6
The Committee received report ES/2733 which related to application DC/25/4106/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the construction of a single storey self-build dwelling at Land East of Peach House, Wentworth Road, Aldeburgh, IP15 5BB. The proposal complied with the policies and guidance and the application was therefore recommended for approval however the Town Council objected and the application was referred to planning committee North. The ward members have not commented and there have been no objections from statutory consultees.
Members received a presentation from the Planner. He ran through the Town Council’s objections who said that the harm outweighed the public benefit.
He showed photos of the application site and surroundings, proposed floor/site layout plan and a more in depth floor plan. Members were shown proposed elevations and the existing and proposed street scene comparisons. He showed the Important Open Green/Tree space in the conservation area and highlighted the listed buildings. Members were shown the flood map and how surface water could affect the site.
The Planner showed some photos of localised flooding that had been sent in. The proposed drainage plan for the site and the proposed soakaway details and topographic details for the site were shown to Members.
The Planner ran through suggested conditions, including three pre-commencement ones. The recommendation was to approve.
The Objector was invited to speak. He explained that he lived adjacent to the application site. A number of planning applications for this site have all been refused by the council. The site sits within the Aldeburgh Conservation Area, in accordance with the Conservation Area Plan and is specifically designated as an important area of open/green/tree space in the plan. This design is similar to previously refused designs. The Objector quoted the decision notice noting its importance and that the proposal would detract and cause harm to the designated heritage asset that is the conservation area. It is considered that that the provision of a single dwelling is a minor benefit that is outweighed by the harm and that the proposal will fail the NPPF test, which were the same grounds that the Council’s Conservation Officer has objected to this current application. The site makes a significant contribution in its current form. Other reasons for refusal was based on design and surface water flooding. He concluded that the conservation area and design issues should be given weight on this occasion and refuse on those grounds, as with previous occasions.
There were no questions for the Objector.
The Chair invited the agent to speak. He said the Aldeburgh character and vibe was impossible to describe and this application was the tip of an iceberg. This site as a place for development has been going on for at least a quarter of a century. He pointed out that an award winning architect has submitted the design. He did not feel this development would cause significant harm but would provide another home for the council’s housing stock. This is a re-run of the application that was refused a year or two ago. That went to appeal and the Inspector came to different conclusions. The open space does not make a significant contribution to the conservation area. The Inspector said the wall made a significant contribution but the height of it makes it difficult to see what is inside the site. So, by being hidden the character of the area is not impacted. Officers have considered the design which had the blessing from the appeal Inspector. The appeal was lost solely on surface water grounds. That has been looked at again and the EA has changed their advice and mapping of the area. There is no evidence to support refusal on this matter. The applicant is therefore putting in an application for a high-end design from an award-winning architect. It has no material impact on the conservation area and no impact on the surface water, but the water will be managed by putting a dwelling there. He asked members to approve.
Councillor Ashdown queried that he mentioned the Council’s housing stock and asked if this will be affordable or an independent dwelling.
The agent explained that it was a market house. Technically every house is affordable to whoever buys it, but it was not classed as an Affordable Home.
The Principal Planner clarified that it had been put forward as a self-build and not a market house so it will be occupied for at least two years by whoever builds it.
Councillor Ashdown asked for clarification on why it was being recommended for approval when all other schemes have been refused.
The Planner referred Members to 8.5 in the report and the direct quote from the Inspector. They said it would enhance the conservation area, so the position of the Inspector (which is the Secretary of State) is a material consideration.
Councillor Gee asked if this site was part of the Aldeburgh Neighbourhood Plan. The Planner explained that there is no Neighbourhood Plan but it sits within the settlement of Aldeburgh. Councillor Gee asked if there was protection of the land. The Planner said the Council has a duty to consider the suitability of the site, as did the Inspector. The Inspector’s view was that the previous development was an enhancement of the conservation area.
Councillor Pitchers said he was struggling to see the objections. He noted that it was considered an important green/tree space but there are no trees. The Planner explained it was part of a wider area that has trees and shared the slide of the site.
Councillor Pitchers said it looked like an off shoot and therefore a natural infill. The Planning Manager said it was a clear gap where you might want infill. However, you treat the open green space as you would the area to the left where there was no development.
Councillor Pitchers asked if there was any archaeological importance. The Principal Planner said it was part of the medieval core of the town and it was likely there would be a requirement to carry out an archaeological survey. The wall needs to be retained as that has particular importance for screening. The wider site has less contribution towards the conservation area.
Councillor Ashton asked if there were issues with surface water drainage and how confident the planners were that this development wouldn’t contribute to the issues. The Planner shared the proposed drainage plan and talked through the strategy. The proposal showed a soakaway with permeable paving at the front to mitigate standing water. He showed the plan of the soakaway which was underneath the parking area.
Councillor Ashton was trying to understand if the mitigations mitigate its own harm or does it improve the situation. The Principal Planner said mitigates its own harm and it alleviates flooding on the site. Road flooding was another matter for the Town Council and Highways to address.
Councillor Ashton said the effect should be neutral then. The Principal Planner said it was as this application has overcome the issue that the Inspector dismissed the appeal on.
Councillor Ashdown asked if the applicant will be living there as it is self-build. The agent confirmed they would but if they didn’t they would be facing financial consequences and noted that self builds are encouraged through the system. The Principal Planner said there was a condition that it complies with self-build and there would be CIL and BNG implications for non-compliance.
Councillor Ashdown said he was sceptical about what it would and wouldn’t be but he has been reassured by the officers and agent. The Planning Inspector recommends it so under the circumstances he was willing to recommend approval.
Councillor Pitchers was happy to second it.
Councillor Ashton said it was an infill site and to achieve numbers you have to build somewhere else. It comes down to flood risk and he was satisfied that the mitigations offset the risk. He said that they had faced a similar application recently and he would make the same point again. He said it was futile sending something back to the Planning Inspector as it was unlikely they would reach an alternative opinion. If we refuse the application it will be appealed and we will lose. He thought it was an appropriate site so he was happy to support it.
Councillor Gee was concerned that climate change will cause more downpours and sea level rises, and so it might be suitable for now but it could be different in the future. It does not enhance the conservation area as all the listed houses are so different. It has no architectural beauty at all.
The Planning Manager confirmed that she was right to cite climate change but this has been modelled with the worst-case scenario against climate change. The Local Lead Flood authority require this.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was
RESOLVED
That the application should be approved subject to conditions.
Conditions:
1. Time Limit
2. Plans
3. Pre-com - Construction Management Strategy (CMS)
4. Pre-com - Details of indicated tree planting
5. Pre-com - Scheme of Archaeological Evaluation
6. Pre-com - Written report on the results of the Archaeological Evaluation
7. Prior to first occupation- Archaeological evaluation, and, if required, scheme of archaeological mitigation have been completed, submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
8. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs, or works to or demolition of buildings shall take place between 1st March and 31st August
9. Compliance with Drawing No. PL02 Rev B for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles
10. Prior to first occupation - Details of the areas to be provided for the storage and presentation of refuse and recycling bins
11. Prior to first occupation - Details of the infrastructure to be provided for electric vehicle charging points.
12. Prior to first occupation - Water efficiency standard of 110 litres per day.
13. Custom and self-build
14. Construction Hours
15. Connection of foul sewage
16. Unexpected Contamination
17. Noise from fixed plant or machinery
Informatives:
1. The Local Planning Authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.
2. Any works to a watercourse may require consent under section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
3. Any discharge to a watercourse or groundwater needs to comply with the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017
4. Any discharge of surface water to a watercourse that drains into an Internal Drainage Board district catchment is subject to payment of a surface water developer contribution.
5. Any works to lay new surface water drainage pipes underneath the public highway will need a licence under section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act.
6. Any works to a main river may require an environmental permit.
7. Certain species, including bats and nesting birds, receive legal protection, primarily under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended). Should a protected species be encountered during development work must stop immediately and advice on how to proceed be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist.