6
The Committee received report ES/0802 by the Head of Planning and Coastal Management. The application, presented by the Planning Manager (Development Management), sought full planning permission for a phased development of 75 homes, car parking, public open space, hard and soft landscaping, and associated infrastructure and access. The site had been allocated in the Local Plan for the development of approximately 50 homes under Policy SCLP12.61; the principle of residential development on the site was, therefore, established. The proposed development would include 25 affordable dwellings. The Planning Manager said the revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) relevant to East Suffolk Council as Local Planning Authority - and provided within the published Update Sheet - had been considered and did not affect the recommendation within the report. He added that the design proposed achieved the heightened design expectations of the 2021 NPPF, including the expectation for tree-lined streets. The application had been referred to Committee by the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, under the terms of the Scheme of Delegation, due to the level of public interest and the planning history. The application was also presented beside the Outline Planning application for the village (at item 5 on the agenda) to allow a collective consideration of the potential allocated growth at one meeting. The Planning Manager's presentation, in conjunction with the published report, provided detail on the site's description, the proposal, the matters of objection and support raised during the consultation, planning considerations including the principle of development, highways, design, housing mix, landscape, ecology, drainage and flood risk, environment and amenity, infrastructure, and benefits and harms of the development. With regard to drainage and flood risk, the Planning Manager said the proposed development would maximise the use of an above-ground Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) within the existing layout with reliance on below ground storage elements to attenuate surface water and flood risks. A combination of roadside swales (shallow channels designed to store and/or convey runoff) were proposed to move road water through the site in addition to two drainage basins and an underground storage system under the central square open space. The drainage solution proposed was technically sound, but was not entirely a SuDS solution; as a SuDS solution would alter the layout of the proposed development the proposed solution was considered to be acceptable and would adequately mitigate any flood risks. Similarly, the proposed cordon sanitaire in the vicinity of the water treatment works was also considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity. The Planning Manager said that a number of objections had claimed that the development would not entirely be open-market because of the developer's links to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi temple at Rendlesham . He stated that this was not a matter that could be controlled by conditions, however, it was possible to control the affordable housing element of the proposed development. The Committee was reminded that planning permission had previously been refused, twice, on this site for a proposal from the same applicant for the same number of homes, first in 2018 and then in 2019 on design grounds. The latter refusal had been subject to an appeal which had been dismissed in 2020 following a public enquiry. The revised proposal before the Committee reflected the outcome of that appeal and sought to address the design failure of the earlier scheme. The Planning Manager said there was a chronic need for more rights of way access in Rendlesham and this would be established by the proposal, if approved. The Planning Manager said that the revised proposal had been a productive process and he wished to commend the applicant for this approach.
The Chairman invited questions.
Councillor Cooper asked if the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) had commented on primary care provision. The Planning Manager said a response to the initial consultation had been received but noted that the local medical practice had recently expanded.
The Chairman invited Mr Moore, Objector, to address the Committee.
Mr Moore stated that the previous development company that had developed Garden Square and Gardinia Close had been wound-up by an order sought by East Suffolk Council for non-payment of CIL commitments; he stated that the applicant shared directors with that previous company. Mr Moore said the previous development was incomplete with unfinished roadways and raised iron works causing problems for users. Mr Moore referred to the marketing literature for the site despite, he said, the applicant's statement that there had been no marketing of the proposed properties. Mr Moore asserted that the marketing literature had been circulated to those sympathetic to the teachings of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and that, in his opinion, this was not therefore an open-market housing development. Mr Moore stated that deposits had been accepted for houses which were unapproved and unbuilt - he referred to his search of the company's accounts via Companies' House and suggested how he suspected this had been used. Mr Moore added that the Rendlesham Village plan accepted this to be a suitable site for housing but that some local residents had concerns about the lack of engagement with the Parish Council to facilitate the allotments and, he suggested, the public space was 'no more than a path'. Mr Moore considered the applicant to be intending to establish and run its own housing association to the benefit of those following the same teachings. Mr Moore urged the Committee to refuse the application but, if approved, that additional conditions around the provision of allotments, the open space and the management of the social housing by an established housing association.
At the Chairman's request, the Planning Manager clarified that the unpaid Section 106 commitments were not pertinent to consideration of this application as they had related to the adjacent development and had been pursued by the county council and not East Suffolk Council. With regard to Mr Moore's comments about the affordable housing, this would need to be managed in compliance with policy and would be a requirement of the Section 106 agreements, if the proposal was approved. East Suffolk Council would require housing associations to bid for the tenure of the properties and this would be governed by central Government's requirements and the Council's tenure requirements. In addition, the Head of Planning and Coastal Management said the application must be considered on planning matters and considerations and that some of Mr Moore's comments did not meet that criteria.
There were no questions. The Chairman invited Councillor Redfern of Rendlesham Parish Council to address the Committee.
Councillor Redfern said it was a disappointment that the applicant, despite various revisions, refused applications and a dismissed appeal was, he suggested, unwilling to present a policy complaint application that supported the existing community. Councillor Redfern said that the critical elements of the Parish Council's objection to the application were that the applicant had refused to adopt a policy complaint solution to the surface water flooding; flooding on the site was, he said, due to the presence of a minor aquifer. Councillor Redfern stated that the fully policy compliant Option 2 of the surface water drainage solutions should have been adopted from the outset of the design as it did not require below ground storage and essential maintenance which, he said, given the increasing incidence of extreme weather conditions, was of the utmost importance. Councillor Redfern considered the Planning Manager to have given too much emphasis to pure design issues over practical services issues. He added that, given SCCs holding objection and a compliant option requiring a full redesign of the development, the Parish Council did not consider this was something that could be approved by way of a condition. Councillor Redfern said the logic of including conditions to fundamental planning issues suggested all applications should be approved and all planning issues dealt with by conditions only. He continued to say that the Council had set out the local requirement of affordable housing which the applicant had not applied. He noted that the Council's housing department had stated in its consultation response that this was not acceptable. Councillor Redfern suggested that a desire to “Approve” despite recommendations of the “experts” set a dangerous precedent and, he suggested, provided an unacceptable level of risk. On behalf of the Parish Council, Councillor Redfern asked the Committee to consider that the Parish Council own and maintain all land for public use and that, he said, the applicant refused to provide allotments and growing spaces in accordance with RNPP3 of the Neighbourhood Plan and the Parish Council's allotment strategy. He asked the Committee to ensure the applicant was required to comply with planning policies which aimed to provide required infrastructure for residents to promote wellbeing. Councillor Redfern also asked the Committee to ensure that deficiencies in disabled access were resolved and further that the applicant be directed to comply with the Building Regulations 2020 as highlighted in the Parish Council's most recent response.
There were no questions.
The Chairman invited Dr Warburton, Chairman of Christchurch Property Co. Ltd, the Applicant, to address the Committee.
Dr Warburton said all the major points for consideration in the application had been well covered in the case officer’s report, but he wished to highlight some points. He said that he and the other two leaders of the company had all lived locally for many years, one for a whole lifetime. Dr Warburton said he loved Suffolk and especially the area where he had now settled for a total of over 50 years – namely Rendlesham, which he only wanted to enhance. Dr Warburton said the company's motivation was to create a high quality, ecologically sound, and well-designed housing development, faithful to the Suffolk vernacular and including a high standard of public open space and amenities. Dr Warburton said the company was not an outside developer who would build out the site and never be seen again. Instead, the company wanted to foster a development that helped create a vibrant Rendlesham and supported expansion of retail and community facilities. He said he planned to live in the development, if approved, for the foreseeable future. Dr Warburton said the company had done its best to address all advice, be it from the planners, experts in different fields, and of course the local Rendlesham community. He added that the company had worked diligently to address all of the concerns raised in the appeal in 2020. Specifically, Dr Warburton said he wished to emphasise the benefits of the latest scheme as 75 new homes in 43 buildings to a high standard of design, including a wide mix of size, type, and tenure, allowing plenty of open space; 25 affordable homes - consisting of 13 discounted market sales units and 12 affordable rent units, to be owned and managed by a Registered Housing Provider according to the terms and conditions of the Section 106 Agreement and the regulatory standards of the Regulator of Social Housing; 1.7 hectares (4.2 acres) of public green open space, including a village green, community orchards and parkland, and a play area, all with a high standard of planting and landscaping; a public footpath through the development, connecting to a new off-site Public Right of Way (speaking time ended).
