1. home and garden

Item No:
1
Reference: B/14/0804/FUL
Parish:
GREAT CORNARD
Ward Members: Cllrs. Peter Beer and
Mark Newman
Location:
Land East of Carsons Drive
Proposal:
Erection of 166 no. dwellings. New vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access.
Provision for public open space and play areas. Proposed woodland
planting, provision of new wildlife habitat - as amended by revised Proposed
Site Layout drawing no. 08.6716.400.(Rev CC) received 19 February 2015,
revised Elevations Flat Block A (Plots 88 - 104) drawing no. 08.6716.368
(Rev D) (received 13 February 2015) and revised Plans Flat Block A (Plots 88 104) drawing no. 08.6716.368 (Rev D) drawing no. 08.6716.367. (Rev G)
received 13 February 2015.
Applicant:
Persimmon Homes Ltd
Case Officer: Terry Hardwick
Date for Determination: 31 March 2015
RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission
BACKGROUND
A Panel of Members inspected the site on 22/05/20151.
The Council has previously refused planning permission at the site for 170 homes in 2013
(B/10/00094/FUL) on six grounds which are summarised as follows:

Harm to Heritage - Abbas Hall, a Grade 1 listed building - in particular, its setting - as a
result of the intrusion of the development into its surroundings;
Poor Design & Layout - causing harm to local character and visual amenity
Harm to the Visual Amenity of the Countryside and the Stour Valley Special Landscape
Area - which the site is partly within and partly abuts;

Highway Safety - failure to demonstrate that the development was either safe or
sustainable - arising from the submitted transport assessment being inadequate and not
proposing appropriate off-site improvements, mitigation and sustainable transport initiatives
- there being no Travel Plan - and the impact of surface water drainage on the highway not
being fully resolved;

Potential Harm to Biodiversity/Ecology - failure to provide an up-to-date Ecological
Assessment so it was not possible to determine if the impact on protected species and the
mitigation proposed would be effective;

Delivery of Local Infrastructure/Sustainability - failure to provide for the delivery and
management of affordable housing, on and off-site infrastructure and facilities and
contributions arising from the development.
The applicant appealed the Council’s decision - which led to the proposal being considered at a
Public Inquiry in November 2013. The appeal was dismissed in January 2014 (see Appendix A to
this report for the Inspectors decision).
1
The site was also visited by Members on the on 28/10/10 and 10/10/12 in the context of the previous application for
development (B/10/00094/FUL)
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
5
The detail of the Planning Inspector’s decision and the extent to which he supported the various
reasons for refusal cited by the Council are discussed below in the body of this report.
Although the appeal was dismissed - not all the refusal reasons cited by the Council were
supported by the Inspector. The Inspector dismissed the proposal due to impact on the setting of
Abbas Hall (Grade I listed) and some urban design issues. In addition, certain matters that had
been cited within the Council’s reasons for refusal - for example, details relating to highway
impact/safety (in particular, the Travel Plan, the Transport Assessment and off-site ecological
mitigation works) were resolved by discussion between Officers and the applicant - and presented
to the Inspector at the Inquiry.
The Council has issued a Screening Opinion indicating that an Environmental Impact Statement
under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2011 is not required.
THE SITE
1.
The site measures 12.7 ha and is located on the eastern boundary of Great Cornard
adjacent to De Grays, Walsingham and Turkentine Closes and Chaplin Walk. The
development to the north and west of the site dates from the mid to late 20th Century, being
part of the post war growth of the village. The buildings are generally uniform in scale,
form and use of materials.
2.
The village has quite a hard, abrupt boundary with the countryside with the houses tight to
the boundary. However, this is softened further south along the boundary to the site due to
a row of TPO protected oak trees, which is a very effective screen.
3.
The site is bounded to the east by Cornard Black Brook and the grounds of Abbas Hall, a
Grade I listed building.
4.
To the north the site boundary is marked by the C732, a minor country lane that leads to
the A134 at Newton via Cornard Tye. The hedgerow and tree planting on the northern side
of the road is of high quality giving a soft edge to the development (in association with a
grassed set back). However, the south side (the application side) is generally open giving
extensive views across the site. There is no footpath along this road.
5.
The development on the northern side of the C732 (Sheepshead Hill) relates well to the
relatively steep slope of the road/land (the land rising from Carsons Drive heading west out
of the village) dropping from two storey to single storey.
6.
The southern boundary is marked by a hedge separating the site from a small paddock,
understood to be a former quarry. The land rises to the south east giving extensive views
back over the site from a public footpath.
7.
Public access to the site is limited to two public rights of way; one connects the countryside
and Carsons Drive (and is also a bridleway) and the second runs along the access track to
Abbas Hall. The two footpaths meet at the access drive and then head east towards
Abbas Hall and then south following the Brook. Access to the open countryside from
Carsons Drive is therefore easily achieved, the site being part of a transition zone as one
leaves the hard edge of the settlement and then transcends the minor ridge in the centre of
the site. As one crosses the ridge the presence of the village is diminished and a rural
character begins to predominate.
8.
The site levels change quite dramatically reinforcing the transition of the site from edge of
settlement to countryside. The land falls from a high point of around 62m Above Ordnance
Datum (AOD) in the north east corner of the site to a low point of approximately 35AOD in
the south west corner abutting the village.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
6
9.
There is a minor ridge running from the high to the low point falling away in a south
westerly direction. The ridge is significant as the land to the east of this is designated as
being within the Stour Valley Special Landscape Area. To the east of the minor ridge is a
small valley focussed on Cornard Black Brook. On the eastern side of this brook the land
rises again up to Abbas Hall and Abbas Wood. There are views back towards
Great Cornard and across the Stour Valley, over the minor ridge, from Abbas Hall. The
land to the west of the minor ridge in the north western corner of the site is visually
contained in a natural ‘bowl’ in the landscape. The land to the south of the public
footpath/bridleway, that bisects the site, is less well visually contained due to the significant
drop in the ridge height.
10.
The land is currently in arable cultivation. The land is Grade 3 agricultural land.
THE PROPOSAL
11.
The site measures 12.7ha in total. 4.8ha of this total area is proposed for residential
development and would be located on the western part of the site abutting the eastern
boundary of Great Cornard. The balance of the site area - the eastern part - would be
given over to woodland planting, habitat improvement/creation or retained in agriculture,
with access gained via the footpath/track leading to Abbas Hall.
12.
The residential element would comprise 166 dwellings comprising:108 Market Houses







12 x 3
18 x 2
14 x 3
8x4
11 x 3
32 x 4
13 x 5
bed terraced houses
bed terraced/end-of-terrace houses
bed semi-detached houses
bed semi-detached houses
bed detached houses
bed detached houses
bed detached houses
58 Affordable Dwellings
Consisting of:44 Units offered at Affordable Rent









6x2
11 x 1
6x2
10 x 3
4x4
1x5
2x2
2x3
2x2
bed 3 person flats (2 at ground floor level)
bed 2 person flats
bed 4 person houses
bed 5 person houses
bed 6 person houses
bed 7 person house
bed wheelchair accessible bungalows
bed wheelchair accessible bungalows
bed mobility lifetime home standard bungalows
14 Units Offered as Low Cost Home Ownership



13.
8x2
4x2
2x3
bed 4 person houses
bed mobility/lifetime homes standard bungalows
bed mobility/lifetime homes standard bungalows
The homes range from bungalows to houses and flats of three storeys. The third storey
would, however, be in the roof, rather than a full-height third floor. The heights range from
7m - 8.5m for 2 storey properties, 10m for 3 storey houses (rooms in roof) and the flats
would measure 11m in height.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
7
14.
The site would be accessed via two points; both off of the C732. The access points would
be 70m apart and the connecting road would form a loop through the development to which
most of the development would front; in addition, parts of the development would be served
from private drives off the main loop road. A T- junction would be formed at the bottom of
Sheepshead Hill with priority given to traffic entering the estate from Carsons Drive. The
current Carsons Drive/Sheepshead Hill junction would be realigned moving it further to the
north to create better visibility splays.
15.
The main loop road would have a carriageway width of 4.5m with 2m pavements either
side. The remaining roads would be 5.5m wide shared surfaces (no defined pavements).
16.
Parking across the development would amount to a total of 368 spaces, equating to about
2.21 spaces per dwelling - in a mix of on-plot and communal parking courts, some to the
rear, but with some banks of parking accessed directly from the road.
17.
The affordable units are broadly grouped in one central location flanking the existing
footpath/bridleway, providing easy access into the village. The market housing is generally
located towards the edges of the site.
18.
A woodland belt would be provided along the minor ridge bisecting the site. A footpath
would be provided through the wood. The land to the east of this would be given over to
habitat creation and farming.
19.
The main public open space would be located in the north-eastern part of the site as per
the proposal map in the Local Plan and would include a Local Equipped Area of Play
(LEAP) within the woodland belt proposed. Three further Local Areas of Play (LAP) are
intended to be provided, one in the woodland belt just west of the existing bridleway into
the site off the C732, one as part of the “linear-park” to be created running roughly westeast through the development following the line of the existing footpath leading down into
the existing Carsons Drive development - these would both be enhanced Local Areas of
Play and a third - a simple LAP - within the westernmost part of the development fairly
close to the entrance into the development from Carsons Drive.
20.
The “linear-park” referred to above would be created from the area around the central
footpath bisecting the site and has been redesigned and made slightly larger to provide a
cycle path and footpath in a landscaped setting and would now incorporate one of the
enhanced LAPs proposed for the development.
21.
The dwellings would be the applicant’s standard house types with the materials altered to
provide a ‘Suffolk flavour’. The material pallet described in the application form is wide
ranging including red/brown facing bricks, buff facing bricks and render. Roof tiles would
be a mix of red pantiles and slate. Windows and doors materials along with lighting, hard
standings and boundary treatment are specified as ‘unknown’ on the application form.
22.
Surface water drainage would be via a sustainable drainage system. Foul drainage would
be to the existing mains sewer.
23.
The application is supported by the following documents:
Design and Access Statement;

Statement of Community Involvement;

Statement of Renewable Energy;

Building for Life Statement;

Code for Sustainable Homes Assessment Strategy;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
8

Travel Plan (Interim);

Travel Plan (Update) (June 2014)

Infrastructure Report;

Transport Assessment (Jan 2010);

Transport Assessment (Addendum) (June 2014);

Heritage Statement (Jan 2012, Supplemental Statement June 2014);

Air Quality Statement;

Statement of Community Involvement;

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment;

Affordable Housing Statement;

Ecological Assessment;

Ecological Appraisal;

Ecological Position Statement;

Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment & Method Statement;

Archaeological Evaluation Report;

Open Space Management Statement;

Refuse Management Strategy.
The application documents can be viewed on-line via the planning pages on the District
Council’s website.
RELEVANT HISTORY
24.
The site has been allocated for housing in the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2 since
2006. The Inspector’s assessment of the site at that time, when recommending its
allocation in the Local Plan, is of importance in setting the context of both the previous
2013 refused proposal and the current proposal now before Members. The key findings of
the Planning Inspector when reviewing the site allocation were as follows:
the existing built up area boundary abutting the site has no clearly defined edge and
visually intrudes onto the site;

the site is also partially enclosed by existing development to the north at
Sheepshead Hill;

the site is well-related to existing facilities including schools and bus routes - there
is a direct pedestrian link to Carsons Drive, which is served by a bus route;

the site could accommodate between 154 and 176 dwellings but the upper end of
these figures is considered a reasonable assessment;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
9

there is no inherent highway objection to the proposal;

the area to the west of the ridgeline would be a logical extension of the built up area
boundary;

the setting of Abbas Hall would not be harmed by deleting the land to the west of
the ridgeline from the Special Landscape Area (SLA) designation subject to
effective ridgeline planting.
25.
Based on the above analysis, the Local Plan Inspector took the view that there was no
inherent reason to resist development of the site. The Council agreed with this
assessment and the land was allocated for residential development for about 170 dwellings
under Policy HS17 of the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No 2) 2006.
26.
The Strategic Planning Team have confirmed that weight can still be afforded to Policy
HS17 (see consultation section of this report) as there is no conflict with the NPPF.
27.
Since being allocated in 2006 - the site has been the subject of a refused planning
application for 170 dwellings, together with associated development (B10//00094/FUL). As
already started earlier is this report, the refused application was subject to an appeal. The
Appeal Inspector dismissed the application on matters of detail relating to the design and
layout of what was proposed.
28.
As the allocation is considered to be consistent with the NPPF, the application now before
Members seeks to address those points of detail that the Appeal Inspector highlighted in
his decision. Officers have had regard to this appeal decision as a material consideration
but have reappraised the current application before Members in its entirety. The appeal
decision is discussed below in the body of the report and a copy of the Inspector’s decision
is attached as Appendix A.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
29.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s planning
policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law
continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in
accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken
into account for decision-making purposes. Specific references to relevant sections of the
NPPF are referred to in the assessment later in this report to save repetition.
PLANNING POLICIES
i)
30.
Adopted Policy
The Development Plan comprises the saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan Alteration
No. 2 (adopted June 2006) and the Babergh Local Plan 2011- 2031 Core Strategy and
Policies, adopted February 2014. These provisions should be regarded as material
consideration in planning decisions. The following saved policies are applicable to the
proposal:Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006








LP01
CN01
CR04
TP15
TP16
HS17
HS31
CN04
-
Planning Obligations
Design
Special Landscape Areas
Parking Standards
Travel Plans
Carson’s Drive
Public Open Space
Design & Crime Prevention
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
10
31.
The Policies have been reviewed for compliance with the NPPF (as per Paragraph 215 of
the NPPF) and are found to be broadly consistent with the Framework. Weight can
therefore be afforded to the Policies listed above.
ii) Core Strategy Policy
32.
The Council adopted its Core Strategy in February 2014.
relevant to this particular planning application:









CS01
CS02
CS03
CS12
CS13
CS14
CS15
CS18
CS19
CS21
-
The following policies are
Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
Settlement Pattern Policy
Strategy for Growth & Development
Sustainable Design
Renewable/Low Carbon Energy
Green Infrastructure
Achieving Sustainable Development in Babergh
Mix and Types of Dwellings
Affordable Housing
Infrastructure Provision
Supplementary Planning Guidance

Suffolk Guidance for Parking: Technical Guidance (adopted March 2015)
The relevant policies can be viewed on line.
schedule.
Please see the notes attached to the
CONSULTATIONS SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the consultation responses received. The responses
where quoted are in italics, there is also commentary from your Officers when points
of clarification are considered helpful.
Great Cornard Parish Council
33.
Objects to the proposal raising the following comments:
The site severely prejudices the ability of the Parish Council to provide a continuous
green belt in the form of its Country Park around Great Cornard from the
Bures Road to the Newton Road (A134) preventing the creep of the urban area
along the Newton Road to Cornard Tye and Newton Green and along the
Bures Road to Little Cornard. It cannot be good planning that these separate
historic rural communities should be joined up into one continuous ribbon
development. To develop the site will breach the boundary of the village envelope
by beginning to cross remaining landscape barriers;

This Council opposed the inclusion of this site for housing in the Local Plan and we
believe that, with the emergence of the new Local Development Framework/Local
Plan, the opportunity should be taken to re-designate the land as green open
space;

