LOWESTOFT AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2007
W13573/9
REFERENCE
LOCATION
23/01/2006
Land to the south of
EXPIRES
Full
Planning
Permission
The Nordalls,
APPLICATION TYPE
Wellington Construction Ltd
Kessingland
APPLICANT
KESSINGLAND
PARISH
PROPOSAL
9
Construction of 20 dwellings together with associated roads and
sewers
STATUS
A Member’s Site Visit was held on 30th January 2006 and following further negotiations and a
period to resolve some issues relating to drainage and wildlife surveys, again on 7th February 2007.
(See Appendix 1).
SUMMARY
This is a proposal for the construction of 20 affordable homes. The issues to consider are
highways and traffic, neighbour amenity, trees and wildlife, drainage and flooding, PPG3.
PARISH COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
Unanimous objection – 1. Overdevelopment of site. 2. Contrary to the Parish Plan.
3. Development too large for neighbouring old people’s homes – disruption would be caused to
them. 4. Parish requested no large development and council must represent their views. 5) Also
raised the inconsistency with earlier refusal relating to amenity and wildlife site.
NEIGHBOURS
Objections up to 4.1.06, specific concerns listed: 12 Peregrine Way – Loss of wildlife site and trees, additional traffic and associated dangers,
flooding.
20 Peregrine Way – Needless application. Loss of wildlife habitat, trees and open space. Harm to
occupants of retirement bungalows near the proposed access. No benefit for the community.
14 Peregrine Way – Existing amenities and services are already stretched, no further development
should be considered until additional facilities are provided.
32 The Nordalls – New development would increase parking problems. Access for emergency
vehicles is already restricted. Additional traffic on only one access road from Wash Lane, already
serving 140 properties. Access should be constructed in Church Road if approved. Loss of trees.
10 Peregrine Way – (2 letters) Inadequate roads and sewage system. Loss of trees and wildlife.
8 Coopers Drive – Additional building work will put further strain on an inadequate sewage and
drainage pipes leading to increased risk of flooding for low lying Kessingland properties.
Email (no address) – Sewers unable to cope with extra waste from new buildings.
13 Peregrine Way – Destruction of a valuable area of wildlife. Flooding. Roadway too narrow.
Overshadowing and disturbance to existing residents. Plans to build 700 new homes on farmland
therefore no need to develop this piece of land.
33 The Nordalls – Elderly population in this locality, quietness will be disturbed, added noise and
disturbance from traffic not good for the community. Loss of trees and wildlife. Inadequate sewers.
10 Coopers Drive – Contrary to the Waveney Local Plan 1996. The site is not substantially
surrounded by development and not previously developed. Change the nature of the larger area
and effect wildlife. Privacy and amenity of adjoining residents has not be considered and access
from the Nordalls has not be established. Although single housing sites are acceptable larger scale
developments will impact on poor drainage system. Increase in homes and buildings will increase
strain on both sewage and drainage systems increasing flooding problems.
Petition – Signed by 14 individuals.
No address – Cul-de-sac designed for safety. Site is an established woodland with various wildlife.
Existing site reflects the character of the area. Flooding a problem. Other sites may be more
appropriate for development. Kessingland Parish Plan opposes any more housing development.
Lack of employment opportunities and shops.
135 Church Road – Application in direct opposition to the Waveney Local Plan 1996. Privacy and
amenity of adjoining residents has not been considered. Site lays adjacent to paddocks, noise and
disturbance from building work will frighten horses making the paddocks unusable. Future
occupants will cause distress to animals. Sewage and drainage unable to cope with more houses.
Previously undeveloped site with TPO’d trees and wildlife. More appropriate sites exist in
Kessingland. Action will be taken against Waveney District Council if the Planning Office allows the
proposed development to go ahead.
137 Church Road – Natural woodland contributes to the character of the area. Trees threatened
by the development. Woodland provides wildlife habitat. Peace and quite will be compromised by
the road through. Loss of open space to the north to provide sheltered housing and library.
Kessingland Parish Plan confirms there is no need for further housing. More housing but no
employment opportunities. Will result in loss of privacy and amenity of adjoining residents.
Surrounding development bungalows, houses would be unacceptable in this elevated position.
1 Turrell Drive – Loss of wildlife. Area should be kept to local people to enjoy. Drainage and
sewage system inadequate. Additional traffic in a quiet cul-de-sac and hazards for existing elderly
residents. Inadequate facilities such as dentist in the locality to accommodate more residents.
2 Smith Crescent – Unacceptable due to poor drainage and sewage system. Additional traffic and
parking problems. Loss of wildlife. Area should be protected.
51 Glebe Road West – Drains are a problem. Loss of wildlife.
NEIGHBOURS
Responses received after 4th January 2006 to date.
7 Wash Lane – Concerned about flooding problems, loss of green space, loss of wildlife and
recreational value, loss of trees, 3-storey houses out of keeping with the area.
143 Church Road – Loss of natural habitat, loss of amenity value, contrary to the local plan,
increase in traffic, loss of privacy.
27 Francis Road – No need for further housing in Kessingland, effect on drainage and other
facilities.
17 Francis Road – No further need for housing in Kessingland, loss of wildlife and trees, sewers
unable to cope, lack of facilities.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS
WDC Housing – On site provision of shared equity or rented accommodation by registered
landlord is required. Reference to a ‘ransom strip’ – has this been sorted?
WDC Refuse – No concerns.
Suffolk Wildlife Trust – 1) Initial comments - although this site is described as a garden it has a
semi-natural appearance and therefore this proposal may have a high impact on semi-natural
habitat and protected species. An ecological appraisal is essential to determine the presence of
bats, reptiles and effects on trees and other semi natural habitats. This should be carried out
before the application is determined.
2) The assessment of the site has been carried out and SWT are now happy with the findings of
the surveys and support the recommendations given, the conclusions, regarding best practices for
both bats and reptiles. It would be appropriate to include this as a condition.
SCC Archaeological Service – No significant impact on known archaeological sites. No objection
and no mitigation required.
Anglian Water
Anglian Water Services Ltd has not been a statutory consultee for planning since 1989 and are
therefore not obliged to make any representations on planning applications submitted to the
council. However, under the Water Industry Act of 1991 Anglian Water are legislated to provide
water and wastewater infrastructure for domestic purposes for all new housing and employment
developments. The applicant will have to make an application to Anglian Water under the
appropriate section of the Water Industry Act to seek approval to connect to our existing
infrastructure. As part of the application process, we have a responsibility to ensure that the
existing system can take the additional flows and that the additional flows will not cause a
derogation of services to our existing customers. Any works required will be identified and
implemented in partnership with the applicant. As stated at the site meeting on 7th February 2007
the developer proposes to discharge surface water via soakaways, which is not within the
jurisdiction of this company and should be approved by the appropriate organisation that has the
land drainage responsibilities for Kessingland.
With regards to the disposal of the foul drainage from the site and you are mindful to grant
planning consent I would recommend the following planning conditions: Before any work commences onsite, details of the foul drainage disposal to be submitted and
approved by the Local Planning Authority to ensure, that the development will not cause any
flooding or pollution incidents.
Before any dwellings can be occupied the foul drainage works to be constructed in accordance
with the detailed foul drainage strategy approved by the Local Planning Authority to ensure, that
the development will not cause any flooding or pollution incidents.
Environment Agency – Recommends surface water drainage to soakaways/ sustainable drainage
measures.
WDC Amenities – On site provision or parish provision of play area and open space facilities.
SCC Highways – No objection in principle but layout proposed is not acceptable and does not
replicate The Nordalls. Recommend that the proposed road layout should be designed and
constructed in accordance with the ‘Minor Access Road’ specification shown on page 100 of the
‘Suffolk Design Guide’. This details standard highway width of 4.8 metres minimum gradient of
1:25 etc. Turning head type D should also be used.
WDC Landscape Officer – The site is covered by TPO 88A. The three large trees shown in the
frontage of plots 1,2 and 3 are all heavily covered in ivy and are nearing the end of their life, are in
poor condition and require substantial remedial works/major pruning or complete removal.
Replacements could be provided as part of a wider landscape scheme for the open space area
opposite. Other trees on the site are also in poor condition and many are dead, remedial work will
be required before any work commences on the site.
Suffolk Biological Records Office – No concerns.
PLANNING HISTORY
W13573 – Outline Application for residential development. Refused 24.11.87.
W13573/1 – Outline Application to construct 5 dwellings and garages. Refused 26.01.88 but
allowed on appeal 29.12.88.
W13573/5 – Renewal of consent – W13573/1 – Outline Application to construct 5 dwellings.
Approved 30.11.92.
W13573/6 – Erection of 6no. bungalows and 5no. 2-storey dwellings. Refused 18.09.95.
W13573/7 – Renewal of consent – W13573/5 – Outline application to construct 5no dwellings.
Approved 6.01.98.
W13573/8 – Renewal of consent – W13573/7 – Outline application to construct 5no dwellings.