There were no questions.
The Chairman invited Councillor Herring, Ward Member, to address the Committee.
Councillor Herring thanked the Planning Manager for presenting the two applications consecutively on the one agenda as this allowed the collective impact to be considered. He said the two items had been well presented and explained. Councillor Herring referred to the previous applications and the appeal process. He said that this application together with the earlier one of the agenda (item 5) did place an additional demand on local roads but this had, he said, been covered in the report and the presentation as well thought through and reasonable. Councillor Herring said it continued to be necessary to engage with business, retail and related employment in the area and that part of that was having homes available. He suggested that if Rendlesham wished to be a successful community then development was needed to encourage and enable that. Councillor Herring said he saw the application as an important part of helping to create and complete a comprehensive community in addition to the existing Garden Square community. He said the applicant had its own ideas in terms of design and layout but these were not unusual and suggested that an element of diversity was to be welcomed if it was of good design.
The Chairman invited the Committee to debate.
Councillor Cooper noted that, if approved, failure to sign the Section 106 agreement with six months would result in the application being refused.
Councillor Yule said Rendlesham Parish Council had an excellent record for submitting consultation comments and said that she did have some concerns at the points it had raised including its objection to the application.
The Planning Manager said the applicant's approach to surface water drainage would address this across the whole site and added that drainage would be delivered in a holistic manner through landscaping and not solely engineering; he said that the layout of the proposal relied on a non-SuDS solution. Therefore, he said, whilst the solution was not totally SuDS compliant, it was technically acceptable and would meet expectations. He disagreed that it would set a precedent as each case was considered on its own merits.
Councillor Yule asked if the drainage solution would future-proof the site from the impact of climate change on rainfall levels. The Planning Manager said it would.
Councillor Blundell said he was disappointed the proposal did not include space for organised sports. The Planning Manager said this was not required in a development of this scale. There was a play area provision within the open space and the existing Jubilee Park was in close proximity to the site. He noted that the Parish Council hoped to deliver a skatepark through use of community infrastructure levy payments.
There being no further matters raised for debate, the Chairman moved to the recommendation which was proposed by Councillor Blundell, seconded by Councillor Newton and by unanimous vote it was
RESOLVED
That AUTHORITY TO APPROVE be granted with conditions including, but not limited to, those below, subject to the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement within six months to secure obligations including, but not limited to:
• Provision of 25 affordable dwellings;
• Per-dwelling contribution to the Suffolk RAMS;
• Provision and long term management of public open space;
• Financial contribution to fund secondary school transport;
• Financial contribution to fund improvement works to local bus stop;
• Financial contribution to fund the creation of a new public right of way.
If the S106 is not completed within six months AUTHORITY TO REFUSE the application (at the time of writing the report the S106 was close to being signed).
Conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the submitted plans and documents (to be listed).
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:
a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
b. The programme for post investigation assessment
c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation
e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation
f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Policies SP1 and SP 15 of Suffolk Coastal District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2013) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
4. No building shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 1 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.
Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Policies SP1 and SP 15 of Suffolk Coastal District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2013) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
5. The site shall be developed in a phased manner in accordance with the three phases set out on the phasing plan. No work, except site investigations, shall take place outside of the relevant phased area before the Council has been notified of commencement within that phase and all relevant conditions addressed within that phase (through a CIL commencement notice)
Reason: To ensure that the development is built out in accordance with the proposed phasing plan as a phased development.
6. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants within the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of fire safety.
7. The recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal March 2018 shall be implemented in full.
Reason: In the interests of minimising the impacts on the identified ecological receptors.
8. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the mitigation/compensation measures (including nesting plots for skylark) and ecological enhancement measures identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report (BasEcology, March 2018), shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of minimising the impacts on the identified ecological receptors.
9. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of minimising the impacts on the identified ecological receptors.
10. No development or vegetation clearance will commence within the breeding bird season (March-August inclusive) unless works have been immediately preceded by a breeding bird check undertaken by a qualified ecologist. Should a breeding bird be found located on the site, works shall only take place in accordance with the advice put forward by the ecologist, who will advise on suitable mitigation and buffer distances.
11. No development shall commence until means of protecting the trees on and surrounding the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
12. Prior to the commencement of development, soft and hard landscaping details will be submitted and will include the following: play equipment and features and other structures including public bins and signage.
13. The landscaping management plan for public amenity areas shall be implements and all approved Landscaping shall be retained and managed in accordance with the standards and annual maintenance regime set out in the approved Landscape Management Plan.
14. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the acoustic bund/barrier adjacent to the northern boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved acoustic bund/barrier shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the adjacent dwellings.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure root protection areas are not disturbed by compaction or excavation.
15. Prior to the commencement of development a sustainability statement which demonstrates that Sustainable Construction methods have been incorporated into the development proposal shall be submitted. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: in accordance with the sustainable construction objectives of policy SCLP9.2 of the East Suffolk (Suffolk Coastal) Local Plan.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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-andtransport/flooding-and-drainage/flood-risk-asset-register/
19. 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:-
iv. Temporary drainage systems
v. Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and watercourses
vi. 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-ondevelopment-and-flood-risk/construction-surface-water-management-plan/
20. 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.
Unless agreed in writing by the LPA 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 BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11) 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.
21. Details of the estate roads and footpaths to be adopted and not adopted, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in the following order.
1. To submit details for the completion of the construction of the road and footway at Garden Square, and to get these approved prior to commencement.
2. To complete the construction of Garden Square to an adoptable standard prior to first occupation in Phase 1.
3. To submit details for the construction of the main road through the site from Garden Square to Tidy Road, and to get these approved prior to commencement.
4. To construct and complete the main road through the site from Garden Square to Tidy Road to an adoptable standard prior to first occupation in Phase 1.
5. To get Garden Square and the main road through the site adopted after Phase 3 is completed, ie when the roads are no longer used by construction traffic.
Reason: To ensure that roads/footways are constructed to an acceptable standard.
22. Condition: No dwelling shall be occupied until the carriageways and footways serving that dwelling have been constructed to at least Binder course level or better in accordance with the approved details except with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access is provided for the safety of residents and the public.
23. The approved scheme for areas to be provided for the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles including secure cycle storage 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: To ensure the provision and long term maintenance of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety.
24. Within one month of the first occupation of any dwelling, the occupiers of each of the dwellings shall be provided with a Residents Travel Pack (RTP) in accordance with the requirements in the Transport Statement. Not less than 3 months prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, the contents of the RTP shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority and shall include details of walking, cycling (for transport and recreation) and bus maps, latest relevant bus and rail timetable information, car sharing information, personalised Travel Planning and a multi-modal travel voucher. This pack should also provide information on any designated local dog walking routes accounted for the Appropriate Assessment to encourage residents to undertake dog walking in areas away from the Sandlings Special Protection Area.
Reason: In the interest of sustainable development
25. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied full details of the electric vehicle charging points to be installed in the development shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing.
Reason: To ensure that the development makes adequate provision for electric vehicle charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles in accordance with the Suffolk Guidance for Parking and paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
26. No part of the development shall be commenced until details of a Public Right of Way link (as set out in the section 106 agreement) within the development site to link from Sycamore Drive to the northern east corner of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The link shall be laid out and constructed within an agreed timescale as part of phase 1 of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the necessary improvements are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time.
27. Prior to commencement of development a waste management strategy for collections of domestic waste by a public or private operator shall be submitted and agreed. This will include details of bin storage locations and bin collection points and collection arrangements.
Reason: Due to the extent of unadopted roads and private drives creating potential difficulties in bin collection from individual properties or communal collection areas as access is dependent on agreement between the waste collection service and developer.
28. Prior to the commencement of any development in phase 1 a Construction Method/Management Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall also be submitted prior to the commencement of phase 2 and phase 3. The Statement shall provide for:
a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials;
c) Construction methods and piling techniques.
d) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
e) Programme of works (including measures for traffic management and operating hours);
g) Details of HGV delivery and collection vehicle routes and times to and from the site during construction phase. The site operator shall maintain a register of complaints and record of actions taken to deal with such complaints at the site office as specified in the Plan throughout the period of occupation of the site.
h) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;
i) Site security and public safety measures;
j) Wheel washing facilities to prevent mud and sand from vehicles leaving the site during construction;
k) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;
l) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction works.
The Meeting adjourned at 3.40pm and reconvened at 3.50pm