Minutes:
57.1 Item 1
Application 1449/17
Proposal Outline Application- Residential development (up to 85 dwellings including affordable housing) together with the construction of estate roads and footpaths, drainage, landscaping and the provision of public open space, including children’s play space.
Site Location FRESSINGFIELD- Land Off Stradbroke Road, Steer Farm, Fressingfield
Applicant Mr Brown
57.2 Before the presentation to Members a question was raised regarding an email that had been sent by the Agent to Members on 20/11/2018 regarding applications 1449/17 and 1432/17.
The email proposed revisions to application 1449/17 including:
· A reduction in the number of dwellings from 85 to 10.
The email proposed revisions to application 1432/17 including:
· A reduction in the number of dwellings from 99 to 27.
57.3 The Acting Chief Planning Officer advised Members that the proposals contained within the email had not been submitted as formal amendments to the proposals and that statutory consultees had not been consulted on this. He advised Members to decide upon the application that was before them.
57.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, the layout, and Officer recommendation. The Case Officer provided an overview of the cumulative impact on applications 1449/17, 1432/17 and 1648/17 on issues including: the pedestrian and road safety concerns which had been raised by Suffolk County Council’s Highways Department, the impact that further development would cause flooding in the village from the foul water drainage system, and the impact on the Listed Heritage Assets in the area.
57.5 The Case Officer Suffolk County Council Highways Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: The Agricultural land classification, the number of traffic accidents that had taken place in the past 5 years, that there were no proposed parking restrictions on Stradbroke Road, and other sites that had been approved in the area.
57.6 Members considered the representation from Andrew Vessey, representing Fressingfield Parish Council.
57.7 Members considered the representation from the Objector, John Kelsall.
57.8 Members considered the representation from the Agent, Neil Ward.
57.9 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the email that had been sent to the Committee which included some proposed revisions, the density of the site, and the cumulative impact of the developments.
57.10 The Acting Chief Planning Officer advised Members that they could choose to defer the application if they were minded to and that the relationship between the applications and the revised National Planning Policy Framework Highway Safety had become a more significant consideration.
57.11 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Lavinia Hadingham.
57.12 Before the beginning of the debate the Case Officer responded to a question from Members regarding the two other application sites in Fressingfield that had already received approval.
57.13 Members debated the application on issues including: where an access on the site could be positioned, and the lack of public transport to, from and passing through Fressingfield.
57.14 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members’ regarding Anglian waters response which raised no objection and elaborated that drainage was considered that the drainage reason in the recommendation was considered reasonable in the context of Anglian Waters comments.
57.15 Councillor Sarah Mansel Proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.
57.16 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the 5 Year Housing Land Supply and the sustainability of the Foul Water Sewerage network.
57.17 Councillor David Whybrow seconded the motion for refusal as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.
57.18 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: concerns over highway safety as detailed in the response from Suffolk County Council.
57.19 The Acting Chief Planning Officer advised Members that there was a small correction within the Officer Recommendation to amend in reason 1 :“Local Plan” to “Core Strategy” to which the proposer and Seconder agreed to.
57.20 By a unanimous vote
57.21 RESOLVED
That outline planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development lies outside of the settlement boundary for Fressingfield which is defined in the Council’s Core Strategy as being a ‘Primary Village’ within the Settlement Hierarchy. Primary Villages sit below Towns and Service Centres in that hierarchy and are expected to accommodate ‘small-scale’ development to meet local needs. The construction of up to 85 dwellings is considered by the Council to be a significant and inappropriate level of development that in any event falls outside of the settlement boundary of the village, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS2. This level of growth is considered unacceptable and inappropriate for the reasons demonstrated and on that basis considerable weight is afforded the conflict posed with the development plan where the benefits posed would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm and conflict identified.
2. There are currently hazards within Fressingfield to non-motorised users travelling on New Street or through Jubilee Corner. The layout of the village means that this is the desirable route to reach many services. The proposed development will result in increased vehicle and pedestrian movements through this core area, thus increasing the collective risk to safety that would be posed.
The nature of the existing highway network severely restricts practical opportunities for acceptable mitigation. The measures that have been proposed are the best solution available within existing constraints and fall short of making the highway safe for pedestrians and would increase the likelihood of conflicts between them and vehicular traffic.
An approval of the development would increase pedestrian and/or vehicular movement through the core of the village without the provision of safe, practical alternatives.
Further traffic passing along New Street and/or through Jubilee Corner will result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrians. This risk is considered to be unacceptable and in its own right would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits that would arise from the proposed development. The harm to pedestrian safety identified is contrary to Local Plan Policy T10 and contrary to Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
3. Whilst the relevant drainage authorities have raised no objection to the proposed development it is acknowledged by them that Fressingfield experiences localised flooding problems in the vicinity of Low Road [the low point in the drainage system]. This flooding takes the form of overspill from the foul water system via ‘manhole’ inspection covers during periods of high rainfall. This flooding results in raw sewage and storm water standing in the road and on the verges. The adjacent Beck is also known to overtop. It is acknowledged by Anglian Water that whilst the foul water system in Fressingfield is defined as ‘closed’ [foul water only] it does in fact contain an unknown number of surface water connections. The system when operating in effect as a ‘partially combined’ system [foul and surface water] cannot cope during periods of high rainfall and the pressure build-up in that system causes manhole covers to ‘pop’ [lift-up] thereby permitting raw sewage to escape into the street. The proposed development will exacerbate the known flooding and pollution problem in the Low Road area of the village not as a result of adding surface water to the foul water system [provided surface water is not connected to the foul system] but as a result of the fact that the foul system will contain more foul water from the significant new development when it floods during periods of heavy rainfall. Raw sewage can and does also enter the Beck. The resultant pollution is an unacceptable environmental and public health risk that appears unable to be reasonably mitigated by the drainage authority. It is not possible to seal the manholes in question because to do so would potentially cause a pressure build-up that would result in sewage backing-up in the system to a point where it might escape into homes via residents’ toilet bowls. The proposed development is therefore unlikely to be adequately serviced and would overburden existing infrastructure. The proposed development is also contrary to Paragraph 163 of the NPPF in that the proposed development will increase flood risk elsewhere [namely the Low Road area]. In addition it is also contrary to Paragraph 180 of the NPPF in that it will not ensure the new development is appropriate for its location as it does not take into account the likely effects, including cumulative effects, of pollution upon health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. This risk is considered in its own right to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that might arise from the proposed development.
The harm to significance that has been identified is ‘less than substantial’ within the meaning provided by the NPPF but is nevertheless of notable importance and it is not considered that the development would deliver any public benefits, individually or collectively, that would outweigh the harm that has been identified, nor is any such harm necessary in supporting such benefits. The proposed development is contrary to the aforementioned policies and should be refused for this reason alone, noting the importance attached to the harm that has been identified.
Supporting documents: