RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 7TH FEBRUARY 2007
REFERENCE W2528/21 LOCATION
EXPIRES
APPLICATION TYPE
APPLICANT
PARISH
11/12/2006
Full Planning Permission
Cityline (International) Ltd
HALESWORTH
George Maltings,
River Lane,
Halesworth
STATUS This application was withdrawn from the last meeting because of a late objection by the Environment Agency
PROPOSAL Construction of 3no. houses and 3no. cycle sheds
SUMMARY
Attempts to negotiate a pragmatic solution to this long running case have been curtailed following publication of PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) which has resulted in an ‘in principle’ objection by the Environment Agency.
PARISH COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
Approved subject to £42,000 contribution and clarification of Section 106 Agreement. Some councillors felt the contribution was woefully inadequate compensation for the loss of “an extremely valuable sports facility”. There was also concern about parking. No objection to the building itself.
NEIGHBOURS
11 consulted – 2 responded. The neighbour at Mayfield Lodge has objected on grounds of:
1. overdevelopment, 2. development within a Conservation Area, 3. development on a flood plain,
4. excessive vehicle use, and 5. the main drain passes directly under the property. One response has been sent on behalf of the George Maltings Residents’ Association: this requests clarification of the parking arrangements and picket fencing to match that fronting the existing properties.
CONSULTATIONS
Suffolk Wildlife Trust – The proposal may have a high impact on semi-natural habitat and protected species due to the nature of this site. They recommend an ecological appraisal, paying particular attention to the presence of reptiles, amphibians and riparian species.
SCC Countryside Access – Standard notification to protect the adjacent footpaths (public right of way).
SCC Highways – No objection (standard condition). Footpath 9 cannot be lawfully driven along without due authority.

SCC Archaeology
– The site is within the floodplain of the river in an area that has the potential for wet finds and deposits: it is therefore of archaeological interest. The proposed works would cause significant ground disturbance with the potential to damage or disturb any archaeological deposit that exists. A watching brief is recommended.
Environment Agency – We received a copy of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted in support of this planning application on 4th December 2006 and an email addressing our sequential test concerns on 12th December 2006. We have inspected the additional information and have the following comments to make:-
We consider the information submitted in order to justify the sequential test as required under
PPS25 is insufficient. We must therefore MAINTAIN OUR OBJECTION to this planning application on sequential test grounds.
The email dated 12th December 2006 correctly states that this proposed residential development is classified as being ‘More Vulnerable’ in Table D.2. of PPS25 and that this development should therefore preferably not be built in the high risk flood zone.
It is important to note that this type of development may be permitted but only where the sequential test is first passed and then the exception test is also passed. In this case, the sequential test has not been passed, making the application of the exception test irrelevant.
In order for the sequential test to be passed, it must be proven by the LPA that, across the entirety of their boundary, there are no other suitable sites for residential development in lower risk flood zones. Having viewed the Site Specific Allocations Issues and Options documentation dated
December 2006, we believe that there are plenty of alternative sites available in the vicinity of
Halesworth (as well as acros s the District Council’s boundary) that are located outside of the flood zone. These are obviously the sites that should be given priority for development.
Notwithstanding the above, we have reason to believe that this proposed development site is located within an area of functional floodplain (Flood Zone 3b – Table D.1, Annex D, PPS25).
PPS25 is very clear that only water compatible development and essential infrastructure should be allowed in this zone, and only where they comply with a number of requirements. Residential development is therefore not permissible in this flood zone.
PLANNING HISTORY
The key planning application is W2528/12, which was for conversion of the existing Maltings to residential and the construction of a new sports hall (permission granted on 3rd January 2001).
The permission was subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring the sports hall to be open and operating before units 7, 8 and 9 of the residential development were occupied.
W2528/15 – Permission refused on 16th June 2004 for ground floor of the proposed sports hall to provide for density and medicine.
W2528/20 – Was refused in September 2006 on the grounds that:-
1. the site is outside the development limit for Halesworth.
2. the proposal would represent an undesirable intrusion into open countryside, and
3. the application failed to make adequate provision for a suitable replacement sports/recreational facility.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The latest response from the Environment Agency simplifies the recommendations on this ever more complex case. Previously, as Members will recall, efforts focused on finding a pragmatic solution to what neighbours and the Town Council regarded as an unjustified development. The site had been left as an eyesore, and there was no recompense whatsoever for the loss of a valuable sports facility arising from the residential conversion of the original Maltings building.

This situation arose entirely because of the liquidation of the development Company. Legal advice has been sought as to the prospects of enforcing the original Section 106 Agreement although the
Committee has already resolved not to pursue any of the new residents in this respect.
This application proposes to construct three houses on the foundations of the sports building. It is clear that in policy terms, those foundations were only built because the site was felt suitable for the replacement sports facility. Otherwise, the land extended into open countryside and was not substantially surrounded by development, and was therefore contrary to the Local Plan.
The application also offers, by way of a new Section 106 Agreement, a degree of recompense for the loss of the sports facility. The offer would see meadow land and buildings having public recreational value being transferred to the town (including a financial contribution for maintenance or improvement). Additionally, one of the proposed houses would become an affordable dwelling.
The proposed Section 106 Agreement is a material consideration which it is believed meets the tests in Circular 1/97.
However, on advice from the Environment Agency the new PP25 on Development and Flood Risk
(December 2006) is the determining factor. Essentially, no development should be permitted at all in areas at high risk of flooding until and unless all possibilities of building in less risky areas have been exhausted. This ‘Sequential Test’ also takes into account the fact that residential development is inherently more vulnerable to the effects of flooding than a sports building would have been. Clearly, there are numerous other potential sites for residential development on higher land in Halesworth as a whole.
Moreover, the Environment Agency believes on the basis of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment that the site lies within the Functional Floodplain i.e. the highest category of risk where only watercompatible uses and essential infrastructure should be developed. The site flooded in 1993 and a recurrence is estimated as a 1 in 20-50 year event. Under the new PPS the criteria for functional floodplain has changed from a 1 in 10 year flood level to a 1 in 25 year flood level.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Refusal, on the grounds:-
In the opinion of the LPA, the proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of Planning Policy
Statement 25, Development and Flood Risk. Other suitable sites exist within the Halesworth Area for residential development in lower risk flood zones. On the best evidence available to the LPA in consultation with the Environment Agency the site is located within an area of functional floodplain.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
CONTACT
Case File W2528/21 held in Planning Office, Mariners Street,
Lowestoft
Peter Eyres, Area Planning Officer, Development Control,
01502 523019