PART ONE REASON FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 Committee Report Item No: 3 Ward: Rattlesden Ward Member: Cllr Penny Otton Reference: DC/18/00229 Case Officer: John Pateman-Gee RECOMMENDATION GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION AND FULL PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS Description of Development Hybrid application: (i) outline planning application (all matters reserved except for access) for the erection of 22 dwellings (including 8 affordable homes) and (ii) planning application for change of use of land to public open space Location Land Adjacent Roman Rise Rattlesden IP30 0QY Parish: Rattlesden Expiry Date: 20/03/18 Application Type: Development Type: Small Scale Major Dwellings Applicant: Hartog Hutton Ltd Agent: Philip Cobbold Planning Ltd PART ONE REASON FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE The application is referred to committee for the following reason: It is a Major application for: - a residential development for 15 or more dwellings. Details of Previous Committee/Resolutions and Member Site Visit None. PART TWO POLICIES AND CONSULTATION SUMMARY Summary of Policies Relevant policies in the Core Strategy Focused Review 2012 and Mid-Suffolk Local Plan 1998: FC01 - Presumption In Favour of Sustainable Development FC01_1 - Mid Suffolk Approach to Delivering Sustainable Development FC02 - Provision and Distribution of Housing CS01 - Settlement Hierarchy

2 CS02 - Development in the Countryside & Countryside Villages CS03 - Reduce Contributions to Climate Change CS04 - Adapting to Climate Change CS05 - Mid Suffolk's Environment CS06 - Services and Infrastructure GP01 - Design and layout of development HB01 - Protection of historic buildings HB14 - Ensuring archaeological remains are not destroyed H07 - Restricting housing development unrelated to needs of countryside H13 - Design and layout of housing development H14 - A range of house types to meet different accommodation needs H15 - Development to reflect local characteristics H16 - Protecting existing residential amenity H17 - Keeping residential development away from pollution T09 - Parking Standards T10 - Highway Considerations in Development RT04 - Amenity open space and play areas within residential development RT12 - Footpaths and bridleways RT13 Water based recreation CL08 - Protecting wildlife habitats Suffolk Design Guide National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Supplementary Planning Documents Suffolk Adopted Parking Standards (2015) Consultations and Representations During the course of the application consultation and representations from third parties have been received. These are summarised below. A: Summary of Consultations Rattlesden Parish Council Object on following grounds: Drainage/Surface Water/Flooding/Sewerage Traffic Management Access Local Services pressure on school and health centre Footpaths must be finished properly. Joint Local Plan not earmarked in Local Plan for development. SCC Highways Authority 1. The proposed visibility splays for the development are not sufficient for safe vehicular access. The required visibility splays for a 30mph speed limit are x=2.4m and y=90m, as standards in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. If the site cannot achieve the required standards in some cases a speed survey may provide acceptable evidence of actual speeds to enable a lower standard of visibility to be accepted. Providing insufficient visibility of approaching vehicles and pedestrians for drivers emerging from an access is an unacceptable risk, and in most cases will result in a recommendation of refusal of planning permission. 2. For this size of development, we would prefer a single access onto the highway rather than the 2 proposed. This concentrates turning movements at a single point on the road and reduces the hazard.

