DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 16 OCTOBER 2012 APPLICATION NO DC/12/0985/OUT Development Site West Of The Stables Woods Loke East Lowestoft Suffolk

Transcription

1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 16 OCTOBER 2012 APPLICATION NO DC/12/0985/OUT LOCATION Development Site West Of The Stables Woods Loke East Lowestoft Suffolk 8 EXPIRY DATE 9 July 2012 APPLICATION TYPE Outline Application APPLICANT Euro Project Management (EA) Ltd PARISH PROPOSAL Construction of nine dwellings consisting of three affordable forming a terrace and six detached, with a new roadway and landscaping DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty s Stationery Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. SUMMARY 1.1 This application follows the withdrawal of application reference DC/12/0520/OUT for the reason that the applicant had erroneously requested that little was to be a reserved matter according to the application form submitted, whereas the intension in reality was to leave most matters reserved and establish the central principle of development of the land. This is an application for 9 dwellings served by a shared surface road, it occupies land where permission was granted in 2006 for two dwellings. This proposal is considerably smaller 35

2 than the 39 dwelling proposal refused in 2009 on a larger parcel of land. Access from the Loke is considered acceptable in principle subject to detailed design and given the previous approval on this parcel of land the current proposal is recommended for conditional approval. SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 This is an area of former paddock close to the bridleway known as Woods Loke East (which benefitted from an outline permission in 2006 reference W11454/11), and a further parcel of land within the larger parcel forming the continuous undeveloped strip on the east side of Millennium Way. Original outline ref W11454/11 Current proposal DC/12/xxxx/OUT 2.2 This is a smaller parcel of land than that covered by the whole strip alongside the Millennium Way spine road, under application reference DC/09/1233/FUL refused in The site contains Protected trees towards the south side and along the northern boundary within the hedgerow along the bridleway. PROPOSAL 36

3 CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS 4.1 Neighbour consultation/representations Objections have been received from the occupiers of the following properties: 16 Nightingale Road, 151, 155, 181, 227 Oulton Road, Porthia, Southside, Socoa, Richmond, Jasmine Dene (x2), Lynwood, Artois, Green Meadows, 7, 8,, 9A, 10, 10A, 11 Woods Loke East, 39 Woods Loke West, 14, 27 Berkeley Gardens, 2 Magdalen Close, 27 Pound Farm Drive, 23, 43, 51 Highgrove Close, 1 Somerleyton Road, 1 Ringsfield Road, Bidwells (for Blue Sky Homes), 20 Bramfield Road, 12 Breckland Way. (33) 4.2 Objections in synopsis: 4.3 Procedural: It is farcical that applications can be made again and again. The proposal is thoughtless and selfish. An appeal on this land declared it incapable of development. There is no contaminated land survey. (this is not correct). This proposal does not state the number of bedrooms proposed where the earlier one did. It is unclear what is being asked for. The threat to appeal is an attempt to pressurise committee. The developer is not a credible company. There is now too much information for an application in outline with all matters reserved, and still too little supporting information. The request for owners to come forward as required when a site contains land with no known owners was placed in the personal column of the local paper and is ineffective therefore. 4.4 Flood risk: flooding occurs arising from the construction of the highway. Further hard surface in the area must cause harm. Old watercourses are not properly maintained, additional water flowing into these will cause additional harm. (Photos of flooding within a property, the other side of Millennium Way and 300m from the site boundary are attached to one letter). The weight of new buildings will squeeze water out of the ground. The land in its current form provides natural drainage to the wider area. This area is a high flood risk zone. 4.5 The Burrell partnership report is wrong, this is not a sandy soil area, it is clay, evidenced by its use for brick-making. The Burrell partnership letter does not comply with the Business Names Act Waveney must indemnify the residents against further flooding if they allow this proposal. Anglian Water must agree to accept the extra surface water discharge. The UKSuds website calculations tools prove this site cannot be developed without additional flooding at the Oulton Roundabout. 4.6 Loss of wildlife Corridor: Harm to wildlife and loss of green approach to Lowestoft with potential harm to tourism. The wildlife survey cannot be accurate, residents have carried out their own surveys and seen lots of bats. The ponds survey carried out for the last application were not included this time (this is not correct). 4.7 Traffic generation: of eighteen cars will impact on Oulton Road junction, risk to children and cyclists going to school. Larger vehicles will be too wide for the Loke. There was a fatality at the junction with Fir Lane. The drawings still do not show a satisfactory design. There will be overspill parking. 4.8 Greenfield status of the land, there is a plentiful supply of Brown land, as found at the previous appeal for 39 dwellings. (Another objector has stated the land to be contaminated and another that the land was a brickworks). The land is green belt. 4.9 The quiet character of Woods Loke will be lost There will be overbearing scale and loss of privacy with regard to some property near the proposal on the Blue Sky Homes site Eight trees will be lost. 37

4 4.12 Concern is expressed regarding the presence of the overhead power lines Permission will be sought later for more housing if this is allowed This land is needed for the widening of Millennium Way One objector would object to any development of this site no matter how small Personal matters: A lot of local residents are elderly. Proposed houses are too close to retirement properties. There will be particular disturbance during construction Objector's suggested conditions: Limitations on working hours and vehicular access. Wheel washing facilities be installed and traffic management to avoid road side parking and congestion. All of the conditions suggested by WDC s Environment Protection Officer in his response dated 24th May That a SuDs licence be mandatory for this site. That the 106 agreement is expanded to incorporate drainage requirements. That the reserved matters application be heard by committee and not delegated to Officers. Consultees 4.18 Environmental Health - Contaminated Land: The desk study report submitted with the application has identified several potential on and off site sources of contamination and has recommended that an intrusive investigation is carried out. I would concur with this conclusion and the site should not be developed until contamination has been adequately investigated and characterised. This work, and any remediation and validation which may be required, could be secured using the four DCLG model conditions 4.19 Suffolk Fire And Rescue Service consider that a hydrant will be required on this site but that its exact position can only be determined when the water service design is complete Suffolk Wildlife Trust: We have read the protected species assessment report (Aurum Ecology, May 2012) the additional pond assessment report (Aurum Ecology, June 2012) and the arboricultural assessment of the proposed tree removal The proposal requires the removal of several trees/hedges to allow for the proposed development, with these trees being assessed as either BS5837:2012 Category B; BS5837:2012 Category B/C or BS5837:2012 Category C by the arboricultural consultant. Given that, should permission be granted, trees will be lost to the development we consider that mitigation through the planting of new native species should be secured. Additionally, it is understood that a number of trees on and adjacent to the site have Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on them. Trees provide habitats for a variety of wildlife. No damage should occur to these trees From the ecological survey this site does not appear to support any protected species, with the exception of foraging bats. However, several Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species were recorded. The proposal site forms part of a wildlife corridor and the loss of semi natural green-space should be carefully weighed If development is acceptable, the recommendations made within the ecological assessment (Aurum Ecology) should be implemented in full, via a condition of planning consent Additionally this site lies directly adjacent to Oulton Road Pond and Meadow County Wildlife Site (CWS). We therefore request that, should permission eventually be granted, care is taken during the construction stage to limit building work within the boundaries of the development site. This also applies to the movement of vehicles and the County Wildlife Site 38

