Item No: 2 Reference: B/16/01038/FUL Parish: NEWTON Ward Member: Cllr. Lee Parker Location: Proposal: Applicant: Red House Farm, Sudbury Road, Newton, CO10 0QH Erection of 10 no dwellings (following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings) Mr Baldwin Case Officer: Gemma Pannell Date for Determination: 21 October 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission This application is referred to at the request of Cllr Parker THE SITE 1. The site comprises a detached dwelling and selection of outbuildings and the existing dwelling is a two storey red brick dwelling with concrete tiled roof. 2. The land to the rear was previously used as a part of a small holding with a further selection of outbuildings to the rear used as pig housing and these were demolished in 2010/11. THE PROPOSAL 3. The application seeks full permission for the erection of 10 dwellings, following the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings. The proposal includes a single access off the A134 and the provision of garages along the road frontage with two pairs of semi-detached dwellings and a detached dwelling set behind the garages. The road extends to the rear of the site to serve a further two pairs of semi-detached dwellings and a detached dwelling. 4. Plot 1 & 2 comprises a pair of semi-detached two storey 3 bedroom dwellings, constructed of brick with a plain tiled roof. The proposed ridge height is 8.11m. 5. Plot 3 & 4 are a pair of semi-detached two storey 3 bedroom dwellings designed as a barn conversion with the use of a brick plinth at ground floor with weatherboarding over with a pan-tiled roof. The proposed ridge height is 9.15m. 6. Plot 5 is a detached two storey 4 bedroom dwelling constructed of brick with a plain tiled roof. The proposed ridge height is 9.15m. 7. Plots 6 9 comprise two pairs of semi-detached single storey 3 bedroom dwellings constructed predominately of red brick with red/brown pantiles. Plot 7 & 9 includes a single storey weather boarded element comprising a utility room. The maximum ridge height is 5.68m. 8. Plot 10 is a two storey 4/5 bedroom dwelling (5th bedroom is labelled on the first floor plan as an office but could also be used as a bedroom), constructed of red brick with a red plain tiled roof. The proposed ridge height is 8.14m. 9. The application documents can be viewed on line via the planning pages on the District Council s website. 30 November 2016 20
RELEVANT HISTORY 10. B/10/00919/FHA Refused Erection of two-storey rear extension 11. B/10/01541/FUL Granted Change of use of agricultural land to domestic curtilage. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 12. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law, and the NPPF, continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes. 13. The NPPF is supported by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which assists applicants and decision makers to interpret the NPPF. Both the NPPF and PPG are referred to within this report where relevant to the assessment. PLANNING POLICIES 14. The Development Plan comprises the Babergh Core Strategy 2014 and saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006. The following policies are applicable to the proposal: Babergh Core Strategy 2014 CS1 Applying the Presumption in favour of sustainable development in Babergh CS2 Settlement Pattern Policy CS3 Strategy for Growth and Development CS11 Strategy for Development for Core and Hinterland Villages CS15 Implementing Sustainable Development in Babergh CS18 Mix and Types of Dwellings CS19 Affordable Homes CS21 Infrastructure Provision Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006 HS32 Public Open Space (New Dwellings and Sites up to 1.5ha) CN01 Design Standards CR07 Landscaping Schemes TP15 Parking Standards New Development 15. The relevant policies can be viewed on line. Please see the notes attached to the schedule. CONSULTATIONS 16. Newton Parish Council Support the application subject to the following being incorporated into the proposed development : Footway along the A134 in front of the development A footpath be constructed from the development to the village green allowing residents to access the village centre, avoiding the need twice cross the A134 Permanent speed activated signage being installed on the A134 A crossing for pedestrians to walk safely across the A134 to and from the development 30 November 2016 21
17. County Highway Authority Original Comments: As currently proposed the application is not acceptable in highway terms for the following reasons:- The frontage of the application site is not sufficient to achieve the appropriate standard of visibility splays relative to the class of road and speed of passing traffic. This is an A Class road and visibility splays will need to be a minimum of 90 metres in each direction from a 4.5 metre setback into the new access. If it is demonstrated that actual speeds exceed the 30mph speed limit then 120 metres may be more appropriate. The visibility splay lines will fall across land outside of the red application outline but which is contained within the adjacent blue outline shown to either side on Drawing Number 970-02-01. In order to achieve a suitable access it is likely that a single access only will need to be positioned centrally within the Sudbury Road frontage. A development of 10 dwellings will require a new access and internal road layout to meet adoptable standards. I would refer the applicant to The Suffolk Design Guide for further information; "Minor Access Road" will be the appropriate road type. The proposed accesses are not suitable to serve this level of development and the internal road layout does not adequately accommodate service or refuse vehicles. Suitable footways should be provided across the site frontage and within the application site and consideration should be given to providing crossing facilities on Sudbury Road so that future residents can cross safely to the opposite side and the existing footway network. Amended plans have been received and are subject to consultation and views are awaited. An update will be provided either via the addendum paper or through a verbal update to members. Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily then an additional reason for refusal will be tabled. 18. County Archaeologist No objection, subject to condition 19. Anglian Water No objection: The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment Great Waldingfield Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows. The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. The proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian Water assets and therefore advice should be sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority. 20. Suffolk County Council Flood & Water Team (inc Drainage) Insufficient information received to date to demonstrate an acceptable surface water strategy can be achieved. 21. Environmental Health Land Contamination Issues No objection. 22. Environmental Health Sustainability Issues - Recommends conditions. 23. Suffolk Fire and Rescue Fire hydrants will be required as part of this development, it is not possible at this stage to determine the number. 30 November 2016 22
REPRESENTATIONS 24. 5 representations objecting to the application have been received and the comments are summarised as follows: Concern for safety of pedestrians on the A134 Need for speed activated sign to be installed Consideration should be given to the installation of a roundabout to calm the traffic Concern about safety risk of golf balls entering the gardens. The developer should erect a form of screening or safety netting to protect inhabitants from stray balls. There is no link to the public footpaths across the golf course from this site. Developer should fund electronic signage displaying vehicle speeds Proposal does not respect the distinctiveness or the street scene of the village Unsustainable as not footway links and will only be accessible by private motor vehicle. Overdevelopment Not sequentially preferable to other sites Does not have a close functional relationship with the existing settlement PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 25. From an assessment of planning policies, public representations and other material considerations, the main considerations it is appropriate to evaluate the following key aspects in relation to this development in a hinterland village: Principle of Development Consideration against policy CS11 and SPD Impact on landscape Impact on environmental characteristics Impact on heritage assets Connectivity and Highway safety Biodiversity and Protected Species Land Contamination Surface Water Drainage Loss of agricultural land Planning Obligations and CIL Planning Balance Principle of Development 26. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27th March 2012. It provides that the NPPF "does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise". 27. The NPPF also provides (para 187) that Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. 30 November 2016 23
28. Newton is defined as a hinterland village under policy CS2, which states that hinterland villages will accommodate some development to help meet the needs within their functional cluster. Newton falls within both the Sudbury and Great Cornard Cluster and the Boxford Cluster. The Sudbury/Great Cornard cluster comprises the villages of Acton, Chilton, Great Cornard, Great Waldingfield and Little Cornard, in addition to Newton. The Boxford cluster includes Assington, Edwardstone, Groton, Kersey, Layham, Leavenheath, Lindsey, Little Waldingfield, Milden, Monks Eleigh, Polstead, Shelley and Stoke by Nayland. Therefore policy CS11, which provides greater flexibility for appropriate development beyond the BUAB for identified hinterland villages, would apply. 29. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy identities 1050 homes for rural areas, this quantum of development is unallocated at present (in either district development plan documents or Neighbourhood Plans) so there is a reliance at present on windfall sites to deliver this growth. 30. Development in hinterland villages will be approved where proposals are able to demonstrate a close functional relationship to the existing settlement where the criteria related to core villages in CS11 are addressed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and the additional criteria related to hinterland villages is also met. Consideration against policy CS11 and SPD 31. Policy CS11 sets out the Local Plan 'Strategy for Development in Core and Hinterland Villages' and (so far as relevant) states that: "Proposals for development for Core Villages will be approved where proposals score positively when assessed against Policy CS15 and the following matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority where relevant and appropriate to the scale and location of the proposal: i) the landscape, environmental and heritage characteristics of the village; ii) the locational context of the village and the proposed development (particularly the AONBs, Conservation Areas, and heritage assets); iii) site location and sequential approach to site selection; iv) locally identified need - housing and employment, and specific local needs such as affordable housing; v) locally identified community needs; and vi) cumulative impact of development in the area in respect of social, physical and environmental Impacts. 32. The general purpose of the Policy CS11 is to provide greater flexibility in the location of new housing development in the Core and Hinterland Villages. Considered together, Policy CS2 (Settlement Pattern Policy) and Policy CS3 (Strategy for Development and Growth) and Policy CS11 provide for a minimum of 1,050 dwellings to be delivered in Core and Hinterland Villages for the period between 2011 and 2031. Subject to specified criteria, Policy CS11 intentionally provides greater flexibility for appropriate development beyond the existing Built Up Area Boundaries (BUAB) for each Core Village, as identified in the 2006 Local Plan Saved Policies. 33. The accompanying 'Rural Development & Core Strategy Policy CS11 Supplementary Planning Document ("the SPD") was adopted by the Council on 8 August 2014. The Council produced the SPD to provide guidance on the interpretation and application of Policy CS11, acknowledging that the Site Allocations Document foreshadowed in Policy CS11 may not be prepared for some time. Although the SPD is not part of the statutory development plan, its preparation included a process of community consultation before it was adopted by the Council, means that it is a material consideration when planning applications are determined. 30 November 2016 24
34. The proper interpretation of development plan policy is a matter of law and, in principle, policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context; however, statements of policy should not be construed as if they were statutory or contractual provisions (see Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13). 35. Accordingly, the correct meaning of Policy CS11 requires an objective interpretation of the policy text considered in the context of relevant development plan policies and the wider context of national planning policy in force when the Core Strategy was adopted in February 2014. As the SPD was not adopted until August 2014, the proper interpretation of Policy CS11 cannot be influenced by the guidance within the SPD. 36. However, to the extent that it is consistent with the proper interpretation of Policy CS11, the planning guidance within the SPD will be relevant to the Council's application of Policy CS11 when determining planning applications. In this respect, under the subheading 'Scale of Proposal in Relation to Existing Settlement', paragraph 12 of the SPD states (so far as relevant) that: "12. The size and scale of any proposal should be proportionate to the settlement in which it is located. Because each village is different it is not possible to prescribe standard proportions of development that would be acceptable. A judgment will need to be made on the basis of the size and character of the village, the services and facilities that are available and their capacity to accommodate further development Proposals for both core and hinterland villages will need to demonstrate that the development can be accommodated without adversely affecting the character of the village and that the services, facilities and infrastructure have the capacity to accommodate it or will be enhanced to accommodate it." 37. The matters listed in Policy CS11, which proposals for development for Hinterland villages must address, are now considered in turn, these include all of the criteria for Core Villages and additional matters also. The landscape, environmental and heritage characteristics of the village 38. Sudbury Road is characterised by residential development predominately on the opposite side of the road to that of the application site, with a mix of styles and sizes of properties. 39. The residential development of the site itself is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the local landscape character, which is punctuated by residential development in this location. However, consideration of the impact of the suggested layout on the character and appearance of the settlement as a whole are considered later in the report. The locational context of the village and the proposed development 40. This matter requires an assessment of the context in which the application site is located by reference to the village, its facilities and applicable planning designations. Paragraph 10 of the SPD states that: "To be considered under CS11 proposals must be in or adjacent to a Core Village or a Hinterland Village. Proposals should be well related to the existing settlement. It is suggested that the starting point for assessing this is whether or not the site adjoins the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of the village. Some sites, even though they adjoin a BUAB may not be well related to the village and a judgement will need to be made taking in account issues such as: Whether the proposal would constitute ribbon development on the edge of the village How the site is connected to the exiting settlement, jobs, facilities and services including location of site access and availability of sustainable transport links 30 November 2016 25
The scale, character and density of the proposal in relation to the existing adjoining development Whether the proposal constituted a logical extension of the built up area of the village Whether the proposal is self-contained and has logical natural boundaries" 41. The site is separated from the housing settlement boundary by the A134 and therefore does not technically abut the housing settlement boundary. The proposal would introduce further residential development on the southern side of the A134 which has a number of sporadic developments spaced alongside it. This is in contrast to the northern side which has a ribbon of development extending along it. 42. It is considered that the scale, character and density of the proposal does not relate to the pattern of existing development, which is predominantly on the northern edge and also comprises frontage development. Whilst further within the housing settlement boundary there is in depth development, this is more centrally located within the core of the village itself, rather than on the periphery as this site is. The site is not considered to represent a logical extension to the built up area boundary as it would be separated from other development along the southern side of the A134 by a field (owned by the applicant and subject to a restrictive covenant) and a couple of detached properties, set in spacious plots of their own. 43. The site does not benefit from a footpath along the southern side of the A134 and therefore residents would need to cross the A134 to access the footpath on the northern side, this would give them access to the bus stop but they would then need to re-cross in order to access the public house. The A134 is the main road from Sudbury to Colchester and is heavily trafficked. The parish council have raised no objection to the application, subject to the inclusion of a footway along the A134 on the southern side which would give access from the development to the village green (and the public house) and also the inclusion of a pedestrian crossing on the A134. These infrastructure improvements have not been submitted as part of the application and would not be provided as part of this development. This does limit the site s locational context in terms of accessibility to services. Site location and sequential approach to site selection 44. The applicant has undertaken an assessment of a number of sites within Newton and concluded that there are no sites which are sequentially preferable to that which is the subject of this application. 45. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that in order for housing sites to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. 46. Whether or not any of these sites are sequentially preferable involves the exercise of planning judgement. The considerations relevant to that judgement will be whether those sites are developable and deliverable. The terms "developable" and "deliverable" should be considered in the context of the NPPF, specifically, the policy within Section 6 'Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes' 47. The meaning of the term "developable" is provided by in footnote 12 to paragraph 47 of the NPPF, which states: "12. To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged." 30 November 2016 26
Footnote 11 addresses the meaning of "deliverable" to paragraph 47 states that, "11. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires. 48. Consideration has been given to the other sites identified by the applicant and the only site that currently has the benefit of planning permission is site 1, which was considered by the applicant as small with poor access onto the A134. Planning permission has been granted on the site for the erection of 8 dwellings and, therefore, it is considered that the site is developable and deliverable. As such it is sequentially preferable to the application site as it is possible for the development to be implemented and already has the benefit of planning permission. Locally identified need - housing and employment, and specific local needs such as affordable housing 49. Members will be aware that the Planning Court will consider two claims for judicial review challenging the Council's decision to grant planning permission for development proposed for the Core Villages of Bildeston and East Bergholt. Both clams include grounds of challenge concerning the proper interpretation of Policy CS11; specifically, the meaning of "locally identified need" as one of the matters that a proposal for development for a Core Village must address to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 50. The Council defends both claims for judicial review on the basis that the decisions to grant planning permission proceeded upon a proper interpretation of Policy CS11, as it relates to "locally identified needs" and a lawful application of relevant development plan policies, including Policy CS11, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances relevant to each decision. 51. The Council contends that "locally identified needs" must be construed having regard to Policy CS2 (Settlement Pattern Policy), Policy CS3 (Strategy for Growth and Development) and Policy CS11 (Strategy for Development for Core and Hinterland Villages), which require Core and Hinterland Villages to make a contribution towards meeting the District's housing needs. As stated above, these policies provide for a minimum of 1,050 dwellings to be delivered in Core and Hinterland Villages for the period between 2011 and 2031. 52. Paragraph 2.8.5.4 of the Core Strategy notes that the total requirement of 1,050 new dwellings to be accommodated in Core and Hinterland Villages should not be viewed as a sum simply to be divided equally or randomly between the number of villages listed. The approach to the distribution of new dwellings within Policy CS3 is to be driven by the function of the villages, their role in the community, and the capacity for a particular level of growth which will be guided by many factors and which will result in a different level of development being identified as "appropriate" in different settlements, even those within the same category. The approach will also provide for a degree of in-built flexibility within the catchment area. 53. The Core Villages are very varied and their needs and factors which influence what is an "appropriate level of development" will vary from village to village, especially where villages are situated within environmentally and visually sensitive landscapes, particularly the AONBs, and/or where villages include conservation areas and heritage assets. These landscapes and heritage assets will be key considerations when considering planning applications. 30 November 2016 27
54. Without prejudice to the Council's defence to the two extant claims for judicial review, until such time as the Planning Court delivers judgment, it would be prudent for the Council to adopt a cautious approach to the determination of planning applications involving proposals for development for Core Villages. Accordingly, "locally identified need" or "local need" should be construed as the development to meet the needs of the Hinterland Village identified in the application, namely Newton and how it relates to the core villages and the cluster it is within. 55. It is important to note that this interpretation of Policy CS11 should not be misconstrued as a justification to restrict proposals for new development in and around Core Villages to meet the needs of that Core Village alone. The Core Strategy expressly contemplates that Core Villages will accommodate the majority of new housing development to meet the needs described in Policy CS3 as "rural growth", including the development needs of the "functional cluster" served by that Core Village. Where appropriate, the development needs of a wider catchment area may also be relevant, subject to the particular needs of local rural communities and significant constraints on development in nearby Core and Hinterland Villages (see Core Strategy, paragraph 2.8.5.4) 56. Policy CS11 allows flexibility for developments of appropriate scale and form to come forward for Core Villages. The Growth and Development Strategy therefore allows for some rural growth, which has been identified locally as important to sustain the existing rural settlement pattern and existing rural communities in the catchment area. The sequential approach of the Strategy for Growth and Development requires new development for "rural growth", first, to be directed to Core and Hinterland Villages, which are expected to accommodate new development in locations beyond existing BUAB, where appropriate. 57. The SPD identifies that proposals should be accompanied by a statement that analyses the local housing needs of the Village and how they have been taken into account in the proposal. For the reasons explained, the local housing needs of the Village must be construed as the needs of the Village itself and the needs of the function cluster of smaller rural settlements it serves. In this case the Applicant has not submitted a housing needs assessment. 58. In this case the Applicant has relied upon a consultation exercise carried out with residents by Newton Parish Council in July 2015, which identified that smaller properties were required and that there was a shortage of 3 bed units and bungalows. The current application seeks to address this by proposing a development of 3 bedroom bungalows and dwellings with 8 no. 3 bedroom dwellings and 2 no. 4 or 5 bedroom dwellings. The lack of smaller 2 bedroom dwellings and the inclusion of 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings does mean that the development fails to meet the need for smaller dwellings, which have been identified more widely as being required across the district. Therefore the development has not been proven to be for affordable housing or targeted market housing in its entirety. Locally Identified Community Needs 59. Policy CS11 requires a similar approach to the determination of proposals for development to meet locally identified community needs, recognising the role of Core Villages and the "functional clusters" they serve. Paragraph 2.8.5.2 of the Core Strategy notes that the "approach advocated for the management of growth in Core Villages and their hinterlands, has many benefits for the communities". The benefits that the application of Policy CS11 and other relevant policies should secure include "Flexibility in the provision of and location of facilities" "to reflect a catchment area pattern which relates to the day to day practice of the people living in the villages" (see item iii) in paragraph 2.8.5.2). 60. The SPD identifies that proposals should be accompanied by a statement that analyses the community needs of the Village and how they have been taken into account in the proposal. In this case the Applicant submitted a community needs statement. 30 November 2016 28
61. The proposed development will generate contributions towards community infrastructure, to be spent on local services and infrastructure, therefore supporting rural communities, local services and facilities. 62. It does not appear that the applicant has identified any specific community needs that could benefit from the development. Cumulative impact of development in the area in respect of social, physical and environmental impacts 63. The SPD identifies, at paragraph 13, that "cumulative impact should include existing commitments and other proposals in the same village and existing commitments and other proposals in the cluster where they are likely to have a wider impact for example in terms of traffic generation, capacity of schools and health services. The impact on other neighbouring villages and neighbouring local authority areas should also be taken into account". 64. In terms of existing commitments and other proposals in the relevant cluster 1, as defined in Map 4 of the Core Strategy, which are considered likely to have a wider impact for example in terms of traffic generation, capacity of schools and health services, the following applications have been either delivered or have planning permission. As Newton sits within both the clusters of Boxford and Sudbury, the applications are as set out in Appendices A and B. 65. Policy CS11 requires the cumulative impact of development both within the Hinterland Village in which the development is proposed and the functional cluster of villages in which it is located, to be a material consideration when assessing proposals under the policy. 66. In the functional cluster of Boxford, there have been 113 dwellings approved, with 46 of these being in Boxford itself and 13 in Assington. The remainder are split between the other 12 villages within the cluster where dwellings have been approved. In Newton, the only development approved in the last three years is the recent approval for 8 dwellings on the site adjacent to the Saracens Head. 67. It is therefore considered that given the responses from statutory consultees and the scale of development proposed, the cumulative impact of the development will be easily accommodated within the existing infrastructure of the village and will not lead to a detrimental impact on the social, physical and environmental wellbeing of the village nor the wider cluster on the basis that the level of growth proposed remains similar to that already experienced in the cluster over the last five years. 68. In the functional cluster of Sudbury 475 dwellings have been approved, however of these 290 are in Great Cornard and 164 are within Sudbury. As such the cumulative impact of these developments will be absorbed by the infrastructure of Sudbury and Great Cornard. Outside of these settlements, only 21 other dwellings have been approved in the cluster. 69. Anglian Water has confirmed that the foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Great Waldingfield Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows and that the sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. 70. The information regarding the capacity of the site to deal with additional surface water drainage has yet to be submitted and therefore this matter remains to be adequately resolved. This will be addressed further within the report. 71. The Highway Authority is happy that the road network has sufficient capacity to deal with the scale of development proposed. 1 Paragraph 13 of the SPD refers to cumulative impact in the village and in the cluster in the circumstances above 30 November 2016 29
Is well designed and appropriate in size, scale, layout and character to its setting and to the village 72. The size and scale of the development is considered to be proportionate to the settlement in which it is located. 73. The technical advice received from the local highway authority and Anglian Water demonstrate that the development can be accommodated within the village and that the services, facilities and infrastructure have the capacity to accommodate the level of development proposed. 74. Sudbury Road is characterised by single detached dwellings, predominately single storey or chalet bungalows, which front onto Sudbury Road, but have wide open frontages with some landscaping. Further into the main part of the development the pattern of development does widen out to encompass greater development, but this would be expected in the centre of the village. 75. The proposal shows two rows of development with a central access point and internal road layout behind the front row of dwellings. This level of development is considered to represent an urban form of development, at a scale and density which is contrary to the character and appearance of the existing settlement. 76. Therefore the development is considered to be contrary to policy CS11 on the basis that it fails to address to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the development is well designed and appropriate in size/scale, layout and character to its setting and to the village. In addition the proposal is not well related to the existing pattern of development for that settlement and there are other sequentially preferable sites which the Local Planning Authority considers is in a more favourable location, in terms of its relationship to the main part of the village and the services upon which it relies. Summary 77. For the reasons explained, the development proposal has not addressed each of the six matters identified in Policy CS11 to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 78. The application has failed to demonstrate that the locational context of the proposed development would be well related to the existing settlement; that the site would be sequentially preferable to other sites which have already been approved; that the development meets a locally identified need and that the development is appropriate in size and scale to its setting. 79. Overall it is considered that the proposal does not accord with Policy CS11. Impact on Heritage Assets 80. The site is not considered to have any impact on designated or non-designated heritage assets. Connectivity and Highway Safety 81. The highway authority have raised objection to the proposal, however the applicant has submitted revised plans to address these concerns and comments from the County Highway Authority are still awaited on the amended scheme. However the development does not provide any highway improvements in terms of connectivity to existing services, which was requested by the Parish Council. 30 November 2016 30
Biodiversity and Protected Species 82. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006, is so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 in relation to protected species. Land Contamination 83. The application is accompanied by a land contamination assessment and this has been considered by the Senior Environmental Management Officer, who concludes they have no objection to the proposed development from the perspective of land contamination. They request that they are contacted in the event that of unexpected land contamination. Surface Water Drainage 84. Policy CS15 requires development to minimise the exposure of people and property to all sources of flooding and to minimise surface water run-off and incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), where appropriate. The applicant has not provided evidence of a viable surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development and therefore the development is unable to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of both policy CS15 and the NPPF. Planning Obligations and CIL 85. The application is liable to CIL and this would be dealt with through the Council s Infrastructure team should planning permission be granted. Crime and Disorder 86. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues. CONCLUSION - PLANNING BALANCE 87. When taken as a whole and as a matter of planning judgement, the proposal is not considered to adhere to the development plan and NPPF and therefore cannot be considered sustainable development. The NPPF states that development that conflicts with an up to date development plan should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case there are no material considerations that would justify an approval. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons: The development is considered to be contrary to policy CS11 on the basis that it fails to address to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the development is well designed and appropriate in size/scale, layout and character to its setting and to the village. In addition the proposal is not well related to the existing pattern of development for that settlement and there are other sequentially preferable sites which the Local Planning Authority considers is in a more favourable location, in terms of its relationship to the main part of the village and the services upon which it relies. 30 November 2016 31
The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Lead Flood Authority, that the development will adequately deal with surface water drainage arising from the development, contrary to policy CS15 and the NPPF 30 November 2016 32