07(1,3-5) (05-10-2022)
Road long sections Sheet 1-6 2101-519-020(1-8) (21-09-2022)
Road Setting Out Sheet 1-3 2101-519-010(1,2) (05-10-2022)
Drainage longsections sheet 1-3 2101-519-026(7,8) (21-09-2022)
Highways contour Plan 2101-519-013 (09-2022)
Surface Water Overland Exceedance Routes 2101-519-015 (11-2022)
Source Control Location Plan 2101-519-016 (11-2022)
Section 104 Layout 2101-519-014A (08-12-2022)
Infiltration basin setting out and sections 2101-519-030C (08-12-2022)
Section 38 Layout 2101-519-038A (08-12-2022)
S38 ADOPTABLE ROAD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHEET 1 2101-519-040 (21-09- 2022)
S38 ADOPTABLE ROAD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHEET 1 2101-519-039A (28-11-2022)
PROPOSED NORTHERN SWALE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 210-519-041 (21-09-2022)
Section 104 Manhole Schedules Surface Sheet 1 of 2 210-519-112 (21-09-2022)
Section 104 Manhole Schedules Surface Sheet 2 of 2 210-519-113 (21-09-2022)
SuDS Water Treatment Device Performance Declaration
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER® SELECT DESIGN SUMMARY - Highways (07-12-2022)
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER® SELECT DESIGN SUMMARY - Private (07-12-2022)
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER® SELECT DESIGN SUMMARY - 104 (07-12-2022)
SuDS Strategy - Management and Maintenance Report Revision A (12-2022)
SuDS Risk Assessment - 2101-519-C (12-2022)
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. Prior to any above ground works details of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory external appearance of the development.
4. No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the proposed access onto Roman Way (including the position of any gates to be erected and visibility splays to be provided) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety prior to any other part of the development taking place.
Thereafter the access shall be retained in its approved form.
Reason: To ensure that the access is designed and constructed to an appropriate and acceptably safe specification and made available for use at an appropriate time.
5. 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.
6. Before the development is [commenced occupied] 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.
7. 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
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/flood-risk-asset-register/
8. 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. Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and watercourses
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
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/guidance-on-development-and-flood-risk/construction-surface-water-management-plan/
9. Full details of the play equipment to be provided on the Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Upon occupation of the 80th dwelling the play equipment shall have been installed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure appropriate provision of play equipment.