3 County Development Contributions Manager Education: surplus places available therefore no contribution required. requirements. CIL would cover other County Archaeological Service The proposed development lies in an area of high archaeological potential recorded on the County Historic Environment Record and its location between two rivers and on light soils makes it a favourable site for archaeological activity from all periods. A length of Roman road is believed to run either along the edge, or close to, the proposed development site (RAT 012) and extensive multi-period finds scatters have been recorded in the immediate vicinity (RAT 004, 019, 046, 047, 048, Misc). As a result, there is high potential for the discovery of below-ground heritage assets of archaeological importance within this area, and groundworks associated with the development have the potential to damage or destroy any archaeological remains which exist. Given the high potential, lack of previous investigation and large size of the proposed development area, I recommend that, in order to establish the full archaeological implications of this area and the suitability of the site for the development, the applicant should be required to provide for an archaeological evaluation of the site prior to the determination of any planning application submitted for this site, to allow for preservation in situ of any sites of national importance that might be defined (and which are still currently unknown). This large area cannot be assessed or approved in our view until a full archaeological evaluation has been undertaken, and the results of this work will enable us to accurately quantify the archaeological resource (both in quality and extent). This is in accordance with paragraphs 128 and 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework. County Fire and Rescue Service No objection condition requiring fire hydrants to be installed. SCC Flood and Water Holding Objection: Infiltration testing has been carried out and was unsuccessful. Evidence required that the watercourse that they proposed to discharge into is a mapped watercourse. Evidence required that the discharge point is within the applicant ownership or that they have an agreement in principle for this discharge point. Note: This has been provided. Anglian Water The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Rattlesden Workhouse LN Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows. The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act We will then advise them of the most suitable point of connection. Corporate Manager Sustainable Environment (Land Contamination) The applicant has not supplied any information to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed end use from the perspective of land contamination. For the development of this scale we require the applicant to submit a BS10175 compliant Phase I investigation. Without this information I would be minded to recommend that the application is refused on the grounds of insufficient information. Note: This is not a requirement of current validation requirements. The site is a field that has not been developed before or has any known history of contamination. It is therefore reasonable to condition this information. Corporate Manager Sustainable Environment (Sustainability)

4 No objection subject to a Sustainability and Energy Strategy condition. Place Services - Landscape The main development constraint is the requirement to protect and enhance the existing landscape character. In terms of the likely visual impact, the proposal will have a significant impact on the rural character of Rattlesden. We would therefore advise the following recommendations: 1. We recommend a landscape plan is submitted before approval. Currently the layout plan shows no differentiation between existing and proposed trees, the swale is not located on the plan and no differentiation has been given between soft landscape features (i.e. shrubs, grasses and herbaceous plants). 2. The Landscape Plan should be accompanied by a landscape strategy. Details should include: a soft landscaping strategy, hard landscaping specification, boundary treatments, proposed visuals and public open space details. 3. If approved, we would recommend a detailed boundary treatment plan is submitted as part of a planning condition. This should detail both hard and soft landscape boundary treatments and accompanied construction details. 4. If the outline application is approved, a detailed landscape planting plan, landscape maintenance plan and specification will need to be submitted. We recommend a landscape maintenance plan for the minimum of 3 years, to support plant establishment. SuDS features such as the swale and attenuation basins should also be included in the landscape management plan to ensure appropriate management is carried out and to maintain functionality as well as aesthetic. Place Services - Ecology Holding objection due to insufficient ecological information I have reviewed the revised Extended Phase 1 Survey (Hiller Ecology, April 2018) provided by the applicant, relating to the likely impacts of development on Protected & Priority species. The ecological assessment now covers the full red line boundary. However, it does not address the likelihood of farmland birds (e.g. Skylarks) being present and affected by the proposed development, as previously recommended in Place Services initial comments (26th January 2018). Therefore, there is currently insufficient ecological information for determination. Consequently, it is recommended that an addendum to the ecological assessment or amended ecological assessment should be provided to determine the likely impacts of the development on farmland bird species. BMSDC Heritage The Heritage Team consider the proposal would cause a low level of less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset because the development would adversely impact upon the setting of numerous listed buildings. The proposal consists of outline planning permission for the construction of 22 dwellings on agricultural land between the hamlet of Poystreet Green to the south and a C.20 housing estate to the north, along Rising Sun Hill. The heritage concern relates to the impact on the development on the setting of listed buildings within Poystreet Green including Cansell Grove Farmhouse (Grade II) and Limberlost (Grade II). There are also potential undesignated heritage assets in close proximity to the site. A second part of the application concerns the change of use of land to the east from agricultural to public use, which is not of heritage concern.

5 The hamlet developed as a small cluster of dwellings focused around a road junction, located separately from the larger village of Rattlesden to the north. It is these earliest dwellings which are typically now listed. While there has been piecemeal development over time in the hamlet, the hamlet, and thereby the heritage assets within it, nonetheless retain their relatively isolated nature as an important part of their setting. The development would connect the hamlet to the C.20 development to the north; therefore the character of the heritage asset s setting would be further eroded. Housing Enabling Officer No objection. This application proposes 22 units of which 8 will be affordable homes. This is Policy compliant with the requirement to provide 35% affordable on all sites of 10 units or more. The allocation of these units will be to applicants registered on the Council s housing register Homechoice. The housing waiting list currently shows that there are 11 applicants requiring accommodation in this area. The need is primarily 1 and 2 beds. For the open market units we would like to see an overall mix that reflects a range of housing needed in the district not only for those on our housing waiting list but for first time buyers including single people. Products should include shared ownership, shared equity, discounted sale etc. New developments should also include properties suitable for older people who may want to downsize. It would be proposed that at Reserved Matters the layout submitted should accommodate the that the affordable units are as follows: - Affordable Rented = 6 3 x 1 bed 2-person houses 2 x 2 bed 4-person houses 1 x 3 bed 5-person houses Shared Ownership = 2 1 x 1bed 2-person house 1 x 2 bed 4-person house B: Representations Objections received on the following grounds: *Already discounted in the SHELAA as not suitable for residential development *Loss of high quality agricultural land (Note majority is Grade 3 with some edging as Grade 2 and not deemed to be the best agricultural land in planning terms) *Little employment in the village *No requirement for 8 large houses *Dominating effect on character of Poy Street Green *Scale is not small as defined in the Core Strategy which is 10 houses *Amenity impacts noise, disturbance and traffic congestion *Significant flooding and drainage issues will be exacerbated *No need for further public open space as village already well served *Increased demand on local services particularly health centre and the school *Car dependent proposal *Loss of sunlight, daylight and privacy *Rising Sun Hill too narrow to cater for more traffic *Lack of tree survey *No evidence of recyclable waste storage

6 *No attention paid to archaeology *Development scale is out of keeping with the village *Ecology impacts *Inaccurate plans with neighbouring development omitted *Increased traffic impacting children s safety PART THREE ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION 1. The Site and Surroundings 1.1 The application site comprises agricultural land located on the eastern side of Rising Sun Hill, at the southern fringe of Rattlesden, which is designated as a Primary Village in the Core Strategy. To the west on the opposite side of Rising Sun Hill are residential properties. Residences also adjoin the northern and southern site boundaries. Arable fields are located to the east. 1.2 The site is not in or adjoin a Conservation Area (there are no Conservation Areas in the village). The nearest listed building is located approximately 60m south (Cansell Grove Farmhouse and not within sight of the development). The site is not within the boundary of a protected landscape and there are no statutory landscape designations that apply to the application site. 1.3 The application site measures approximately 4.45ha. Whilst the site has an extensive frontage to Rising Sun Hill, there are currently no vehicle access points to the site from Rising Sun Hill. The site is in Flood Zone The Proposal 2.1 The application is a hybrid, comprising: (a) outline application for 22 dwellings; (b) full planning application for change of use of agricultural land to public open space. All matters (with the exception of access) are reserved in respect to the outline application. 2.2 An indicative layout is shown on the illustrative drawings with 22 dwellings shown, with a mix of single and double storey residences. The 14 open market homes will include of a mix of 2 and 3 bed semi-detached and terraced low-cost starter homes together with 8 x 4 bedroom family homes. 2.3 The outline proposal would provide 35% affordable housing, comprising eight dwellings. The eight affordable homes will include a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed semi-detached dwellings. 2.4 Vehicle access into the site will be via two new access points off Rising Sun Hill. 2.5 A substantial public open space area, comprising 2.65ha, is proposed to the rear of the proposed dwellings and wrapping around the rear of the dwellings to the north that front Windyridge Road. The public open space is proposed to be landscaped and the indicative layout shows allotments and a five a side football pitch. The area includes public footpaths that will connect with the existing footpath network. 2.6 The proposed SUDS system will drain surface water from the site to a new swale, located adjacent Poy Street, which will act as an attenuation pond and then discharge to the adjacent watercourse.

