250112-Daking Avenue Boxford - One · PDF fileDevelopment Committee 25 January 2012 20 Item...

Development Committee 25 January 2012

20

Item No: 2 Reference: B/11/00148/OUT

Parish: BOXFORD Ward Member(s): Cllr B Hurren Location: Land South of Daking Avenue and west of Swan Street Proposal: Outline – Erection of 21 dwellings with new access road and off street parking

for Swan Street Applicant: Mr D Keeley Case Officer: Deborah Board Date for Determination: 01/06/11

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement,

Grant Planning Permission This application is referred to Development Committee as views have been expressed which are at variance with the officer recommendation and the proposal is of a scale that requires consideration by Members. A Panel of Members inspected the site on 4th January 2012. THE SITE 1. The application site is located on the edge of the village of Boxford, a village accessed from

the main A1071 that runs west from Ipswich connecting to the A134 to the west, the main route to Sudbury. The site is located outside of the built up area boundary of the village and is on the west side of the village. The site abuts Daking Avenue to the north and Swan Street to the east with the west and south site boundaries bordering open countryside.

2. Part of the eastern area of the site is located within the Boxford Conservation Area, with the

rest of the site abutting the Conservation Area and the built up area boundary. The entire site is within a Special Landscape Area. Within the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 Boxford is defined as a sustainable village. The application site is allocated for residential development under Local Plan Policy HS21.

3. Adjacent to the east boundary of the site is Goodlands Barn. The barn is Grade II listed and

is the subject of two separate applications for planning permission and listed building consent, which have been submitted concurrently with this application. These applications are detailed in the history section of this report. Moving further east the residential buildings that front Swan Street are in the main listed with the rear gardens running back and up to the access route from Swan Street.

4. The north site boundary is adjacent to the rear gardens and properties on Daking Avenue, in

particular numbers 15-37. The access point for the development is proposed from Daking Avenue between properties 27 and 29 Daking Avenue.

5. Within the application site there are two Walnut trees, which are the subject of a Tree

Preservation Order. These are shown as retained within the application.


21

THE PROPOSAL 6. The application was made to the Council for outline planning permission for 25 dwellings with

the matter of access submitted for consideration. In view of the location of the site, with part being within Boxford Conservation Area and the rest abutting, and the relationship of the site to the adjacent Grade II Listed Building, it was the opinion of Officers that the application should not be considered separately from the details of appearance, layout and scale. Accordingly the Council directed for the submission of these details under Article 4(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

7. Consultation was undertaken on the details received and following the comments made the

application was further amended to reduce the number of units proposed to 21. Therefore the application that Members are considering is an outline application for 21 residential units with the details of access, appearance, layout and scale submitted for consideration. The matter of landscaping is reserved for future consideration.

8. The application was accompanied by the following documents:

• Design and Access Statement;

• Flood Risk Assessment;

• Arboricultural Report;

• Bat and Barn Owl Survey;

• Foul Drainage Layout.

The application documents can be viewed on line via the planning pages on the District Council’s website.

RELEVANT HISTORY 9. Adjacent to the site:

B/11/00150/FUL – Barn South East of Goodlands Farm, Swan Street - Conversion of barn to single dwelling incorporating single storey extension (including demolition of adjoining and free-standing outbuildings as amended by agent's letter, timber frame survey, structural report and drawings 4309/10A and 4309/11 received 04.08.2011, Pending Consideration. B/11/00151/LBC - Barn South East of Goodlands Farm, Swan Street - Application for Listed Building Consent- Conversion of barn to single dwelling incorporating single storey extension (including demolition of adjoining and free-standing outbuildings as amended by agent's letter, timber frame survey, structural report and drawings 4309/10A and 4309/11 received 04.08.2011, Pending Consideration.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE 10. PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development 11. PPS3 - Housing 12. PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) 13. PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) and Circular 06/2005 to

accompanying PPS9 14. PPG13 - Transport (2001) 15. PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control (2004) 16. PPG24 - Planning and Noise (1994)


22

17. PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk (2010) PLANNING POLICIES 18. The Development Plan comprises the East of England Plan, adopted 2008, saved policies in

the Suffolk Structure Plan, adopted 2001, and saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006. The Localism Act 2011 contains provisions that will lead to the abolition of the East of England Plan. These provisions should be regarded as a material consideration in planning decisions. The following policies are applicable to the proposal:

East of England Plan, 2008

19. SS1 Achieving Sustainable Development

20. T9 Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport

21. T14 Parking

22. ENV1 Green Infrastructure

23. ENV3 Biodiversity and Earth Heritage

24. ENV6 The Historic Environment

25. ENV7 Quality in the Built Environment

26. ENG1 Energy Performance

27. WAT1 Water Efficiency

28. WAT4 Flood Risk Management

Suffolk Structure Plan, 2001 29. T10 Cycle parking

Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006 30. LP01 Planning Obligations

31. EN04 Semi Natural Habitats

32. EN06 Habitat Creation

33. EN09 Conservation of Energy

34. EN10 Renewable Energy

35. EN21 Recycling Facilities

36. CN01 Design Standards

37. CN04 Design and Crime Prevention

38. TP01 Pedestrians

39. TP03 Provision of Cycle Routes


23

40. TP15 Parking Standards – New Development

41. TP16 Green Travel Plans

42. HS21 Goodlands Farm, Daking Avenue

43. HS02 Villages

44. HS03 Non Sustainable and Sustainable Villages

45. HS08 Affordable Housing

46. HS34 Smaller Dwellings

47. CR04 Special Landscape Areas

48. Boxford Conservation Area Appraisal

49. Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document

The relevant policies can be viewed on line. Please see the notes attached to the schedule. 50. CONSULTATIONS

Initial consultation 07.03.2011 – 25 units 51. Boxford Parish Council strongly objects for the following reasons: -

• Local Plan stated maximum of 20 houses (included Local Needs Homes), the outline plan shows 25 – an increase of 25%!

• Road Safety: The large amount of traffic using Swan Street is already a concern and the number of houses proposed on the site will greatly aggravate the situation.

• Plan shows use of the lane onto Swan Street, this lane is very narrow with houses abutting each side it is not suitable of any increase in traffic.

• Lane entrance will cause safety issues for pedestrians.

• The Daking Avenue entrance is too narrow and designed in such a way as to make access for emergency service vehicles very difficult. There is already a problem within the Daking Avenue estate with narrow roads and parking.

• The access road (Daking Ave) where it is shown entering over the existing site of the three garages has been drawn over the corner of land owned by 31 Daking Avenue and the developer has not had permission to use this land. There are also two calor gas tanks which would be exposed to the edge of the highway and would be a safety issue

• There should be an audit of traffic using Swan Street before any decisions are made

• The footpath to the Boxford Community Woodland is not shown on the plan but it has to remain as it is the only entrance to the woodland.

• A full study of wild life must be carried out before any outline planning is agreed. It is known that barn owls are using the old buildings and nightingales are also present.

• Water drainage and sewage are at their limit in Boxford with heavy rain fall causing flooding in some areas. Full details of how this would be dealt with need to be seen before any outline planning is agreed.

• Although Goodlands Farm has been in the Local Plan for some time and in ‘mythology’ for even longer, is it still relevant today with the large increase in traffic already using Swan Street.

52. In summary the site would be over developed and does not meet the Local Plan. Access has not been clearly thought out and there are real issues with road safety, drainage, sewage


24

53. LHA – recommend that planning permission is refused 54. EA – make the following comments:

Flood Risk

We have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken by G H Bullard & Associates Ref 021-2011-FRA dated February 2011, submitted in support of this Outline planning application. The site is situated within Flood Zone 1, therefore the main flood risk concern is how surface water will be managed so that there is not an increased risk of flooding on or off-site. The FRA proposes that surface water run-off can potentially be managed on-site using soakaways/swales and the development will not increase off site risk of flooding during events up to and including the 1 in 100 year rainfall event including allowance for climate change. In order for the principle of development to be established and conditions appended, the scheme must be demonstrated to be achievable. Environment Agency Position We are satisfied that a surface water scheme which caters for the 1 in 100 year storm plus allowance for climate change can be achieved without increasing the risk of flooding on-site or elsewhere. We therefore have no objection to the application on surface water drainage issues. We do however, consider that the proposed development will only be acceptable if the surface water drainage scheme as detailed in the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), undertaken by G H Bullard & Associates Ref 021-2011-FRA dated February 2011, submitted with this application, is implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission. Condition Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include:

• An investigation into the feasibility of infiltration SuDS with the proposed soakaways/swales implemented as a preference if viable;

• If infiltration/soakaways are not appropriate, an assessment of the potential use of flow balancing SuDS methods which involve the retention and controlled release of surface water from a site.

• The discharge rate to the watercourse will be a maximum of 5l/s

• Details of a potentially drowned outfall

• Attenuation storage shall be provided to cater for the 1 in 100 year critical storm plus allowance for climate change - to include the calculations for the volume of surface water storage required


25

• Details of how surface water will be conveyed to the proposed system and calculations demonstrating that conveyance networks are appropriately sized for the 1 in 100 year rainfall event including climate change.

• Details of any exceedance and conveyance routes

• A drainage plan for the site including the proposed location/size of any infiltration/attenuation device.

• Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion; The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site, based upon sustainable drainage principles, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system. Informative - Flood Defence Consent Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and Land Drainage and Sea Defence Bylaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 9 metres of the top of the bank of any designated ‘Main River’. Any culverting or works affecting the flow of an ordinary watercourse (including ditches and drains) requires the prior written Consent of the Environment Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The Environment Agency seeks to avoid culverting, and its Consent for such works will not normally be granted except as a means of access.

Foul Drainage We note that the development will drain to the mains drainage system. In this respect, we recommend that Anglian Water are consulted to ensure that sufficient capacity exists within the foul sewerage infrastructure (including the waste water treatment works and foul sewer network) to accommodate the foul flows created by this development.

55. SCC (Archaeology) - This application is situated within an area of archaeological potential recorded in the County Historic Environment Record, to the east of the find spot of a Bronze Age hoard (HER no. EDN06). There is high potential for encountering heritage assets of archaeological importance at this location. Any ground-works associated with the development has the potential to cause significant damage or destruction to any underlying heritage assets. There are no grounds to consider refusal of permission in order to achieve preservation in situ of any important heritage assets. However, in accordance with PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment (Policy HE12.3) any permission granted should be the subject of a planning condition to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is damaged or destroyed. In this case model condition 55, in Circular 11/95 (DCLG 2006) would be appropriate.

56. SCC (Fire and Rescue) – recommend a condition to secure fire hydrant provision. 57. AW makes the following comments:

• The foul drainage from the development is in the catchment of Boxford sewage treatment works that at present has available capacity for these flows;


26

• To avoid risk of flooding downstream a drainage strategy should be prepared in consultation with Anglian Water;

• Suggest a condition requiring the drainage strategy;

• The preferred method of surface water drainage is SuDs. 58. NE - Based on the information provided, Natural England has no objection to the proposed

development subject to the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application. The reason for this view is that we consider that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the interest features of the Edwardstone Woods SSSI.

59. SWT – the application appears to involve the removal of buildings. Whilst there are no bat records for the site bats have been recorded in the vicinity so there is an increased likelihood that bats may occur at the property. Therefore recommend that the buildings are surveyed for bats. The area to be cleared should also be checked for nesting birds prior to development commencing.

60. BDC Countryside Services - this application will need to include a specification for tree

protection fencing and a plan showing its location. If the proposal layout requires development within the root protection area (RPA) then additional information will also be required including an assessment of impact on the trees and a works method statement.

61. BDC Affordable Housing Team: state that the affordable housing requirement would be: Affordable Housing Requirement:

• 35% of 25 units = 9 affordable units Tenure Split (75% rent/25 % SO (New Build Homebuy accommodation) as recommended by HNS 2004)

• Rent = 7 affordable units

• Low Cost Sale = 2 affordable units Detailed Breakdown Rented Units for a scheme of 9 affordable units:

• 2 x 1B2PF

• 2 x 2B3PF

• 2 x 2B4PH

• 1 x 3B5PH Detailed Breakdown Low Cost Sale Units for a scheme of 9 affordable units:

• 2 x 2B4PH Other requirements

• Properties must be built to Homes and Communities Agency Design and Quality Standards, and the current minimum Level of the Code for Sustainable Homes as required by the Homes and Communities Agency

• The council is granted 100% nomination rights to all the affordable units in perpetuity or the equivalent through the Choice Based Lettings System.

• The Shared Ownership properties must have a 75% staircasing bar, to ensure they are available to successive occupiers as Affordable Housing in perpetuity.

• This will only apply where dwellings are not supported by Social Housing Grant from the Homes and Communities Agency


27

• The Council will not normally support a bid for Homes and Communities Agency Social Housing Grant on a Planning Obligations site.

• In exceptional circumstances the Council will consider supporting a bid for Social Housing Grant, for example where there are scheme viability issues or a higher percentage of affordable housing is being offered, or some other additionality acceptable to the Council and the Homes and Communities Agency

• The siting and phasing of the affordable housing units must be agreed with the Council to ensure the affordable housing is integrated within the proposed development according to current best practice.

• On larger sites the affordable housing should not be placed in groups of more than 15 units.

• Adequate parking provision is made for the affordable housing units

• It is preferred that the affordable units are transferred to one of Babergh’s partner Registered Social Landlords.

62. Environmental Protection Team (Land Contamination) - the level of information provided in respect of land contamination is not sufficient given the scale of the development. The scheme involving desk studies and photos as is usual for small scale residential dwellings is not appropriate for larger developments of this scale and think that a full Phase I investigation is more in line with the letter of PPS23, this is the approach taken by other authorities. The method that we proposed for smaller scale developments (1-3 houses) is designed to place proportionality into the system. As such I do not believe that an internet based report is sufficient for determining risk for 25 dwellings. I also note that s.14 of the 1App form is incorrectly completed.

Second Consultation 14.06.2011 – details of 25 units submitted

63. Boxford Parish Council strongly objects to the amended proposal detailed in the agents email

dated 26th May with accompanying plans. The amendments have not addressed the following objections stated previously by this Council:-

• Local Plan stated maximum of 20 units (included Local Needs Homes), the outline plan shows 25 – an increase of 25%!

• Road Safety: The large amount of traffic using Swan Street is already a concern and the number of houses proposed on the site will greatly aggravate the situation.

• Plan shows use of the lane onto Swan Street, this lane is very narrow with houses abutting each side it is not suitable of any increase in traffic. This Council understands that the developer is exceeding their rights by assuming a right of way for 3 units;

• Lane entrance will cause safety issues for pedestrians;

• There is already a problem within the Daking Avenue estate with narrow roads and parking.