5 should not be used for parking or turning of construction vehicles, nor the temporary storage of building materials Natural England: We do not comment on specific applications. This site might offer habitat to Bats, Great Crested Newts and Otters. Our standing advice sheets should be referred to Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds were consulted on the 21 May 2012, no response has been received at the time of writing Anglian Water were consulted on the 21 May 2012, no response has been received at the time of writing Essex And Suffolk Water PLC advise that none of their apparatus appears to be affected by the application Suffolk County - Highways Department: No objection to the principle of a development of this scale at this location From Drg. No 201E: the proposed site plan scheme, the development is to be served by a private drive, rather than a road to adoptable standard. However, the layout of the proposed access road from the end of Woods Loke East will require an amendment design, in order to ensure safe use by pedestrians and cyclists on the bridleway Any soakaway shall have a minimum clearance of 5m from any road or building WDC - Landscape Adviser: TPO 332A - covers the trees along the footpath frontage and in the field. Hayden's Arboricultural Consultants have supplied a Tree Survey, AIA (Arboricultural Implications Assessment) and Preliminary Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan The survey is certainly adequate and plots the important vegetation. Trees proposed for removal are limited to - Trees numbered to their plan not the TPO- G001-2 x Silver Birch - (not covered by the TPO), G002-3 x Hawthorn (not covered by TPO),A001 - Silver Birch / Field Maples (Not covered by TPO), H001- Hawthorn / Ash hedge - Fell small section to eastern aspect to allow development - Shown on TPO as G2, T5 Hawthorn T7 Ash T8 Elderberry Not covered by TPO The tree protection plan shows the RPA boundaries (Root Protection Areas) and protective fencing details. These are acceptable. Subject to achieving planning permission it is recommended that a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement and tree protection plan should be provided If minded to approve condition no dig construction for the access road and that protective fencing and temporary load baring surfaces must be installed prior to commencement of construction and be re-aligned as the project progresses Five trees require remedial pruning works to provide unencumbered access and construction space during development. One tree T6 Ash requires root pruning works to facilitate a dwelling As 3 individual trees, 2 groups, 2 areas and 1 section of hedge have to be removed to achieve this proposal. We would want to see additional landscaping incorporated into the proposed scheme Environment Agency Drainage: No objection to the proposals subject to appropriate contaminated land conditions being appended to any approval granted. 39

6 4.39 Contaminated Land: A Desk Study and Risk Assessment, identifies potential contamination from in-filled land and the location of a former car breakers yard. The assessment concludes that the site should be subject to Site Investigation and Quantitative Risk Assessment. Superficial deposits of sand & gravel designated as Secondary Aquifer, are located across the eastern part of the site and although superficial deposits of Lowestoft Diamicton, designated as unproductive strata, may be present across the western part of the site, these superficial deposits overly the Crag Bedrock of sand, designated as Principal Aquifer. The site is also situated within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone 3. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, unacceptable levels water pollution. Given the potential for contamination associated with the previous uses of the vicinity of the site we recommend that the model conditions are appended to any approval (as also recommended by WDC Environmental Health) Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage The proposed development is situated within Flood Zone 1, the low probability flood zone, assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year (<0.1%). Notwithstanding this, the site is in an area of known surface water flood risk. Given that the site is below 1ha. And outside of our statutory remit, we would advise you to discuss the proposed surface water drainage for the site to soakaway with Suffolk County Council who are the Lead Local Flood Authority Please note that soakaways or other infiltration systems that are constructed in land affected by leachable contamination may promote the mobilisation of those contaminants and give rise to contamination of groundwater. For this reason the following advice must be followed. Soakaways shall not be constructed in land affected by potentially leachable contamination; Soakaways or other infiltration systems shall only be used in areas on site where they will not present a risk to groundwater; The depth of soakaway must be kept to a minimum to ensure that the maximum possible depth of unsaturated material remains between the base of the soakaway and the top of the water table. This will ensure that a direct discharge of surface water into groundwater is prevented; Only clean water from roofs shall be directly discharged to soakaway; Systems for the discharge of surface water from associated hard-standing, roads and impermeable vehicle parking areas shall incorporate appropriate pollution prevention measures A note regarding piling needs to be applied Suffolk County - Rights Of Way No objection, standard requirements regarding the protection of the right of way British Gas Transco were consulted on the 21 May 2012, no response has been received at the time of writing British Telecom were consulted on the 21 May 2012, no response has been received at the time of writing EDF Energy were consulted on the 21 May 2012, no response has been received at the time of writing Suffolk Preservation Society were consulted on the 21 May 2012, no response has been received at the time of writing. 40

7 4.48 WDC - Strategic Housing were consulted on the 21 May 2012, no response has been received at the time of writing. PUBLICITY 4.49 The application has been the subject of the following press advertisement: Category Published Expiry Publication Public Right of Way Beccles and Bungay Affected, Journal Public Right of Way Affected, Lowestoft Journal SITE NOTICES 4.50 The following site notices have been displayed: WDC General Site Notice Reason for site notice: In the Vicinity of Public Right of Way, Date posted Expiry date RELATED APPLICATIONS Reference No Proposal Decision Date DC/12/0520/OUT Construction of nine dwellings consisting of three affordable forming a terrace and six detached, with a new roadway and landscaping PLANNING POLICY CS01 Spatial Strategy (Adopted Core Strategy, January 2009) CS02 High Quality and Sustainable Design (Adopted Core Strategy, January 2009) CS11 Housing (Adopted Core Strategy, January 2009) CS16 Natural Environment (Adopted Core Strategy, January 2009) DM02 Design Principles (Adopted Development Management Policies, January 2011) DM04 Sustainable Construction (Adopted Development Management Policies, January 2011) DM16 Housing Density (Adopted Development Management Policies, January 2011) DM17 Housing Type and Mix (Adopted Development Management Policies, January 2011) DM18 Affordable Housing (Adopted Development Management Policies, January 2011) DM25 Existing and Proposed Open Space (Adopted Development Management Policies, January 2011) DM29 Protection of Biodiversity and Geodiversity (Adopted Development Management Policies, January 2011) PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Procedural Matters: Although the original application for 39 dwelling raised considerable public interest and was of a size where automatically reviewed by committee, the current application for nine dwellings, and under the scheme of delegation would not normally be taken to committee. The number of objection letters, however, suggest the application should be considered by Members. 6.2 The applicant made pre-application efforts, of an extent and in accordance with statutory requirements, to discover who owns the surface of the bridleway, but no party was discovered or answered the press advertisements. If an owner were to come forward the applicant might be frustrated by English Common Law rights of that owner, from implementing any planning approval, but this lack of clarity as to ownership of a small part of 41

8 the land covered by the proposal would not be a reasonable reason to refuse the application. There is however no procedural imperfection in the application regarding this unresolved ownership issue, and the application is valid. 6.3 Letterheads from consultants and their compliance with other non-planning legal requirements are not a material planning consideration. 6.4 Outline application scope: The application form requests that all matters other than the principle of development for nine dwellings are to be established at reserved matters stage. For this reason, the final design of the units and the number of bedrooms is a reserved matters issue. The information supplied is considered sufficient for the assessment of the application at outline and the layout drawings do serve to illustrate that the site has the capacity for nine dwellings, which is currently pertinent, leaving other matters to detail design. The applicant has had conducted contaminated land, arboriculture, and ecology surveys of sufficient scope for an outline application and furthermore had trial holes dug. 6.5 Policy Considerations: The development site is within the main built up area of Lowestoft, within the Physical Limits as defined by Policy DM01 and therefore a sustainable site in relation to access to services and facilities, including proximity to schools, public transport, open space, shops and health facilities. It is also well connected by good cycle paths and footpaths. 6.6 The land is defined as green-field land under the definition contained in the NPPF, which is reflected in both Policies DM01 and CS01. CS11 also requires consideration of developing brown-field sites before green-field sites. However, due to the smaller scale of the development this site is not (now it is a much smaller parcel of land) classed as a strategic development and may be considered windfall development. The redlined site area, covers in part, the same area as previously granted permission in outline for two dwellings W11454/11 of The principle of housing in this location and on part of the site is therefore established. For clarity, this land is considered to be Greenfield as there is no evidence of historic physical development on the land itself. 6.7 The density of the scheme is similar to that of development in the vicinity and achieves approximately 30 dwellings per hectare, meeting the guidelines set out in Policy DM16. The applicant states that the scale of development will also be similar to surrounding properties. 6.8 The type and size of the dwellings is split between 3 and 4 bedroom houses. Policy DM17 requires developments in a District wide context, to provide smaller houses for single people and couples in a 30%-40% ratio of development overall. There is a degree of flexibility to negotiate 2 bedroom and flatted affordable housing provision within the site at reserved matters stage, notwithstanding the table submitted on drawing 201E. It should be noted however the wording in the policy is intended to provide this mix on a District wide basis and other locations will offer opportunity for higher density of mix of development closer to the Town Centre. 6.9 The proposed development allocates three units as affordable housing. This exceeds the criteria set out in Policy DM18 where a ten unit development would be expected to contribute only two units as affordable so nine units would represent 1 unit and a contribution towards 4/5th of the cost of a second unit. On that basis providing 2 of the units are available for affordable rental, then the third could be open market sale in any case and any model of affordable housing offer would be satisfactory for this third unit. The Housing team will ensure specific affordable housing needs are met for this area The proposed development will result in the loss of part of the green corridor running alongside the Northern Spine Road. The retention of a viable linkage was a principle theme of the earlier refusal DC/09/1233/FUL and subsequent local hearing appeal, APP/T3535/A/10/ /NWF and its loss an upheld reason for the refusal. The bulk of the linkage in this proposal remains as a connection in the Green Corridor along Millennium 42

9 Way, including the connection to the County Wildlife Site to the immediate north of the Loke. The layout of the development will be less visually intrusive than the former refused scheme. It allows greater opportunities to soften the appearance of the new dwellings, because they are set to the east of the access road and therefore the buildings themselves project less far into the Green Corridor A requirement for a contribution toward open space should be sought through Section 106 Agreement in accordance with Policy DM25 and the Open space Provision and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012) In accordance with Policy DM04, a condition should be attached to the Outline Planning Permission requiring a Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment or interim certificate to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of building works, showing the CfSH level that can be achieved; and a final CfSH certificate submitted to the LPA prior to the occupation of the dwelling demonstrating compliance with the Code level specified in the pre-assessment or interim certificate Ecology: Natural England have responded to state that their standard table of habitats likely to support protected species suggests certain species may be present but Natural England do not, as a matter of policy, comment further An Ecology study was received on 6th June 2012 and a supplementary study examining the nearby ponds added on 21 st June 2012 following a request from the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, these conclude that while bats overfly the site there are no roosts or other features to justify bat box provision, birds however will benefit from bird boxes, a condition (at reserved matters stage) while not recommended by the ecologist is suggested by the planning officer, to secure delivery of these boxes and that works must proceed outside the nesting season No newts or larvae were detected in water samples and the pond in the County Wildlife site is considered too small for this species group. Objections have been made that Bats have been seen around the site, however, the busy road is a clear disincentive to nocturnal creatures and visits are considered fleeting and limited, ecology surveys have to look for use of buildings as roosts and nurseries, there may be overflying bats feeding in the area, but it is the use of the buildings or tree crevices on the site that are of significance in the context of development. One correspondent complained that the removal of ivy from trees represented a loss of habitat. The applicant has agreed to limit ivy removal to that which is strictly necessary. This can be secured at reserved matters stage. There is a balance to be found where dense ivy on trees near habitation and where people pass, can pose risk, in that defects in the tree can be concealed. (It should however be noted that it would not be unlawful to remove all the ivy and brambles on the site providing protected species were not present as these plants are not in themselves protected by law) Highway access: The County Council has no objection to the principle of a development of nine dwellings in this location and served by a private drive. The layout of the proposed access road where it joins onto Woods Loke East will require further design detail at reserved matters stage. County Highways comment that highway access is not a reserved matter is not correct in the case of this revised application, where this matter is reserved Layout: The layout does create a fairly large coverage of the site with hard surface for vehicle movement, however, the parking in the south east corner near the stables, has been discussed with the agent and a case has been made that the constraint of the minimum size of turning head and the desirability of retaining protected trees does lead to the solution provided. While the aspect of the affordable units could be reversed to face west, and parking transposed to the west side, the risk is that parked cars would become covered in bird lime and as a result demand for the removal of protected trees would increase. The layout should therefore be retained as suggested, providing adequate parking for all users, visitors and disabled persons and adequate bin storage. Some objectors have seen the position of the turning head as an indication of further likely development of the site. This 43