Approved 31st October 2002.
PLANNING POLICY
H4 – Affordable Housing (Waveney Local Plan)
K1 – Limits to Development (Waveney Local Plan)
H7 – Urban Consolidation/Infilling (Waveney Local Plan)
H8 – Residential Design Guidelines (Waveney Local Plan)
H5 – Development of Affordable Housing (Interim Local Plan)
H6 – Housing within Towns and Larger Villages. (Interim Local Plan)
DC1 – Neighbour Amenity. (Interim Local Plan)
DC2 – Design. (Interim Local Plan)
PPG3 – Housing.
THE SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is behind and currently forms part of the large rear gardens of 137 – 141 Church Road. To
the east of the site are residential properties in Peregrine Way. To the west is the extensive rear
garden of 135 Church Road and to the north is The Nordalls, a development of houses and
bungalows. Access to the site is proposed from the cul-de-sac off The Nordalls over a small strip of
land that will be transferred to the Housing Association as part of this application.
The land is predominantly overgrown garden supporting a number of mature trees along the
western boundary, with several smaller trees occurring throughout the site and large areas of
rough grassland. The significant mature trees on the site are covered by a Tree Preservation Order
although many are now dead or in poor condition.
The proposal is for the construction of 20 affordable properties together with access road, parking
and open space. The development will comprise of 7no. two bedroom bungalows, 5no. two
bedroom houses and 8no. three bedroom houses, which will have accommodation in the roof
space. An area of public open space in the northwest quarter of the site and existing trees are
show as retained, these are mainly positioned along the western boundary of the application site
although there are trees positioned in the front gardens of Plots 1, 2 and 3 on the eastern side of
the proposed road.
The applicant’s state that surface water from houses and roads will use soakaways drainage via
on-site attenuation.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed layout of the development has taken into account the existing trees on the site and
the relationship with surrounding residential development. The majority of the layout does not
impact materially on the surroundings but amended plans received on 9th February 2007, improve
the relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings on the southern boundary. Single
storey units are proposed for the northeast corner of the site where they back onto properties in
Peregrine Way ensuring that privacy is maintained for these occupants. Where two-storey
properties are proposed these have been designed to minimise overlooking by careful positioning
and distances between existing and proposed dwellings. There are some three bedroom houses
on the site that make use of the roof space for the third bedroom, these are located centrally within
the site where they will be furthest away from existing residences to prevent overlooking. It is
considered that the proposed layout and design of the development takes into account the
relationship with existing surrounding housing and that there will be no material adverse impacts
for neighbours of the site.
The proposed layout, roads and parking provision meet the standards of the highway authority.
Additional traffic will be generated by the development and the roads leading to the site, Glebe
Road East and The Nordalls, will see an increase in traffic movements because of the
development, however it is considered that this will not be significant enough to justify refusal of the
application on highway grounds.
Trees on the site are covered by Tree Preservation Order No. 88A although many of these are now
dead or in a poor condition and will required removal and replacement or remedial work before any
development commences. The most significant trees will be retained as part of the development
and are located within the proposed open space and in the rear gardens of Plots 15 and 16 along
the western boundary of the site. Trees to the front of Plots 1,2 and 3 are in poor condition and the
landscape advisor has suggested that these are removed and replaced with a more appropriate
species and additional trees planted in the proposed open space area.
The applicants commissioned an ecological assessment and protected species survey. One record
of a juvenile grass snake was recorded but due to the nature of the gardens would not be a
suitable breeding site; no other reptiles were recorded during the study periods. The bat survey
identified potential bat roosts in eight of the trees on the site but no evidence of any bat roosts.
There was some foraging/commuting activity within and through the site. The finding of a single
grass snake suggests that the species is present in the general area but is considered through
inspection of land both in and adjoining the site, to be unlikely to be dependent upon the site. The
site is of some significance as a feeding area to a small number of bats but the survey produced no
evidence to suggest that bats were or have been using the trees for roosting. It is considered
therefore that the proposed development would not significantly affect the existing wildlife although
care should be taken when carrying out work on the site and to trees and a licensed bat worker
should be present during any tree work and bat boxes should be provided to compensate for the
loss of any potential bat roosting site (3 boxes for each tree lost).
The site has only limited amenity value that has been significantly reduced since planning
permission was first obtained in the 1980’s, mainly due to the poor condition of the trees on the
site. Previous rejection of a similar scheme was partially due to the consideration that development
would result in the loss or damage to a site of amenity value and loss of informal open space. It is
now considered that the development would not materially affect the amenity value of the site and
there is also an opportunity to improve the quality and quantity of landscaping on the site and the
open space would be of greater amenity value than at present where the site is a privately owned
garden.
Government advice set out in PPG3 advises local authorities to encourage housing development
that makes efficient use of previously developed land within urban areas in preference to
Greenfield sites and to meet the housing requirements of the whole community including those in
need of affordable housing. It is considered that this application meets this criteria in that this is a
private garden attached to a dwelling and in addition compliments the aims and objectives of the
Kessingland Parish Plan that indicates that new housing should not be constructed in Kessingland
unless the housing provided is specifically for young people or for very sheltered accommodation.
This development is wholly for affordable housing and therefore it is considered that it meets the
aims of both PPG3 and the aspirations of the Kessingland Parish Plan, which is not a statutory
plan.
As detailed above Anglian Water are not a statutory consultee for planning applications, however
would be ultimately responsible for giving permission for connection to the existing drainage
system. Any surface run off water would not enter the Anglian Water drainage systems as the
applicant would be using soakaways on site and percolation tests carried out for the developer
have confirmed that this is an acceptable means of draining the surface water and avoids
additional discharge into the mains drains. Foul drainage would use the Anglian Water drainage
system, which would need upgrading before the new dwellings are occupied. Anglian Water has
written to the Local Planning Authority suggesting two conditions that should be used, if planning
permission is granted. One condition relates to the submission of drainage plans prior to any
commencement of work and the other condition is that no dwellings shall be occupied until
improvement/upgrade works have been completed on the foul drainage system. It is considered
therefore that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the development will not
exacerbate the flooding issues in Kessingland, which have been highlighted by the Parish Council
and local residents.
CONCLUSION
Given all the above it is considered that on balance this scheme can be supported, providing
affordable housing in a pleasant layout which respects the natural features of any merit on the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve amended scheme (plans received 9th February 2007), subject to drainage conditions,
landscaping and ecological conditions.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Councillor site visit notes 30th January 2006 and 7th February 2007.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
CONTACT
Case File W13573/9 held in Planning Department, Mariners
Street, Lowestoft
Malcolm Dixon, Planning Officer, Development Control,
01502 523053
Appendix 1
LOWESTOFT AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30/01/06
Minutes of a site meeting held on Monday, 30 January 2006 at 12.30pm
Members present: B Hunter (Chairman), P Hawes, and B Provan
Officers present: M Dixon (RE), F McKeown (RE), P Church (CG)
Others: Paul Pitcher, Andrew Deal (AKK), Sue Morgan (Chair of Kessingland Parish Council, Planning Committee), Judy
Lawson (Owner of adjoining property 137 Church Road) and Liam Martin (Chairman of Kessignland Parish Council)
W13573/9 – OUTLINE APPLICATION CONSTRUCTION OF 20 DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH
ASSOCIATED ROADS AND SEWERS; LAND TO THE SOUTH OF THE NORDALLS,
KESSINGLAND
The Chairman welcomed members to the site meeting. He reminded them that the visit was a fact
finding one and that any decision would be made at the next meeting of the Committee. He
introduced Malcolm Dixon, the Development Control Manager who outlined the details of the
application.
The neighbour Ms Lawson referred to possible difficulties with ownership at the end of the
Nordalls. Andrew Deal advised that he understood that WDC was considering the transfer of this
land to a Housing Association.
Malcolm Dixon outlined the proposals for the construction of 20 dwellings together with associated
roads and sewers; land to the South of the Nordalls, Kessingland and led members on a tour of the
site. Members made reference to layout plans circulated at the site meeting in order to gain a
better understanding of the proposed works.
Malcolm Dixon informed members that an application had been refused in 1995 for 11 dwellings on
this site but Planning Policy Guidelines on Housing from Government had changed since that date
and the Interim Waveney Local Plan had been adopted for development control purposes. The
visit was also intended for members to appreciate that local residents had concerns regarding the
proposed development in principle and scale and worries regarding drainage. Anglia Water had
been invited to attend the site visit but declined as they considered the proposed project too small
to comment on. Regarding the density on site (0.55 of a hectare), it was important to look at the
existing trees on site and to obtain a comprehensive survey, although this may not be completed in
time for the next Committee meeting.
Malcolm Dixon explained this was considered a Brownfield site and forms part of a garden; it was
not designated as a natural break and in fact had over the last few years obtain renewals of
Planning Permission for up to five dwellings.
Fiona McKeown commented there were three main trees to view on Plots 1, 2 & 3, pointing out
how close these were to the proposed dwellings and that future occupiers would not want them at
such a close proximity. Malcolm Dixon pointed out the site boundaries. Fiona McKeown made
members aware of where the dead trees on site were, adding it would be difficult to find more than
a dozen trees worthy of retaining in their currant state. Malcolm Dixon indicated where the two
protected sycamore trees were.
Malcolm Dixon led the members to the far end of the site. At this stage it was made aware to
Malcolm Dixon by the local residents of the flooding issues the area had suffered in the past, in
particular flooding from Water Lane to Church Road causing flooding to the proposed site.
Andrew Deal confirmed that National Rivers Authority (predecessor of the Environmental Agency)
had been consulted in the past regarding construction on this site and no objections had been
received with regards to the flooding issues. The Residents commented that since that report
conditions in this area had changed.
The Chairman had been handed a letter from a Mrs A Young, this was subsequently passed to the
Planning Department for their records. Mrs Young had previously written to Waveney District
Council with her concerns regarding this proposed development.
The neighbour Ms Lawson handed Mr Dixon photos of flooding events in Kessingland together with
reference to the policy ENV18 regarding flooding in the 1996 adopted Waveney Local Plan.
The Chairman commented that this proposal needed further thought before going to Committee,
bearing in mind that Tree Preservation Survey and Environmental Agency reports had yet to be
finalised.
The Chairman suggested another Councillor site visit. Mr Dixon advised everyone that once
revisions were submitted a further consultation exercise would be undertaken for an opportunity to
make further comments.
The Chairman thanked everyone for attending the site meeting, as it had been extremely
informative.
The meeting was concluded at 13.10pm
Chairman
LOWESTOFT AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 07/02/07
Minutes of a site meeting held on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 9.30am
Members present: F. Mortimer (Chairman), P. Ashdown, G. Hawes, C. Law, C. Law, B. Provan,
Officers present: R. Goodings (CG), M. Dixon, J. Hood and F. McKeown (RE)
Others: Mrs Lawson(Neighbour) and Councillor Goldsmith (Suffolk County), Mr Daley (Anglian Water), Mr Pitcher & Mr
Ollington (Agents) Mr Sinfield (Kessingland Parish Council Representative).
W13573/9 – CONSTRUCTION OF 20 DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED ROADS
AND SEWERS – LAND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH OF THE NORDALS, KESSINGLAND
The Chairman, welcomed members to the site meeting. He reminded them that the visit was a fact
finding one and that any decision would be made at the next meeting of the Committee.
Malcolm Dixon, Development Control Manager outlined the detail of the application, reminding
remembers that this was a second councillors site visit following one a year ago. He informed
Members that an Ecological survey had been carried out on the site, and the results did not reveal
anything of significant interest as confirmed by Suffolk Wildlife Trust. He also explained that
perculation tests had also been carried out and that the results showed that soakaways would work
on site. He advised Members that the Parish Council had objected to the proposal including the
potential loss of land of amenity or wildlife value. Mr Dixon also advised the members that the
scheme involved 20 affordable dwellings and also advised Members of the PPG3 position on
housing.
Mrs Lawson’s main concern related to potential flooding and drainage issues. She had supplied
photographs at the previous site meeting, which had since been circulated to Members illustrating
the current flooding issues with the area.
Mr Caley (Anglian Water) confirmed that the water company was not a statutory consultees for
planning applications. However he advised Members that any surface run off water would not
enter Anglian Water drainage systems as the applicant would be using soakaways on site as a a
means of draining the water. He also confirmed that foul drainage would use the Anglian Water
drainage system, which would need upgrading before the new dwellings are occupied. He stated
that Anglian Water had written to the Council suggesting two conditions that should be used, if
planning permission was granted. One conditions related to the submission of the proposed
drainage plans prior to any commencement of work and the other condition being that no dwellings
be occupied until improvement/upgrade works have been completed on the foul drainage system.
The Landscape Advisor confirmed that some trees on site had Tree Preservation Orders on them
but that the majority of the trees were poor and would be removed, although several large tree
were going to be pruned back and retained.
Members walked around the site to gauge an impact of the surroundings.
Mr Caley (Anglian Water) informed Members that with current government guidelines/regulations,
developers must reduce water consumption by 25% on each new dwelling.
Mrs Lawson expressed some concern that two storey houses with a room in the roof are positioned
in an area of the plot of land near existing bungalows. She felt that perhaps the site layout could
be re-positioned better to reduce the impact on the existing neighbouring properties to the south.
The meeting was concluded at 10.00am
Chairman