Minutes:
59.1 Item 3
Application 1648/17
Proposal Outline Application – Residential development (up to 24 dwellings including affordable housing at 35%), drainage, landscaping and the provision of open space)
Site Location FRESSINGFIELD- Land at Post Mill Lane, Fressingfield
Applicant Mr P. Davidson
59.2 The Case Officer gave a further new presentation of the application to the Committee outlining the layout of the proposal and referred to the cumulative impact of the site as referenced in the presentation for 1449/17 and relevant new planning issues. The Case Officer outlined the late papers that were before Members and the Officer Recommendation for Refusal.
59.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the contamination of the land; as it was previously used as a builders yard, the proximity and setting of the listed building, and the public footpaths in the area.
59.4 Members considered the representation from the Parish Council representative Garry Deeks.
59.5 Members considered the representation from the Objector, Elizabeth Manero.
59.6 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current sewage and flooding problems within the village.
59.7 Members considered the representation from the Agent, Fergus Bootman.
59.8 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current use of the land and how it had lapsed into agricultural use, and that the site was always considered as a second Phase of development on the site.
59.9 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Lavinia Hadingham.
59.10 Members debated the application on issues including: the identified issue regarding sewage.
59.11 Councillor John Matthissen Proposed that the application be Refused as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.
59.12 Councillor Diana Kearsley Seconded the Motion.
59.13 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” and that references to “85 dwellings” be corrected to “24 dwellings”. The Proposer and seconder agreed to this amendment.
59.14 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: that this proposal was for a second phase of development along Post Mill Lane, and that other sites within Fressingfield had yet to be developed.
59.15 By a unanimous vote
59.16 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 24 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.
4. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the statutory duty of a decision-taker, where proposed development would affect a listed building or its setting and requires that they: “shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving [a] building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.
The ‘special regard’ duty of the Act has been tested in the courts on numerous occasions and has been confirmed to require that considerable importance and weight should be afforded by a decision taker to the desirability of preserving a listed building along with its setting i.e. having special regard to the desirability of keeping designated assets from harm. Furthermore, the identification of harm gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted.
The revised NPPF of 2018 builds upon and transposes the statutory duty and associated legal principles into national planning policy. Policies HB1 and HB8 of the development plan seek to secure the preservation and/or enhancement of the historic environment, including listed buildings and conservation areas. As applicable to this case, the NPPF goes on to require that (at Paragraph 196) where ‘less than substantial’ harm to significance is identified, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The revised NPPF does, however, go beyond the statutory duty in encouraging decision takers to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness (at Paras. 192(a) and (c)). In addition, whereas the similar ‘special regard’ duty applicable to conservation areas is clear that only relates to land falling within that designation, the NPPF (at Paragraph 194) makes clear that: “any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification”; this would include development within the setting of a conservation area.
This application proposes the development of 5 new dwellings [within an up to 24 unit proposal] on open land immediately to the rear of Ladymeade a Grade II listed building. This would result in harm to the setting of this historic building as a result of introducing intimate [proximity] unsympathetic modern built form into the vestigial area of open land behind the cottage which once provided it with a much wider backdrop and rural context.
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: