7
The Planning Committee South received report ES/0146 by the Head of Planning and Coastal Management. The report was presented by the Case Officer.
The application sought full planning permission for the erection of a dwelling and a garage on land adjacent to 20 Emerald Close, Kesgrave and had been forwarded to the Committee by the Referral Panel. The Referral Panel had considered the application because the Officers' recommendation for refusal was contrary to the recommendation of the Town Council. The Case Officer considered the proposed dwelling to be the second phase of the existing residential development at Emerald Close and that this would bring the total number of dwellings at the development to ten, from nine. The Committee was reminded that developments of ten or more houses should include a provision for affordable housing at a ratio of 1 in 3 and , in exceptional circumstances, a commuted sum to fund the provision of affordable housing at a different site in the same area might be acceptable. The Case Officer stated that the application would not provide an on-site affordable home and that a planning obligation to deliver an appropriate commuted sum had neither been provided or agreed with the Council. He therefore advised the Committee that the application was contrary to the strategic objectives of policies SP2 (Housing Numbers and Distribution) and DM2 (Affordable Housing on Residential Sites) which sought to deliver the housing types and tenure of accommodation required to meet the District's needs. In addition, the application was contrary to the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework for major housing development to deliver affordable homes.
The Chairman invited questions of the Case Officer.
A member of the Committee asked about the legal 'test' of what constituted a second phase of a development, if there was a time limit for second phases of existing residential developments, for clarity about the land's ownership and how this might impact on this being assessed as a second phase, or not. The Case Officer replied that, in this case, the first phase of the residential development's building works remained on-going and so, in practice, the application would be considered to be a second phase. He added that case law was clear on what constituted a second phase, or not, but acknowledged that it was for the Committee to make a subjective judgement on the circumstances of the application before it. The Case Officer added that the ownership of the land had not changed hands since the submission of a previous planning application in 2018 which had sought to demolish an existing dwelling at 191 Main Road (now 20 Emerald Close) to enable the construction of one replacement dwelling; that application had been refused and the Committee was referred to paragraph 3.2 of the report for the detailed reasons for that determination. It was noted that whilst the land remained in the same ownership the current application had been submitted by a different applicant to the earlier application.
There being no further questions, the Chairman moved to debate.
A member of the Committee referred to correspondence from the residents of Emerald Close which indicated that they perceived the application to be part of the main development and not a second phase. The Case Officer summarised two additional letters of support which had been received since the publication of the Committee's papers. The member of the Committee added that the applicant had not adhered to the requirement for the provision of affordable housing. Another member of the Committee agreed that the requirement for affordable homes had not been met by the applicant and added that, to approve the application, would not only be contrary to policies and case law but set a precedence. Several other members supported the Officers' recommendation and concurred with the earlier comments that the Council's policies be upheld.
The Chairman spoke briefly, as Ward Member. She said that the site had been the subject of several planning applications and that, whilst the application had not received objections, there was a wish, locally, to have the matter concluded.
The Chairman moved to the recommendation which was proposed by Councillor Blundell, seconded by Councillor Deacon and by majority vote (there being one abstention) it was
RESOLVED
That the Application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed site was in the same ownership as the existing development on land at Emerald Close and, because of the access road arrangement and the way the properties were oriented around it, the proposed development of the site - in combination with the existing development - would form one planning unit. It would clearly read as a single development and the proposal was therefore a second phase of the existing development on land at Emerald Close. This second phase would take the total number of dwellings across the development from nine to ten. In this regard, the proposal failed to satisfy the requirements of policies SP3 and DM2 through its inadequate affordable housing provision and no planning obligation has been provided to deliver an appropriate commuted sum to fund provision of affordable housing at a different site within the same area.
The development proposal was, therefore, contrary to policies SP3 (New Homes) and DM2 (Affordable Housing on Residential Sites) of the East Suffolk Council (Suffolk Coastal) District Local Plan (Development Plan Document) July 2013.
2. The application site fell within 13km of three designated European Sites: the Deben Estuary SPA/Ramsar Site; the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA/Ramsar Site; and the Sandlings SPA.
The Suffolk Recreation Avoidance Mitigation Strategy ("Suffolk RAMS") identifies that new housing development within a 13km zone of influence ("ZOI") of any designated European site in Suffolk will have a likely significant effect on the interest features of those sites through increased recreational pressure, both alone and in-combination with other housing in the ZOI. To mitigate this, a per-dwelling financial contribution of £321.22 was required to fund the Suffolk RAMS. No planning obligation had been submitted with the application to deliver this financial contribution and, therefore, the Local Planning Authority could not conclude 'no likely significant effects' arising from the development proposal on the aforementioned European sites.
The proposal was therefore contrary to the objectives of Development Plan policies SP14 and DM27(i) (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); and SSP32 (Visitor Management of European Sites) - which sought to protect designated sites in accordance with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.