7 3. The Principle of Development 3.1 The applicant engaged with Council officers prior to application submission. Pre-application officer advice was positive subject to detailed design matters. 3.2 The Draft Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint SHELAA, August 2017, identifies the application site as SS0500. The Draft SHELAA discounts the site as being suitable for development for the following reason: Poor access to services, and poor relation to the functional settlement of Rattlesden. This is a general assessment and not detailed to a full assessment as part of an application or is prejudicial to that process and all material considerations including five year housing supply. 3.3 Mid Suffolk District Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing supply. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply (as stated in paragraph 49 of the NPPF). Where policies cannot be considered up-to-date, the NPPF (paragraph 14) cites the presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that planning permission should be granted unless i) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or ii) specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. 3.4 The NPPF requires that development be sustainable and that adverse impacts do not outweigh the benefits to be acceptable in principle. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions for sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. 3.5 The proposed scheme represents sustainable development, responding positively to the three dimensions, in accordance with the NPPF. The principle of developing the site for residential purposes is therefore acceptable. The following assessment outlines why this principle is accepted. 4. Nearby Services and Connections Assessment 4.1 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas advising 'housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities', and recognises that where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. 4.2 The site s southern boundary adjoins the village s settlement boundary. The settlement boundary also runs opposite the site, along the western side of Rising Sun Hill. Essentially this is infill of these settlement boundaries in terms of the built form. Rattlesden is a designated Primary Village, served by a good range of local services and facilities, including post office, community shop, primary school, two public houses, village hall and two places of worship. The application site is within walking distance of all local services and facilities in the village, noting a continuous footpath network links the site to the centre of the village offering excellent pedestrian connectivity for future residents of the scheme. 4.3 A bus stop is conveniently located nearby the site (200m north) providing a service to Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. 4.4 The site is a sustainable location for housing given the conveniently accessible facilities within walking distance that the village provides, and the bus services on offer, also within walking distance.

8 5. Site Access, Parking and Highway Safety Considerations 5.1 Access is a matter sought for approval. Vehicle access is via two new access points off Rising Sun Hill. 5.2 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. This is interpreted as referring to matters of highway capacity and congestion, as opposed to matters of highway safety. 5.3 The local highway network can readily accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic generated by the proposed development. The Highways Authority raises a concern regarding the need for two access points, expressing a preference for one access which would reduce the potential for traffic conflict. However there is nothing to suggest that two access points would be contrary or non-compliant with any local or national technical highways guidance or standard. The test is whether the proposal results in an unacceptable highway safety outcome. Two access points creates greater opportunity for traffic conflict, this is a logical conclusion. However, the Highways Authority does not conclude that the increase in traffic conflict opportunity is so significant that the two access arrangement presents an unacceptable traffic safety outcome noting that the response merely expresses a preference for a single access proposal. There is nothing before officers to suggest the impact on highway safety resulting from two access points would be unacceptable nor does a two access arrangement result in a severe impact on highway capacity and congestion. 5.4 The Highways Authority notes the required visibility splays are not achieved but does observe that in some cases a speed survey may provide acceptable evidence of actual speeds to enable a lower standard of visibility to be accepted. Speed surveys have been submitted and demonstrate that a lower standard of visibility is acceptable in this instance. 5.5 Parking provision for the 22 dwellings can be readily provided at a level that will be policy compliant. Parking details will be considered at the reserved matters stage of the development process. 5.6 There is no evidence before officers to suggest unacceptable highway safety outcomes will result. Although conditions have not been suggested by the Highways Authority, the standard suite of highways conditions for outline applications is recommended. The proposal sufficiently responds to Policies T9, T10 or Paragraph 32 of the NPPF. 6. Design and Layout 6.1 Policy CS5 requires development to be of a high quality design that respects the local distinctiveness and the built heritage of Mid Suffolk, enhancing the character and appearance of the district. 6.2 Policy H13 of the Local Plan requires new housing development to be expected to achieve a high standard of design and layout and be of a scale and density appropriate to the site and its surroundings, whilst Policy H15 of the Local Plan similarly requires new housing to be consistent with the pattern and form of development in the area and its setting. 6.3 Policy GP1 of the Local Plan states that proposals comprising poor design and layout will be refused, requiring proposals to meet a number of design criteria including maintenance or enhancement of the surroundings and use of compatible materials.

9 6.4 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, stating that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. 6.5 The indicative layout demonstrates a cul-de-sac type development, consistent with the neighbouring pattern of development, in particular Windyridge Road and Roman Rise. Design, layout and appearance are reserved matters. Dwelling design will be encouraged at the reserved matters stage that reflects the Suffolk vernacular style of architecture and adopts a traditional palette of material finishes. 6.6 The proposed public open space will have the benefit of passive surveillance offered by the rear views of properties fronting Windyridge Road. Details regarding the management and maintenance of the public open space are not confirmed and would be reserved and conditioned. 7. Landscape Impact, Trees, Ecology, Biodiversity and Protected Species 7.1 Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and conserve landscape qualities taking into account the natural environment and the historical dimension of the landscape as a whole rather than concentrating solely on selected areas, protecting the District's most important components and encouraging development that is consistent with conserving its overall character. 7.2 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils. 7.3 The site is not in an area of special character designation such as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Special Landscape Area. Nor is the site adjoining, or in proximity to, any designated landscape areas of special significance. 7.4 The Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site as being part of the Ancient Rolling Farmlands landscape character area (LCA). Some of the key characteristics of this LCA include: Hedges of hawthorn and elm with oak, ash and field maple as hedgerow trees. Scattered with ancient woodland parcels containing a mix of oak, lime, cherry, hazel, hornbeam, ash and holly. Dispersed settlement pattern of loosely clustered villages, hamlets and isolated farmsteads of mediaeval origin. Farmstead buildings are predominantly timber-framed, the houses colour-washed and the barns blackened with tar. Roofs are frequently tiled, though thatched houses can be locally significant. 7.5 Council s Landscape Consultant accepts the principle of development at this location subject to significant landscape planting requirements. There is nothing to suggest that the required level of landscaping cannot be achieved. Whilst the site is open to the east, it is framed to the north, south and west by residential development. The development will essentially read as infilling an open gap in the countryside, in this case not an unacceptable outcome given the visual gap does not offer any significant landscape value in visual terms. Whilst developing the subject land will result in a continuous ribbon of development, it will not undermine to any significant degree the sense of the clustered villages character as referenced in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment. There will be a loss of rural character, however this can be maintained to some degree through the suggested landscaping requirements of Council s Landscape Consultant, albeit the resulting rural character will be different to the existing rural character. This is most appropriately managed through the (landscaping) reserved matters stage of the development process.

10 7.6 Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy requires development to protect, manage and enhance Mid Suffolk's biodiversity. 7.7 Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Implemented 1st April 2010) requires all competent authorities (public bodies) to have regard to the Habitats Directive in the exercise of its functions. For a Local Planning Authority to comply with regulation 9(5) it must engage with the provisions of the Habitats Directive. 7.8 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF requires planning authorities, when determining planning applications, to seek the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity by ensuring significant harm resulting from a development is avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), or where not possible to be adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, and if this cannot be secured then planning permission should be refused. 7.9 An Ecology Report supports the application. Place Services (Ecology) raise a holding objection on the grounds the report does not address the likelihood of farmland birds (e.g. Skylarks) being present and affected by the proposed development. If farmland birds are present the effects can be sufficiently mitigated. This is a matter than can be dealt with by planning condition and has been the case for a number of applications in recent years, through appropriate survey and analysis. Further ecology information, to be required by planning condition, will be referred to Council s Ecology Consultant, ensuring ecology will remain a matter that is carefully considered and resolved as appropriate There will be no loss of significant trees, only a small loss of hedgerow and significant landscape planting will offset this loss and offer enhanced local arboricultural values. 8. Land Contamination 8.1 Environmental Health object as the application is not supported by a detailed Phase 1 Contamination Report. Whilst this is not preferred, it is a matter that can be adequately managed by planning condition, noting there is nothing relating to the known land use history of the site that raises contamination concerns. Refusing the application because it is not supported by a Phase 1 contamination investigation is not considered sustainable. 9. Heritage Issues 9.1 Policy HB1 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the character and appearance of buildings of architectural or historic interest, particularly protecting the settings of Listed Buildings. 9.2 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Listed Building or its setting. 9.3 Where policies are out of date, paragraph 14 of the NPPF says that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies indicate development should be restricted. In this case there are specific NPPF policies relating to designated heritage assets that should be considered. 9.4 Paragraph 129 of the NPPF identifies that the impact of a proposal on the significance of a heritage asset should be taken into account, in order to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

11 9.5 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 9.6 Council s Heritage Team is concerned with the impact of the development on the setting of nearby Grade II listed buildings. The separation distance to the nearest listed building and the physical relationship of the site to the listed building, including intervening vegetation and built form, is such that the harm to the significance of the listed setting will not be substantial. The proposed development will be scarcely appreciable, if at all, in views from the Grade II listed Cansell Grove Farmhouse or Grade II listed Limberlost which are located south of the site. As noted earlier in the report, the site is not in or adjoin a Conservation Area. 9.7 It is concluded that, notwithstanding the Heritage Team s views, harm to the significance of designated above-ground heritage assets will not be substantial with the setting of nearby listed buildings sufficiently conserved and safeguarded, consistent with the thrust of local heritage policy and paragraphs 129 and 134 of the NPPF. The wider benefit of the development to supply affordable housing and housing need are considered to outweigh the harm. 9.8 The County Archaeological Service (CAS) is concerned with the potential for archaeological harm given the scale of the site, its proximity to the Roman Road and location between two rivers. It is on this basis that the CAS requires a geophysical survey to form part of the application so this can be considered prior to the determination of the application. Officers acknowledge that an upfront field evaluation requirement is consistent with paragraph 128 of the NPPF. This said, there will be no harm to any archaeological items at the site (if they do exist) if outline permission is granted in the absence of the geophysical survey. This is because the field evaluation requirement is recommended to be included as a condition of consent. If the Planning Committee is minded to adopt this approach, the geophysical survey requirement is merely deferred, not avoided. If the field evaluation determines that significant below ground heritage assets of archaeological interest are present, mitigation will be for the applicant to determine and measures put forward will be carefully considered and assessed by the CAS at the time. Whilst an up-front assessment might be preferred, in the planning balance it is considered that the absence of the assessment at this stage of the development process is not fatal to the application. 10. Impact on Residential Amenity 10.1 Policy H13 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure new housing development protects the amenity of neighbouring residents. Policy H16 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the existing amenity of residential areas Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out a number of core planning principles as to underpin decisiontaking, including, seeking to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings The indicative layout demonstrates the site is readily capable of accommodating 22 dwellings in a manner that will not unduly compromise the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development or occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Amenity impacts, and amenity levels for future occupiers, will be carefully considered at the reserved matters stage of the development process There is nothing forming part of the application that suggests the development cannot accord with local policies H13 and H16 and paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

12 11. Flooding and Drainage 11.1 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and therefore is not formally identified as land that floods It is acknowledged that many residents concerns centre on flooding and drainage with many of the view that the development will increase stormwater runoff and create further localised flooding issues. The main village is noted as suffering from flood related issues, but this development is required to resolve only its own burden. The stormwater volume will not be significantly greater, but the speed with which it collects will be, hence the proposed detention pond east of the site. The purpose of the detention pond is to temporarily store stormwater runoff, reducing the peak rate of runoff to the nearby drainage ditch network. In this way the pond will prevent localized flooding, an improvement upon existing conditions Concerns are raised regarding the capacity of the sewerage system to accommodate the projected increase in demand. Anglian Water confirm the existing sewer system has sufficient capacity to cater for the increased foul water load that will be created by the proposed development. PART FOUR CONCLUSION 12. Planning Balance and Conclusion 12.1 Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply. Local policies relating to the supply of housing, including Policy CS2, CS11 and CS15, must be considered not up-to-date in accordance with the NPPF Where policies cannot be considered up-to-date, the NPPF (paragraph 14) cites the presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that planning permission should be granted unless i) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or ii) specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted Officers conclude that specific policies do not indicate development should be restricted. Therefore, the proposal should proceed to be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development the tilted balance approach The NPPF advises that the environmental aspect of sustainability includes contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; economic and social gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously with environmental improvement The proposal will bring with it economic and social benefits, the most notable being the boost to the housing supply and increase in much needed affordable housing stock. Notwithstanding the findings of the draft SHELAA (a document offering at this draft stage no planning status in respect to land parcels), the site is considered a sustainable location, within walking distance of a good range of local amenities The landscape setting is open, providing expansive views of the countryside. However it is not so highly valued that it is formally designated. Council s Landscape Consultant considers the development can be absorbed in a visual landscape sense to an acceptable degree. The change in character from rural to urban will result in some harm and this ultimately falls on the negative side of the planning balance.

13 12.7 Having regard to the submitted speed surveys, it is considered that adequate visibility splays for the two access points are achieved. The double access arrangement is not a preferred Highways Authority layout but nonetheless provides an appropriate highway safety outcome The layout and design of the 22 dwellings, together with the landscaping scheme, will be subject of the reserved matters stage of the development process Matters regarding archaeology, flooding and contamination can be dealt with by planning conditions, as is the planning norm The proposal offers obvious significant social and economic benefits. These benefits are sufficient to outweigh the environmental disbenefits associated with the landscape harm that will result from the physical change of the site from open countryside to developed land, and the loss of productive agricultural land There are no compelling reasons to withhold the grant of outline planning permission for 22 dwellings and full planning permission for the proposed public open space area. Identified harm will be modest. The proposal constitutes sustainable development for which the NPPF carries a presumption in favour and therefore the hybrid application is recommended for approval.

14 RECOMMENDATION (1) Subject to the prior agreement of a Section 106 Planning Obligation on appropriate terms to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager Planning for Growth to secure: Affordable Housing (2) That the Corporate Manager Planning for Growth be authorised to grant Outline Planning Permission and Full Planning Permission subject to conditions including: Standard Time Limit Condition Reserved Matters to be submitted and agreed Approved Plans Contamination Report Details of materials to be agreed As recommended by Highways standard access conditions. Programme of Archaeological work and monitoring Surface water drainage scheme to agree and fully implemented as approved Sustainable Urban Drainage System Construction surface water management plan detailing surface water and storm water Details of fire hydrants to be submitted The recommendations of the ecological report to be adhered to Further ecology survey for Skylarks and mitigation Construction management plan Management of public space and landscaped areas. Lighting scheme biodiversity Withdrawal PD rights Phasing of development. Development of housing shall be contained to the areas as shown on the indicative plan approved only. (3) That in the event of the Planning obligations referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured that the Corporate Manager Planning for Growth be authorised to refuse planning permission on appropriate grounds.