• There should be an audit of traffic using Swan Street before any decisions are made

• The footpath to the Boxford Community Woodland is not shown on the plan but it has to remain as it is the only entrance to the woodland;


28

• A full study of wild life must be carried out before any outline planning is agreed. It is known that barn owls are using the old buildings and nightingales are also present;

• Water drainage and sewage are at their limit in Boxford with heavy rain fall causing flooding in some areas. Full details of how this would be dealt with need to be seen before any outline planning is agreed;

• Although Goodlands Farm has been in the Local Plan for some time and in ‘mythology’ for even longer, is it still relevant today with the large increase in traffic already using Swan Street;

• In summary Boxford Parish Council strongly object to the outline plans. The proposal represents over development and does not meet the Local Plan. Access has not been clearly thought out and there are real issues with road safety, drainage and sewage;

• Further, this Council does not consider the design of the proposal to be sympathetic to its surrounding environment and it does not embrace modern “green” technology

64. PC (Edwardstone) - Planning Application no: B/11/00148/OUT increases the traffic and parking in Swan Street and therefore raises the issue of access for vehicles, in particular emergency vehicles to the village of Edwardstone. Therefore objecting to this planning application in its current format.

65. LHA – Object for the following reasons:

• Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highways Authority recommends that permission be refused.

• The allocation of this site and Policy HS21 was on the basis that the site was limited to 20 dwellings due to the sub standard nature and traffic congestion on Swan Street the main access route to the site. The application now proposes 25 dwellings which is a 25% increase over and above the figure accepted at the Local Plan Inquiry and specified within the subsequent policy. It is therefore not acceptable in highway terms.

• In addition the application proposes 3 dwellings being served by accesses on Swan Street. This again is contrary to the agreed policy and is also not acceptable in highway terms as the existing Swan Street accesses are severely sub standard in terms of layout and visibility.

66. EA – no further comments received. 67. SCC (Archaeology) - This new information does not alter our previous advice of 15 March

2001, which recommended the need for a condition relating to archaeological investigation (model condition 55, in Circular 11/95).

68. SWT - Having considered the additional information provided we can confirm that we have

no further comments beyond those made in our letter of 28th February 2011 69. EH (land contamination) – no further comments

Third Consultation 19.10.2011 – 21 Units 70. Boxford Parish Council made the following comments:

• The initial village plan was for 20 dwellings and this revised application still exceeds that.


29

• On what basis has the recent traffic audit been undertaken, as there has been no evidence of a traffic count in Swan Street ? There are traffic peaks during the day eg school start and finish, when Swan Street comes to a standstill. Does the audit reflect this? New, uncompleted, development in the Homefield area, will also contribute to an increase in traffic volumes and has this been taken into account? A traffic count of vehicle movements along Swan Street and related roads is, in our opinion, better than a computer model.

• It is still unclear who would be responsible for the upkeep of the proposed village parking or what will become of the site if it is not used. It should be clear that this is not suitable for further development.

• Likewise, the open land to the South West of Goodlands Farm should be clearly designated as not for development. Any future development will exacerbate all the problems that have been raised about the present proposed development of Goodlands Farm.

• The proposed density will impact on the quality of the local environment. Higher density and the pursuit of quality seem contradictory and possibly unachievable.

• This would have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding area, especially

o from the Sudbury Hadleigh Road .

o It would not be in keeping with the conservation area which bounds one side of the site.

• It will severely impact on the local infrastructure particularly the drains and the sewage system.

• We are concerned that the underground water courses and water table will be adversely affected by the construction of the houses and road..

• We understand that Boxford School already has a waiting list and there would be more pressure on places from this development of family housing.

• No public access to Primrose wood, a unique and valued Boxford resource still does not appear to exist on the plans.

71. PC (Edwardstone) – no objection 72. LHA – no objection, recommend conditions covering the following matters:

• Submission of the detail of the proposed access;

• Details of areas for storage of refuse/recycling to be submitted;

• Submission of a scheme for surface water drainage;

• Details of estate roads and footpaths;

• Provision of cycleways and footways;

• Provision of new junction to Daking Avenue prior to other works commencing;

• Provision of parking and turning areas;

• Details of surfacing of access tracks. 73. EA – no objection

• We refer to your letters of 19 October and 25 October 2011 respectively and the amended information submitted;

• The indicative foul drainage plan layout (Oct 2011) demonstrates that the development is to connect to the main sewer system; this is our preferred approach;


30

• Having reviewed the amended information provided we confirm that we have no additional comments to make to those made in our previous representations.

74. SCC (Fire and Rescue) – recommend a condition to be imposed to secure the provision of

fire hydrants. 75. SCC (Archaeology) – no objection, recommend a two stage condition to secure

archaeological investigations. 76. Suffolk PCT – Response awaited 77. Suffolk Constabulary – Response awaited 78. SCC (Planning Obligations) request the following is sought from the developer:

• Education – 4 additional primary school places to be funded requiring a contribution £47 868;

• Early years and childcare provision – 2 pre school places to be funded requiring a contribution of £11 967;

• Libraries – capital contribution of £90 000 to be spent at the local catchment library;

• Waste – contribution of £609 or a waste minimisation and recycling strategy to be agreed by condition;

• The developer is encouraged to utilise sustainable urban drainage where possible;

• Suffolk Constabulary and Suffolk PCT identified and the details sent to their appointed consultant for response;

• Fire Service – fire hydrants will need to be covered by condition;

• High Speed Broadband – recommend that all development is equipped with high speed broad band;

• Legal costs – SCC require an undertaking for reimbursement of its own legal costs. 79. SWT – No objection – have read the ecological survey report and are satisfied with the

findings of the consultant and request that the recommendations contained in the report are implemented in full.

80. BDC Affordable Housing Team – set out that the affordable Housing Requirement for

Goodlands Farm, Boxford is as follows:

Affordable Housing Requirement:

• 35% of 21 units = 7 affordable units

Tenure Split (75% low cost rent/25 % low cost sale) as recommended by HNS 2004):

• Rent = 5 affordable units

• Low Cost Sale = 2 affordable unit

• Detailed Breakdown Rented Units For a scheme of 7 affordable units:

• 2 x 1B2PF

• 2 x 2B3PF

• 1 x 2B4PH Detailed Breakdown Low Cost Sale Units for a scheme of 7 affordable units:

• 1 x 2B4PH

• 1 x 3B5PH


31

Other requirements:

• Properties must be built to Homes and Communities Agency Design and Quality Standards, and the current minimum Level of the Code for Sustainable Homes as required by the Homes and Communities Agency

• The council is granted 100% nomination rights to all the affordable units in perpetuity or the equivalent through the Choice Based Lettings System.

REPRESENTATIONS

Initial consultation 07.03.2011 – 25 units 81. Twenty one letters of representation have been received and the comments are summarised

as follows:

• have lived in Daking Avenue for 32 Years;

• This is the most stupid of ideas yet;

• Daking Avenue and Swan Street cannot take any more traffic;

• Daking Avenue is parked solid where the access from the plan for these house are;

• The emergencies services cannot get around Daking Avenue as it is parked solid next to house nos 5,7 and 20,18,16;

• Need to point out this is not a council estate it is private who are these developers who think they can knock down garages and widen a road;

• We do not need any more houses at this end of the village;

• There is a field which would give access to 1071 which I am told is owned by Babergh which would by more appropriate for housing;

• We live at number 29 Daking Avenue. Our house is right beside the turning that will lead into the proposed new housing estate. We are the end terrace of four houses. Behind our back garden there are three garages, belonging to our neighbour’s houses, and the garage wall forms our rear garden wall. We see on the planning application that it is proposed that the garages will be knocked down, and our neighbours have been told that they will have new garages built at the end of each of their respective gardens. The builder obviously approached our neighbours and obtained their consent to these new garages, but he didn't pay us the courtesy of calling and advising us that we would be losing our rear wall garden - or for that matter the "cul de sac" as it is now would become the main road into the new proposed housing estate, running beside our house and literally round our back garden;

• At the end of this "cul de sac" we have been told is a "ransom strip" - which the builder is going around at the expense of the house we live in and my immediate next door neighbour, who in the plan is losing a piece of her garden;

• Apart from the aforementioned which we are not at all happy about, the new housing application is for 25 new houses. If on average each household has two cars, that would mean an extra 50 cars approximately driving round the back of our house and down beside the house before turning into the main part of Daking Avenue, which already has access problems, with cars parking on the road and this isn't even mentioning Swan Street which is a nightmare driving up and down already, which I'm sure the Babergh District Council are already aware of;


32

• Equally I am a grandparent and look after two of my grandchildren, and pushing a pushchair along Swan Street, where the pavements are negligible is a nightmare, so to have even more proposed traffic would be cause for concern;

• We therefore object strongly to this proposed planning application;

• The original scheme was for 20 new houses. This application has increased that number by 25%, and we do not believe that the site can or should sustain development at that level, in part for the reasons already acknowledged by BDC. The proposals will, if granted, increase car numbers and population to a level that is not consistent with Boxford maintaining its village character and we question whether development on this scale is in accordance with BDC planning policies.

• The proposed two and/or three new houses closest to us (“the new houses”) will overlook our back garden and interfere with our privacy. The new houses were not included in the original application and may, we believe, be in a Conservation Area.

• Access to the new houses has not been considered and there is a proposal for a car park for 10 cars next to the new houses (see further below). No Road Safety Audit has been carried out. The plans seem to propose access via the lane that runs along the back of our garden. The increase in traffic (vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians) will interfere with our privacy and amenity. It is also unsafe, particularly for children or parents with buggies or prams, as car-owners back cars out of garages and standings to gain access to the lane and Swan Street.

• The proposal for the car park next to the new houses causes us concern.

• It is unlikely to be used by shoppers, who will continue to congregate close the shops at the bottom of Swan Street (Cygnet Court has apparently offered this facility, which has not been taken up).

• It is likely to become a magnet for car dumping as well as a place for young people to congregate as it will be unsupervised and out of sight of the main road but in full view of the houses that back onto it from Swan Street, leading to a loss of privacy, increase in noise and disturbance from extra traffic and other activities, and accumulation of rubbish.

• To restrict its use by large vehicles, an unsightly height restriction barrier will have to be installed.

• Dustbin lorries cannot gain access to the new houses from Swan Street, so presumably bins will have to be wheeled to the entrance to the lane next to 37 Swan Street, creating unsightly obstructions and possible danger.

• Emergency vehicles (particularly fire engines) cannot gain access from Swan Street. We also question whether they can gain access via the new proposed route from Daking Avenue.

• The entrance to the lane next to 37 Swan Street is narrow (11’4’’). It cannot be widened. It is often damaged by vehicles. More traffic will increase these problems.

• Emerging from the lane into Swan Street is already hazardous, as drivers are unsighted. Increase in traffic will increase the danger.

• Traffic and parking in Daking Avenue is already problematic for residents. Increasing housing will increase the problem.

• Access to the Community Woodland is via Daking Avenue. The proposed plan will cut off that access.


33

• The new houses will be close to a listed barn (to be restored as a dwelling) and will not be in keeping with it, other listed buildings (including our own) or the surrounding area generally.

• The new proposals make no provision for drainage and sewerage. The area has many underground watercourses which, if interrupted by building works, may cause flooding. The sewers in Swan Street which are used for the existing Daking Avenue houses are, we believe, at capacity already.

• We believe that barn owls nest in the disused farm buildings on the site. The proposals do not address this (nor any other) concerns for wildlife or the environment.

• Trees and hedges are noted on the proposed development site (see section 15 of the Application). We understand that all vegetation was removed from the area intended for the new houses over a weekend when the Council could not be contacted. We are therefore concerned about the developer’s respect for the environment.

• The Design and Access Statement states “A generous allocation of land around the listed barn has also been proposed to reflect the importance of this building.” There is no land around the listed barn of the side where the new houses are proposed to be placed.

• The proposal is for 25 house and that would no doubt bring, perhaps, 50 cars;

• My main objection is the increase of traffic that will first and foremost occur in Swan Street. This street is not capable of taking the traffic it takes now and chaos ensues on most days. This is one of the only historical parts of the village in terms of property, I would have thought it would have required preserving;

• I feel strongly that any developments that happen in Boxford should be towards the bypass area behind The Causeway and Running Waters – traffic would simply then not be an issue!

• Parking in the first part of Daking Avenue, outside 5, 7 and 9 and 14, 16, 18 and 20 is a real problem. There are cars parked on both sides of the road and on the bad bend around our property. I know that you do not own the road outside your property but I do find it very, very frustrating when I can never park outside my own front door!

• In conclusion I am not against new houses being built within the village, indeed we do need them, but I think serious consideration should be given to the location of these estates. All planning seems to need to include Swan Street and I feel you are making a big mistake in continued building at this end of the village;

• The proposed car park is unlikely to be used extensively. A car park is already available at Cygnet House which is not used. Also there will be extra noise and disturbance particularly at night with car doors shutting and light from car lights. Also this increases further traffic into Swan Street;

• The proposed cycle track and pedestrian walkway emerges behind our garage as we reverse out onto our right of way registered with the Land Registry. This is a safety issue;

• In a wider view of the proposals, has an assessment been conducted on the capacity of the sewerage disposal particularly down Swan Street? This is in view of the 25 extra dwellings proposed. Already there are extra demands on this system due to Partridge Close and Homefield developments. The sewer has been blocked at least twice in recent years, suggesting this Victorian sewer pipe is not adequate;


34

• In the Babergh Chapter Three Settlement Policy and Housing report 3.89.Policy HN09N Goodlands it Stipulates an upper limit of 20 dwellings allocated for this land at Goodlands Farm. What is proposed exceeds this;

• There are already major access problems in Daking Avenue for emergency vehicles. This will be exacerbated even more with the proposed development;

• Suffolk County Council previously stated on an earlier development plan that Swan Street suffered from traffic congestion & 20 dwellings would be the upper limit which Babergh agreed with. Years later,how can this be increased by 25% when the congestion has got worse with Partridge Close being built & flats at Homefield being added soon;

• Another Traffic Audit is required to establish what the maximum number of dwellings should be now;

• The 3 houses (plots 18-19-20 ) nearest to the village car park appear to have access only from Swan St & the private lane. The Road Safety Audit says the only access to the site is via Daking Avenue;

• Plots 18-19-20 should be deleted as they interfere with the privacy and daylight / visibility of Swan St properties & plots 5-9 have the same effect on some Daking Avenue properties;

• The village car park will not be self financed or used by Swan Street residents. If we do not park outside our properties then cars, double decker buses, large lorries & motor bikes will be going past our houses within 1 to 3 feet of our outside walls, which will be very disturbing, dangerous & would cause damage to listed buildings. At number 47 the kerb is only 1ft from the front door. The danger to pedestrians is increased tremendously;

• The proposed pedestrian access to the lane coming out on Swan Street should start at the BT Substation, but not the cycle track, as the exit onto Swan Street has major safety problems for all cyclists;

• Additional traffic flow through Swan Street will increase the danger to residents on the East side of the road driving out onto the road;

• Underground water courses which come through Goodlands Farm & cross the back of Swan Street properties need to be surveyed & assessed to ensure that no flooding will occur to these properties by increased flow from soakaways & other interferences.

82. Suffolk Preservation Society makes the following comments:

• Principle of development: The argument in support of having development in the Boxford valley is for Babergh to meet central government aims and policy, whilst protecting the countryside for the benefit of all. The SPS are mindful of the logic in assessing the principle of development of this brown field site – a disused farm complex as it is less visible here than on the outskirts of the village. Under the terms of the local plan therefore the principle appears to be met; however the Society support the Boxford Parish Council in the need for a reassessment due to the severe traffic difficulties in Swan Street as this development will compound the problems.

• Details of development: The Society supports the Local Community in recommending refusal of the application in the current form for the reasons stated in the Boxford Parish Council objection clauses a) to j) and the Boxford Society letter of objection.


35

Second Consultation 14.06.2011 – details of 25 units submitted 83. Fourteen letters of representation have been received and the comments are summarised as

follows:

• We have looked at the amended application for the above, and note that the developer still plans to knock down the garages that are behind our house, number 29 Daking Avenue;

• The wall of the garages in question forms the wall at the back of our garden. The developer has not seen fit to approach us about this at all. He has bought the so called "ransom strip" and therefore I wouldn't have thought it not necessary for him to still come round the back of our garden, as still shown on the plans;

• Also, Swan Street is so busy with traffic already, apart from the Daking Avenue, Gunary Close, Sherbourne Street, there are new flats being built on Homefield, and there is already a new estate on Partridge Close - the traffic going along Swan Street is considerable, and by building this proposed new estate will only add to the chaos that forms Swan Street already;

• I am a grandparent looking after two grandchildren and trying to push a pushchair up and down Swan Street is literally taking "your life into your own hands"!

• strongly object any "dwellings" being built at this end of the Boxford village;

• I believe the development will affect the visual amenity of my property due to the quantity and density of the new development to the south of my property;

• The access via Daking Avenue also causes me deep concern. I strongly believe such a development will cause safety issues due to the increase in traffic - during construction and after the completion of the scheme. Neither Daking Avenue or Swan Street is capable of such an increase in traffic and the small amount of newly created parking does not solve this issue;

• Likewise the new development will cause an increase in noise both during and after development;

• I also believe the scheme is ill thought out. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that the site was earmarked for 20 properties not 25. There does not appear to be any logic in the increase of houses for the scheme – aside from the uplift in profit for the developers;

• The avoidance of the ransom strip and the demolition of the garages opposite my current garage (block nearest the proposed Daking Avenue access) is at worst dangerous and at best a possible bottle neck as traffic increases;

• Therefore I believe I have grounds for an objection based on visual amenity; safety and access issues and noise and a change in property development (20 to 25).

• Can someone please explain to me how vehicles (potential vehicles with permitted access and before casual visitors is 70+, probably more) are going to get out of the single track lane into Swan Street if at the same time vehicles are trying to get into the lane? I do not think that it is unreasonable to suppose that at certain times of the day - school times/going to work times/coming home times there may be a bit of a jam to put it mildly. Even with the parking restrictions on the corner (which will obviously go ahead despite few of the residents wanting them) there will be problems both in the lane and in Swan Street. To increase this bottleneck any further by allowing any access down the lane from the development is sheer madness;

• Safety of pedestrians

• Cyclists in lane and on corner?

• Access for dustcart - not possible at present and that can't change as it can't get round the corner. Also access for furniture vans - they would not be able to get up there to move people in. Access for emergency vehicles, fire engine in particular.

• Where is all the drainage/rainwater going to go?

• Proposed car park un-policeable and very likely to become a social nuisance for any number of reasons as previously stated. Also unlikely to be used by those for whom it is intended;

• It will be quite obvious to anyone reading this or my previous thoughts that I am violently against this development;


36

• No 41 will be severely affected if this plan comes to fruition. Our main bedroom/kitchen and lounge are on the lane-side of the house and so we are vulnerable to any increase in traffic. At the moment this traffic is usually during daytime 'business' hours. This will not be the case if there are houses built with lane access and/or the car park. Obviously the period of construction will be a complete nightmare with noise and traffic movement. Finally of course the value of my property will be undoubtedly diminished as it in the 'front line' so to speak;

• object to the building of plots 1,2,3,4, in the proposed position that they are in now;

• My first objection my property is built on land that is 1.2 meters lower than the land that the plots are to be built on. I would still be looking out onto and up to a significantly large structure, and My property would still be overshadowed, overlooked and suffer loss of privacy;

• Suggest changes be made to the proposed plan. Move plots 1,2,3,4. across the road and build them next to plots 13,14.Replace plots 1,2,3,4. with the car parking for the open space. This would improve the line of sight for drivers entering and leaving the development, and would also be more pleasing on the eye as you enter the development from Daking Avenue as the first thing that you see would not be the back yard of plots 1,2,3,4. This would then leave all the land west of the development open

space; • Access via Daking Avenue is of huge concern;

• The proposals is ill thought out;

• Development will affect the visual amenity of properties on Daking Avenue;

• Properties in Swan Street will be overlooked;

• Car park adjacent to houses in Swan Street is a cause for concern;

• Access for dustbin lorries and emergency vehicles;

• Access to the community woodland.

84. Suffolk Preservation Society – Object on the following points:

• Principle of development of this sensitive site;

• Number of dwellings exceeds the policy threshold;

• The access is prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety and the amenity of adjacent properties;

• Substantive issues on this site should not be separated from the principle. 85. The Woodland Trust makes the following comments:

• Seek to outline their position with regard to any land that may be available as part of a planning gain package;

• See this as a possible opportunity to improve access to the existing Primrose Wood site and secure additional land;

• Assuming there are no constraints would plant 2.0ha with native broadleaved trees at a relatively low density with 0.5ha left as open ground;

• Would encourage use of the site, particularly by local schools and community planting events;

• Would require an endowment of £31 000 to cover twenty year costs.

Third Consultation 19.10.2011 – 21 Units 86. Ten letters of representation have been received and the comments are summarised as

follows:

• Would access be provided over the river to Primrose Wood?

• The existing access path could be left to fill itself in to form a dense hedge;

• The Local Plan specified a maximum of 20 dwellings for transport reasons;

• Since then residential development has increased traffic density on Swan Street;


37

• It appears no physical traffic audit has been taken to measure traffic at school and business rush hours;

• Concerned about the effect of the development on sewage and surface water;

• Concerned about the height of the new houses and that they will dominate their surroundings;

• Pleased that the proposal to access dwellings directly from Swan Street has been withdrawn;

• Concerned about the cycle route proposals onto Swan Street, which are plainly dangerous;

• No access to Primrose Wood has been allowed for;

• No demand for the proposed car park;

• Access is proposed via Daking Avenue and the impact on the residents of the existing estate should be considered;

• The properties 17-27 Daking Avenue will be overshadowed and overlooked as a result of units 1-4, 7-11;

• The application site is higher than the properties on Daking Avenue;

• Boxford does not need a development of this nature;

• The design of the proposal is completely at odds with the surroundings;

• The developer has already brutalised the area;

• Have viewed the proposed block plan drawing number SK100E 17/10/2011 and I would still like to object to the building of plots 1,2,3.4 in the position that they are in now;

• As I have mentioned in my last two objections properties on Daking Avenue are built on land that is 1.2 meters lower than the land that the plots are to be built on;

• These plots are moved to a different location on the site;

• There is now a communal refuse area next to these plots. This area would cause no end of problems, i.e. Smell, the dumping of large items of refuse, and refuse not put in the bins;

• Who would be responsible for this area, this area should be removed and refuse bins

located next to the property's;

• When the village plan allowed 20 dwellings on this site it was before the construction of both Partridge Close and the affordable flats in Homefield. Therefore numerically the number of dwellings allowed on this site should now be down to around 6 - 8 maximum. Why is this not the case?

• Traffic increase in Swan Street. Where's the audit? When was it done? What month/times of day? If it was not in school term time/commuting time namely 7-10 am and 3-6pm then it is irrelevant as that is when the traffic movements are at their busiest;

• Sewerage. Surface water drainage. The plan shows the whole site draining into the Swan Street pipes. Many local residents can testify that they have seen those drains unable to cope under extreme conditions so what is adding more houses going to do? Where is the technical evidence that the system can cope? Us residents know that it can't;

• The car park. There is absolute evidence that no one is likely to use it. The facility was offered privately last year by the owners of Cygnet Court and not one person applied. Also who will maintain it? Who will police it?

• Since these discussions began many more objections are beginning to surface;

• We are all beginning to realise how high the land level of the site is. The houses will tower over the surrounding properties (see the now constructed new house on the site of Goodland s Farmhouse - its height has taken many of us by surprise) and ruin the look of much of the village. Who says that this is acceptable? Not us for sure. We only live here and pay council tax after all. What rights do we have?

• Can the school cope? It seems to be full. What provisions are in the pipeline to increase intake if needed?

• The light pollution for many of us is likely to be intolerable. Is this legal?

• Still no mention of access to Primrose Wood. Why?

• No provision for retirement dwellings - likely to be actually where the housing demand really is in a few years time. This plan seems to be ignoring the known population demographic. Why?


38

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The Principle of Development 87. The Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2 (2006) allocated the application site for residential

development under policy HS21. 88. Policy HS21 states that:

“Approximately 0.7 hectares of land at Goodlands Farm, Boxford, are allocated for 20 houses. Proposals for development will be required to provide for:

• vehicular access from Daking Avenue;

• a footpath and cycleway connecting the site to Swan Street;

• 2.4 hectares of land to the south and west of the site, to be conveyed into public ownership for recreational use, and surrounded by extensive tree landscaping to mitigate the impact of development and to provide adequate public open space for the development;

• the adjacent barn (which is a listed building), to be retained and refurbished, and incorporated into the overall redevelopment; and

• A small informal car park for visitors to the recreational area and overspill car parking for residents of Daking Avenue”.

89. The policy establishes the principle of residential development of the site subject to the

delivery of planning gain as detailed above. The policy refers specifically to 20 dwellings and Members will note that the proposal for consideration is for 21 units. The increase in number by one unit is not unacceptable in principle but this must be achieved without the proposal resulting in demonstrable harm. The detailed issues that relate to Scale, Appearance and Layout are discussed in the next sections of the report.

90. Considered purely against the points of Policy HS21 outlined above the development

proposed makes provision for:

• Vehicular access from Daking Avenue as the policy requires;

• A footpath and cycle link to Swan Street as required;

• An area of open space to the south of the site adjacent to Primrose Wood, (2.6 ha in area). This is not the area envisaged by the policy and the detail of this proposal is discussed with the Planning Obligations section of this report;

• A significant landscaping belt surrounding the development – this can be controlled by a refining condition guiding the reserved matters submission for this element;

• The refurbishment of the adjacent barn which is the subject of concurrent applications as detailed in the history section of the report; and

• An informal car park for the recreational area and an overspill car park.

Layout 91. PPS3 in Paragraph 10 states that planning authorities should deliver well designed high

quality housing; this is echoed in PPS1 which places design towards the centre of the planning system (Paragraph 34) stating that development which fails to improve the quality and character of the area should not be supported.

92. Policy CN01 of the Local Plan seeks to resist development that would have a materially

adverse impact on residential amenity and seeks well designed layouts that provide an appropriate scale, density and form and relate well to their surroundings.

93. Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan 2008 states that all new development should be of high quality and based on a robust site appraisal.


39

94. Policy CR04 sets out that development in Special Landscape Areas (SLA) will only be

permitted where it would: maintain or enhance the special landscape qualities of the area, identified in the relevant landscape appraisal; and are designed and sited to harmonise with the landscape setting.

95. The application site is proposed to be accessed from Daking Avenue with the access point

taken between numbers 27 and 29. To form the new access the area adjacent to the rear of number 29 Daking Avenue is included within the application site. To the far west end of the site three new garages and associated parking is proposed for numbers 33, 35 and 37 Daking Avenue. Adjacent to the new access road (rear of 29 and 31 Daking Avenue) a car park of 11 spaces is proposed for the open space required by policy HS21.

96. The site is laid out around the central spine road proposed. The dwelling schedule proposed

is as follows:

14 dwellings 3 x 5 Bed Houses 3 x 4 Bed Houses 4 x 3 Bed Houses 4 x 2 Bed Houses 7 affordable dwellings 2 x 1 Bed Flats

2 x 2 Bed Flats 2 x 2 Bed Houses 1 x 3 Bed House

97. The site can essentially be considered in two areas with the smaller units (2 and 3 bed) being

located to the north area and the larger units (4 and 5 bed) in the southern area. Entering the site plots 1-4 are located on the north side of the road in two flatted blocks. The garden areas for the units are to the rear with parking on the frontage. The layout achieves a back to back distance with the dwellings in Daking Avenue of 21 metres.

98. Plots 5 – 7 form a terrace and face the flats (being orientated at ninety degrees to the flats)

with the side elevation of plot 5 being visible within the street scene. Within this group of properties the dwelling closest to the properties in Daking Avenue is plot 7, which has a side to back distance of between 19 and 23 metres with the properties in Daking Avenue. The garden areas for these dwellings would back onto unit 8 and the parking areas are at the front.

99. The street scene continues on the north side of the road with plots 8-11, which are all

detached, fronting the spine road. Each of these properties has a rear garden area with back to back distances with Daking Avenue properties being between 20 and 28 metres. Plot 8 has two car parking spaces to the front with 9 and 10 have integral garages and one parking space whilst plot 11 has a single detached garage and parking space. To the south east of these units the protected Walnut trees are retained within a small landscaping area. The pedestrian cycle link is located through this area connecting to the spine road in the site and then to the access track rear of Swan Street and on down to Swan Street itself.

100. On the south side of the access road plots 12-15 are proposed fronting the road, two pairs of

semi detached dwellings, with garaging proposed to the rear. Moving into the south area of the site the turning head terminates, plots 16-19 (5 and 4 bed detached houses) are laid out round it with plots 20 and 21 (4 and 5 bed respectively) located further east toward Swan Street and adjacent to the listed barn. Each of the detached units has a reasonably sized rear garden and on plot parking in the form of garages and spaces.


40

101. Parking spaces for plots 1-7 is located in front of the dwellings. The remaining dwellings have on plot parking with a mix of garaging and parking spaces proposed. Overall provision across the site is more than 200%. The Suffolk Advisory parking standards set out that a standard of 1.5 spaces (150%) per dwelling can be applied across the development, the proposals meet this requirement. Secure cycle and bin storage is provided for the flats and it is anticipated that the individual dwellings can use access to rear gardens to accommodate storage.

102. Overall the development is considered to be well laid out presenting a varied street scene,

mix of dwelling types and parking and amenity provision commensurate with the dwellings that are proposed. Further the separation distances achieved to Daking Avenue are sufficient that there would not be harm to these properties from overlooking or overshadowing. In addition the layout incorporates the informal car park and cycle pedestrian link required by HS21, retention of the protected trees within the layout and an appropriate landscape buffer zone.

Appearance

103. PPS3 in Paragraph 10 states that planning authorities should deliver well designed high

quality housing; this is echoed in PPS1 which places design towards the centre of the planning system (Paragraph 34) stating that development which fails to improve the quality and character of the area should not be supported.



105. Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan 2008 states that all new development should be of high quality and based on a robust site appraisal.

106. Policy CR04 sets out that development in Special Landscape Areas (SLA) will only be

permitted where it would: maintain or enhance the special landscape qualities of the area, identified in the relevant landscape appraisal; and are designed and sited to harmonise with the landscape setting.

107. The application proposals present a mix of dwelling types and detailed design approaches

creating a varied development in terms of form across the three key street scenes that would be created. The application plans indicate a palette of materials composed of clay plain tiles, soft red facing bricks render and black stained boarding where it is applied, materials that are all evident within the core of the Conservation Area. The detail of the materials can be controlled by condition; this would be reasonable and necessary to secure the quality of development required for this visible site on the edge of the Conservation Area and within the SLA.

Scale



109. The existing buildings on site are a range of dilapidated former agricultural buildings which vary in height. At the site meeting Members requested information regarding existing building heights as a comparison. This has been requested from the applicant’s agent and will be presented to the committee.


41

110. The application proposal presents a built form that is all of a two storey scale. The scale of the two storey development does vary across the site and is also influenced by the site levels, which undulate. The levels rise east to west from Swan Street and across into the site and from Daking Avenue at the North the site rises into the centre and the falls away to the south.

111. The scale of the dwellings proposed is a large two storey within a locality that has two storey dwellings along Daking Avenue and then two storey development fronting Swan Street also, albeit of varying scales. As such the principle of two storey properties is considered acceptable subject to there being no harm to residential amenity from the resultant relationships.

112. The submitted street scenes are used for consideration and will be presented to members. These indicate that the height of the dwellings range from 8.8/8.9 metres at the ridge through to 9.9/10 metres within the street scene on the north side of the spine road. The plots that face the spine road a sufficiently separated from the dwellings in Daking Avenue that refusal on overlooking or an overbearing impact could not be sustained. Plot 7, which is closest to properties in Daking Avenue would be 9.9 metres to the ridge and 5.5 metres to the eaves. The layout and orientation of this plot is such that overlooking would not result to 17, 19 or 21 Daking Avenue. The plot is to the south of these dwellings but does achieve a separation of between 19 and 23 metres with these properties, which would make a refusal on overshadowing or overbearing impacts unsustainable.

113. Within the other street scene, south of the site, the scale of the plots ranges from 8.0 metres through to 9.3 metres. Plot 21, which would be closest to the properties in Swan Street would have a maximum height to the ridge of 8.2 metres with the garage being 6.8 metres to the ridge. The closest properties to this would be numbers 41 and 43 Swan Street. This plot would be between 22 and 16 metres from the rear boundary of these dwellings respectively and achieve a back to back distance with number 41 of 48 metres.

114. The site will be visible in the landscape and it is clear that the dwellings will be visible from the main bypass (A1071), as the existing buildings are at present. The Local Plan clearly envisaged that this site would be developed for housing under policy HS21, this would always present a step change in the long range views of the site on the edge of Boxford. It is considered that the scheme presented is of an appropriate scale and subject to conditions securing quality materials and landscaping will be an acceptable form of development for this allocated site.

Impact on Heritage Assets 115. PPS5 was published on 23rd March 2010 and sets out in HE7 the guiding principles for

determination of applications for consent relating to heritage assets. In particular it requires identification of the significance of the heritage asset when considering an application that would impact on its setting (HE7.1). Significance is defined in Annex 2 of the PPS and in further detail within pages 19 and 20 of the English Heritage Practice Guide that accompanies PPS5.

116. Having established the significance of the heritage asset policy HE9 of PPS5 requires

consideration. HE9.1 sets out a clear presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and that their significance can be lost or harmed by development within its setting. This position is amplified in the English Heritage Practice Guide paragraph 85. HE9.2 sets out that where harm or loss to significance occurs that the development must be necessary to deliver substantial public benefits.

117. Policy CN08 of the Local Plan requires development within a Conservation Areas to preserve

or enhance that conservation area. PPS5 states that the significance of a heritage asset should be identified and used to inform the design solution. The Boxford Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that the quality of buildings in Boxford is in the main Grade II properties, such as those to the east of the site.


42

118. The sites significance lies in its position partially within and adjacent to Boxford

Conservation, it is on the edge and would be visible as such from the main A1071. Indeed the Black Barn at Goodland’s Farm is specifically identified within the Conservation Area Appraisal. Being on the edge of the Conservation Area the site has a relationship to the open countryside. The application proposals do not represent a preservation of the Conservation Area indeed they are a significant change for this part of Boxford. Notwithstanding this it is considered that they do in fact represent an opportunity for enhancement, with the removal of the existing redundant buildings being removed and the use of strategic landscaping around the key site boundaries.

119. Policy CN06 of the Babergh District Local Plan requires works affecting a listed building to

safeguard the special character of a listed buildings historic fabric, curtilage area, setting and the relationship with the surroundings. It also requires features which contribute to the setting of the listed building to be maintained.

120. The listing description for the barn states:

“Barn immediately SE of Goodlands Farmhouse II Barn. C18. Timber framed, clad in tarred weatherboards on a red brick plinth. Half-hipped roof clad in corrugated iron. C20 brick additions including continuous lean-to along west side. Frame in 5 irregular bays, with wide central cart entry, many of the components heavy and re-used from a house of probably C16 date. Stepped mid rail, straight primary braces, arched tie beam braces. One cambered tie beam with long solid braces and peg hole for crown-post. Clasp-purlin roof: purlins of square section; many rafters show housings for collars and are presumably also re-used. A C20 upper floor in some bays”.

121. The significance of the Listed Barn is identified in the report on its architectural history that

accompanies the concurrent planning applications for its conversion. This identifies that the barn is an interesting example of an 18th century five bay barn for the storage and threshing of corn. The barn has had additions in the 18th and 19th century and has been surrounded by minor buildings in the 20th century. Within the Local Plan allocation the barn is identified for conversion to bring it back into a beneficial use alongside development of the land allocation. It clear then that a balance needs to be struck in maintaining an appropriate setting to the barn to the west and allowing the land allocation layout as the two sites are considered together, one impacting on the other.

122. The submitted layout makes provision for a significant garden area to the barn itself, once

converted and places the boundary of this against the area of the larger site that contains the TPO trees. As such when moving through the land allocation site towards the barn a view of its west elevation will be maintained. The view from the access from Swan Street will now include plot 21 of the proposals. The barn is between 8 and 8.4 metres in height to its ridge and the proposed dwelling would have a maximum height to the ridge of 8.2 metres with the garage being 6.8 metres to the ridge. Whilst this would change the view of the barn from Swan Street it is not considered harmful subject to the use of quality materials as proposed to be controlled by condition across the development.

Access and Highways

123. The key policies to consider are HS21, TP03, TP15 and TP16 of the Babergh Local Plan.

These policies seek development that is well laid out in terms of site access and highway safety, traffic flow and the environment and where appropriate seek the submission of a Travel Plan.


43

124. The Local Plan Allocation Map and text refer to the access point to the development site to be taken from Daking Avenue. The application has throughout proposed a vehicular access from Daking Avenue. The key change to the application has been that the dwelling numbers have been reduced, the LHA objected to 25 units (a 25% increase), to 21 and the access itself modified to meet the requirements of the LHA. There are no highways objections to the scheme in its current form with the LHA recommending conditions (detailed in the representations section of this report).

125. It is noted that the application still represents an additional dwelling to the number given

within the Local Plan allocation. It is considered that the addition of one unit in planning terms will not give rise to any demonstrable harm sufficient to refuse planning permission, the layout is not cramped and there are no highway issues identified.

Landscaping

126. The details of landscaping remain reserved and would be the subject of a subsequent

reserved matters submission. The applicant has indicated the position of the proposed structural landscaping and a set of refining conditions guiding the form and content of the reserved matters is recommended.

Other Matters

Crime and Disorder

127. 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.

Biodiversity and Protected Species

128. 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.

129. The site has been surveyed with a report accompanying the application with specific

reference to Bat and Barn Owls. The survey identified that:

• no significant signs were found that would indicate a likely bat roost;

• the buildings represented poor potential for bat roosting; therefore development of the site would pose a negligible risk of impacting bat roosts;

• precautionary measures are recommended to reduce the risk of disturbance to foraging and/or commuting bats;

• no signs or evidence of Barn Owls on site;

• no further surveys are recommended;

• precautionary measures identified (informative to any decision);

• optional enhancements set out (recommended as a condition).

130. In view of the SWT comments, an informative note to the decision is also recommended regarding clearance works and nesting birds.

Flood Risk

131. The application sites are located in Flood Zone 1 (lowest probability of flooding) where the

Environment Agency (EA) requires proposals for more than 1 hectare in area to consider surface water drainage. The application was accompanied by a surface water flood risk assessment. The EA are satisfied that the scheme provided is acceptable and recommend a condition to ensure the scheme is implemented.


44

132. The amended application is accompanied by a foul drainage strategy. The EA have no

objection to the submission but recommend that AW is consulted on the information. This has been undertaken and their response is awaited and will be reported to members via the addendum sheet.

Contamination

133. The application was submitted with a desk study report regarding contamination. It is the

opinion of the Environmental Protection Team this approach is not appropriate for the scale of development proposed in this case. The applicant is requested to undertake a Phase I investigation (desk study/site walkover/conceptual model/risk assessment) in accordance with the requirements of PPS23. As such the recommendation to members is subject to receipt of, and agreement of, such a report.

Renewable Energy 134. Policy ENG1 of the East of England Plan sets out that new development of more than 10

dwellings or should secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, unless this is not feasible or viable.

135. It was requested that the applicant give an indication of how they plan to meet this

requirement for the development. This has been shown in the form of indicative elevations incorporating Solar PV panels on the south elevations of the dwellings on the street scene drawings. A recent appeal decision for the E W Downes site in Glemsford indicated that it is acceptable to secure the full detail of renewable by planning condition; this is therefore recommended in this case.

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

136. Policy HS08 of the adopted Local Plan requires provision of up to 35% of new dwellings on

allocated sites and sites of 15 units or more to be provided as affordable housing. Provision of 7 units as affordable units is sought.

137. Developer contributions for education provision can be sought, where justified and where

directly related to the proposed development, on residential development proposals of 15 or more dwellings. In this case a contribution of £47,868 is sought for four additional primary school places.

138. HS31 requires the development to provide for an area of open space directly related to the

development and the requirements of the open space section are for a LAP+1. This is proposed to the west of plot 12 and as such would be well related to the development, allowing for easy access and use by existing and future residents of the locality.

139. Policy HS21 required the allocation to provide:

• 2.4 hectares of land to the south and west of the site, to be conveyed into public ownership for recreational use, and surrounded by extensive tree landscaping to mitigate the impact of development and to provide adequate public open space for the development;

• a small informal car park for visitors to the recreational area and overspill car parking for residents of Daking Avenue.


45

140. The applicant has provided a Location Plan setting out the position of the various elements required by HS21, this will be provided for Members at the meeting. The applicant proposes:

• an area of open space of 2.6 ha in area adjacent to Primrose Wood;

• This would be linked to the development and through to Daking Avenue by a footpath from the south boundary of the site;

• Immediately to the south of the site an area is proposed for a LAP +1;

• A landscape buffer approximately 10m wide is proposed around the south and west of the site;

• An informal car park is proposed at the entrance to the site from Daking Avenue. 141. Members will note that within the representations the Woodland Trust have expressed an

interest in the piece of land offered by the applicant as it is adjacent to the existing Primrose Wood. The Trust view this as a possible opportunity to improve access to the existing Primrose Wood site and secure additional land. They have stated that assuming there are no constraints that they would plant 2.0ha with native broadleaved trees at a relatively low density with 0.5ha left as open ground and would encourage use of the site, particularly by local schools and community planting events. To undertake this they estimate that they would require an endowment of £31 000 to cover twenty year costs.

142. This provision would not be in accordance with HS21 being located to the south of the site

adjacent to Primrose Wood rather than wrapping around the allocation as the policy envisaged. However the size of area proposed is comparable and deliverable with the involvement of the Woodland Trust. Appropriate play space for the development remains in close proximity to the site and therefore on balance this proposal from the applicant is considered acceptable.

143. In accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010, the obligations

recommended to be secured by way of a planning obligation deed are (a) necessary to make the Development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the Development and (c) fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the Development.

REASON FOR APPROVAL 144. The proposal for development comprising 21 dwellings is considered to be in accordance

with the provisions of policies HS21, HS02, HS03, EN04, EN06, EN09, EN10, EN21, HS08, HS34, TP01,TP02, TP03, TP15, TP16, CR04, CN01, CN04, LP01 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2 (2006) and of the Suffolk Structure and East of England Plan Policies ENG1; ENV1; ENV3; ENV6; ENV7; SS1; T9; T14; WAT1; WAT2. The Local Planning Authority, having regard to the planning considerations material to the development including layout, scale, appearance, and access and conclude that the proposal accords with the provisions of the development plan applicable to it and there are no material grounds which justify refusal.

RECOMMENDATION (1) That the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a Planning Obligation under Section

106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to provide:

• Seven units of affordable housing;

• a LAP+1;

• 2.4 ha of open space and maintenance sum;

• Informal car park for the open space;

• an Education contribution of £47 868, and

• any other obligations that the Solicitor to the Council and Chief Planning Control Officer considers necessary.


46

(2) That, subject to no objections from AW; the submission of additional information required regarding land contamination and the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Solicitor to the Council, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions including:

• Details of fire hydrant positions to be submitted;

• waste minimisation and recycling strategy;

• Scheme of ecological enhancement to be agreed;

• As recommended by the LHA;

• Submission of a construction management plan;

• As recommended by EA;

• Detail of bollard across footpath/cycle link;

• Remove PD;

• Boundary treatment detail;

• Landscaping reserved matter to include detail of strategic buffer.

(3) That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission, for reason(s) including:

• Inadequate provision of public open space and play equipment;

• Inadequate provision of affordable housing contrary to Local Plan Policy HS08;

• Inadequate provision for Education as required by LP01 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations.

250112-Daking Avenue Boxford - One · PDF fileDevelopment Committee 25 January 2012 20 Item...

Documents

Transcript of 250112-Daking Avenue Boxford - One · PDF fileDevelopment Committee 25 January 2012 20 Item...