10 further development would require further planning permission so a refusal on a suspicion cannot be made. The indicated layout has the advantage that the highway facility and open space area are at the west side of the site and will serve as undeveloped land to increase the effective width of the Green Corridor. The level change in the land is sufficient to allow two storey dwellings in proximity to the properties on High-grove to be configured in a satisfactory manner at reserved matters stages and fears that this might be difficult would not be a reasonable reason for refusal. The applicant has informally suggested that a cottage type approach with a wall-plate at first floor window cill level and dormers could secure a lower scale where the housing is closer to the boundary with the Blue Sky residential park. Whilst this remains a reserved matter, this approach is considered appropriate. It is not considered that the proposed affordable units situated with a blind gable facing the properties in the Blue Sky residential park, notwithstanding the outline nature of the application, will lead to an inevitable loss of privacy Trees and Planting: The site plan shows the suggested building layout set against the tree survey carried out using modern digital methods and the Tree numbers related across from the Tree Preservation map and description. It is considered that this gives a high degree of confidence that the site can be developed with the number of dwellings suggested and without harm to protected trees. Conditions are inappropriate at this stage as landscaping is a reserved matters requiring a further application. The arboricultural report suggests the removal of three trees, other trees within groups and remedial pruning to five others. The landscape officer suggests that while this is acceptable, replacement planting should be agreed within the reserved matters application Contaminated land: The Contaminated Land Officer is satisfied that the phase 1 desk study report submitted with the application is sufficient. It has identified several potential on and off site sources of contamination and has recommended that an intrusive investigation is carried out. He concurs with this conclusion and states that the site should not be developed until contamination has been adequately investigated and characterised. This work, and any remediation and validation which may be required, could be secured using the four DCLG model conditions Flooding: The site is within flood zone 1 as is all land that is not in the higher risk zones 2 and 3. The land is not therefore considered at risk in itself of pluvial or tidal flooding. The proposal involves buildings on less than 10% of the.37 hectare site with a further.7 hectare undeveloped and available for drainage. (Roads and parking areas could be permeable, this however is a reserved matter ) One objection suggests the proposal would block a watercourse, though no running water was noted on site on the line shown, if there is a culverted watercourse, it may require maintenance, but this cannot be made the responsibility of the applicant. One objection observed that surface water flowed away from property on Woods Loke East down towards Oulton Broad. The EA letter quoted by the objector referred to off site impacts for the larger scheme and the issues were resolved by the applicant for that earlier scheme and did not form part of the refusal reason at that time. This smaller scheme will have a lesser impact, though some retention and soak-away measures might need to be installed and conceivably these could be placed in the blue lined land in the owners control but not being developed The developer's duty is to ensure that flooding is made no worse, but cannot be compelled to address existing flooding. The professional competence of the engineer s letter has been questioned, by objectors. It is however based on trial holes recorded by Norfolk Partnership Laboratory in 2009 in relation to the refused scheme for 39 units It is considered that a satisfactory drainage design can be achieved at reserved matters stage and in line with the requirements of a SuDs licence issued by the County Council One objector has suggested that the developer is bound to a section 106 agreement for a SuDs scheme. As all the land where the scheme would be installed is in the control of the 44

11 applicant, this would not be necessary. A legal agreement would offer no greater protection to the public interest, because any conditions attached to a reserved matters application would lawfully have to be observed Surface water run off rates for SuDs schemes have to be calculated as no greater than those currently occurring, and there would not be connection to Anglian Water s surface water drainage infrastructure The claim that off site flooding must be increased because the calculation tool from the UKSuds.com website gives a reading with regard to a particular location (and where assumptions entered into the programme are not specified) is not considered to be proven as the website only shows that without Suds measures such as attenuation tanks there may be increased flooding Comment on other objections raised: Access for this 9 dwelling scheme is a lesser issue than that for 39 dwellings where refusal was not given on the grounds of poor access for traffic. A traffic survey by the County prepared for the larger application in 2009 showed that proposal to be acceptable in highway terms There is no evidence from statutory suppliers that power or gas connections are in any way difficult to provide at this suburban site. The nine units is below the threshold where policy requires section 106 financial contributions towards the provision of school places, and is therefore in planning terms not considered to have a material impact on school rolls It has been suggested that foul water drainage of the properties will be difficult to secure because of local topography. Part of other objection is that this is the highest ground in the area where surface water run off will do harm elsewhere. The statutory provider of foul drainage services is obliged to receive foul water drainage, for residences with planning approval and where a connection fee is paid. If the levels were adverse, modern pump technology is efficient, reliable and inexpensive. Foul drainage concerns would not provide a reasonable reason for refusal Planning law has to be cognoscente of Human Rights legislation. However, to characterise the passing of vehicles on a public highway as removing the right of an individual to the enjoyment of their possessions would be wrong, indeed the balanced consideration regarding the change of amenity within the planning process is considered to be a more exacting test of impact and change of impact The proposal covers land previously granted permission and the bulk of the wildlife corridor is retained and is considered to maintain connectivity for ecology. The snapshot nature of the Ecology report is sufficient to detect Wildlife that would be directly affected by development and to detect wildlife living in buildings and tree crevices. The presence, reported, of other species in transit through the site does not act to prevent development Construction activity which causes damage is not a material planning consideration, being a common law matter Concerns that the proposal will lead to precedent for further development are not considered to be soundly based, in that while objectors might be right that there will be pressure to develop further parts of the land, the appeal decision, the wildlife connectivity and the Greenfield nature of the land all suggest that such proposals would be likely to fail. The proposal cannot be refused because there are empty dwellings in the District. The reinstatement of such dwellings to use is part of separate Council led initiatives The previous scheme for the whole of the land was to have seen the undergrounding of cables, this scheme does not require the undergrounding of the east side cable run, the west side run appears to be over part of plot 7, nevertheless this is not a material planning concern as the developer can either reroute or place underground the cable run in 45

12 conjunction with the network operator, and with the provision of the finance to carry this out, so there is no impediment to a satisfactory planning outcome. Planning law (and consideration) does not cover health and safety matters with regard to development near cables. There is no proposal to form new footpath connections through private land. The developer cannot do this lawfully without further planning permission County Highways do not have any medium or long term plans to dual the spine road highway. If this were the case, the land would have been identified as being required for this in the Local Development Framework and policy would specifically advise against development. Councils are obliged not to blight land against development where there is no realistic prospect of a particular infrastructure project being carried out There is no requirement in planning law to assess whether proposals are viable where they meet affordable housing policy, nor does the planning system consider the finances of an applicant as the permission runs with the land rather than the applicant A land charge cannot be made on the land in the way suggested by one objector as such matters as future land development are properly considered by way of further planning applications and these are determined on their merits The fire service have suggested that hydrants are required for this site, their observation has been passed to the agent and a condition is recommended for the formal agreement of position numbers and supply pipe characteristics Given the small size of the affordable units and the proximity of protected trees to the other properties it is considered reasonable to remove permitted development rights from extensions, and given the scale of the area to also retain control over roof alterations. Lawfully this must be done at outline stage. CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The site is in a sustainable location with good access to most services and facilities. It will provide a range of house types and sizes including an element of affordable housing. Type, size and tenure of the affordable housing should be discussed with the Housing team. An offsite financial contribution will be required for open space. Conditions to meet the requirements of Policy DM04 should be part of any planning permission. RECOMMENDATION Approve with conditions 1. a) Application for approval of any reserved matters must be made within three years of the date of this outline permission and then b) The development hereby permitted must be begun within either three years from the date of this outline permission or within two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later date. Reason: To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act Plans and particulars showing the detailed proposals for all the following aspects of the development ("the reserved matters") shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved: The layout including the positions and widths of roads, footpaths and cycleways including levels, gradients and means of surface water drainage, notwithstanding the information shown in drawing reference 201 revision E received 23 rd August The design of all buildings, including the colour and texture of facing and roofing materials Landscaping 46

13 A hard and soft landscape design showing the planting and replanting of trees, proposed to be undertaken, the means of forming enclosures, the materials to be used for paved and hard surfaces and the finished levels in relation to existing levels. Protection of retained trees during the works and measures to mitigate the impact of works upon surrounding wildlife habitat. Further agreement over remedial pruning and ivy removal The arrangements to be made for the future maintenance of landscaped and other open areas Measures to minimise water and energy consumption and to provide for recycling of waste The layout of foul sewers and surface water drainage The provision to be made for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles The measures to be taken to protect adjacent areas from excessive noise The alignment, height and materials of all walls and fences and other means of enclosure The provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse The manner of treatment of existing water courses and ditches A design for the Sustainable Drainage of the site, with calculation of the impact of on site impermeable surfaces and demonstration that flow rates will be at or below those currently as a result of mitigation measures, and the nature of those measures, and methods of maintenance of those measures. Reason: To secure a properly planned development. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 no building or structure permitted by Classes A (extensions or alterations), B (changes to the roof) or E (buildings or enclosures within the curtilage of the houses) of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Order shall be erected without the submission of a formal planning application and the granting of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure a properly planned development, and where permitted development rights could give rise to unintended consequences. 4. Prior to the commencement of development, an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons 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. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: - human health, - property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, - adjoining land, - groundwaters and surface waters, - ecological systems, - archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11. 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. 47

14 5. A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. 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. The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. 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. 7. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 4, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 5, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 6. 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. 8. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. Reason: The site is within a source protection zone. 9. A Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment or interim certificate to be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority as part of a reserved matters application showing the Code for Sustainable Homes code level 3 can be achieved; and a final CfSH 48

15 certificate submitted to the LPA prior to the occupation of each dwelling demonstrating compliance with the Code level specified in the pre-assessment or interim certificate. Reason: To accord with Policy DM Clearance work on trees hedges and undergrowth where otherwise permitted must take place outside the bird nesting season, from late March through to early September. Prior to the commencement of development further details of bird nesting boxes and planting designed to act as nest sites shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority and approved by the LPA. Information shall show type and position of the boxes. The approved scheme shall be installed and maintained in the agreed form. Prior to the commencement of development, details of external lighting shall be submitted in written and drawn form to the local planning authority. Low wattage, "down-lighting" units controlled by PIR detectors or time-controllers are generally recommended Reason: To mitigate for impacts of development on wildlife and to provide illumination without detriment to nocturnal wildlife, and for the avoidance of light pollution. 11 As part of the reserved matters application for this site, further details of the position of the fire hydrant required by the Fire Service shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Any hydrant shall be installed in compliance with the agreed scheme and retained. Reason: To facilitate the fighting of fire. BACKGROUND PAPERS Case File DC/12/0520/OUT. Contact Development Management, The Marina Centre, Lowestoft. CONTACT Chris Green, Area Planning and Enforcement Officer,