The Parish Council re-iterates its objections made in respect of the previously
refused scheme of development and attaches a copy of its letter dates 24 March
2010 submitted in respect of that earlier application;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
11
34.
The PC’s objection moves on to raise objections under 4 main headings: road/traffic
access; site layout/elevations; environmental; heritage. These are set-out below under the
respective headings:Road/Traffic Access
35.
In our previous submission we drew attention to the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2 as
adopted, which states:
Satisfactory detailed proposals for transport measures to serve this site will need to
be agreed before any development scheme is implemented. Therefore, planning
permission will not be granted until these matters are resolved.
36.
The PC does not believe that the current application is satisfactory in this respect. The PC
is of the opinion that the C732/A134 junction does not represent a suitable point to join the
A134, even with improvements to visibility. More measures are needed to discourage use
of the C732 and the 3 ‘village gate’ features proposed are not sufficient. The staggered
junction where the C732 meets Carsons Drive needs improvement. To make the route
towards Carson Drive more desirable a roundabout should be constructed at the staggered
junction. The trip generation survey is considered by the PC to be unrepresentative as
many of the residents of Sheepshead Hill are unlikely to make peak hour journeys.
37.
The Highway Authority has previously commented that the staggered crossroads at the
southern end of the C732, where it meets Carsons Drive, Shawlands Avenue and
Canhams Road is not well-laid out. The application makes no proposals for improvement,
other than adding a new footway.
38.
It then goes on to point out that, although Shawlands Avenue would be a preferred route
for traffic from the estate to join the A134, Shawlands Avenue has already required the
installation of traffic calming measures owing to the amount and speed of the traffic already
using it. Shawlands Avenue forms part of one of the two routes from Sudbury to
Colchester via Bures Road and traffic flows along it are likely to continue to increase in the
future.
39.
As to the traffic calming measures proposed within the development - similar measures
have been installed by the same developer within the new Rugby Road development in
Great Cornard. These have proved to be ineffective and unsatisfactory and the PC has
already received complaints from residents of the development itself and others in the
surrounding streets affected by its traffic.
40.
The PC also comments on the Travel Plan - whose purpose must be to mitigate the effect
of the new development on travel in Great Cornard. Its view is that the proposals in the
Travel Plan appear to do little in that regard. It refers to bus services - although the nearest
bus-stop will be nearly half a kilometre from most of the houses and there is no evening
service. The Transport Coordinator will be offering a free bus pass (possibly) to each
household but for how long? The Plan also suggests the employment of a professional
car-share administrator - but for how long and who will pay? These measures appear to be
short-term and unsustainable.
Site Layout/Elevations
41.
There is concern about larger properties being sited at the higher level within the site; also
3 storey properties are undesirable. The second floor in the 3 storey block of flats would
be provided within the roof but this would do little to mitigate the intrusion of these
structures and the PC believes that tall buildings are inappropriate on the outside edge of
the village.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
12
42.
The Landscape Appraisal states that “…housing would remain at levels below
approximately 45m AOD as it is in the surrounding area and for most of the southern part
of the town.” At the Local Plan Inquiry the proposal showed an area around the 45m AOD
contour which was designated for 2 storey houses (with upper floors in the roof) giving an
overall height of 7m. In the submitted application several large properties are above the
45m AOD and the (concept of) 7m high properties has been discarded. The highest parts
of the site have large 4 and 5 bedroom properties. The inclusion of three storey properties
in the elevated location would make the development overly intrusive and inappropriate.
The adjoining site in Sheepshead Hill is made up of bungalows. The site’s commanding
position would make low rise development at a lower density more suitable.
43.
It also objects to what it regards as the new higher density of the current proposal and goes
on to suggest that the opportunity should be taken to reduce the density.
44.
The proposal would replicate the design flaws and density of the new Rugby Road
development - which is characterised by cars being parked on the pavements, in the
approach road, across driveways etc. This is believed to be the result of too great a
density of development being permitted, leaving insufficient space for parking or for
sufficiently wide estate roads.
45.
The layout of the new development groups the “affordable housing” together which could
lead to the inadvertent creation of a potentially divided community.
46.
The main play area for the estate should not be sited on the far side of the Abbas Hall
estate road away from the houses. The Abbas Hall access road is quite steeply banked in
places and could be dangerous for children to cross when it inevitably carries more traffic.
If the density of the development was reduced - all play areas could be brought within the
development. In addition - a play area within the woodland area as proposed would likely
become the preserve of older teenagers - which could lead to incursions into
environmentally sensitive wildlife areas and disturbance to the amenity of residents at
Abbas Hall.
Environmental
47.
The new Flood Risk Assessment is still not believed to adequately address concerns over
the treatment of surface water.
48.
The Flood Risk Assessment states at paras 1.5 & 5.2 that infiltration is not viable for
surface water disposal because the geology of the site is predominantly London and
Tertiary clay. The Infrastructure Report proposes, therefore, a scheme to carry surfacewater away via the Cornard Black Brook and ultimately to Cornard Mere SSSI. This site is
already receiving an amount of contaminated water and we believe that any proposal to
increase this will contravene the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006
Part (4) Section 55.
49.
The Flood Risk Assessment notes at section 4.3 - referring to the existing surface water
sewers serving the Cornard Drive estate - that Anglian Water has confirmed that there is no
spare capacity in any of these sewers. However - at Section 4.5 it goes on to say that “It is
possible, however, that properties on Turkentine Close may receive surface water run-off
from the field during extreme events. To the north of the footpath water drains to a low
spot adjacent to nos 16 to 23 De Greys Close. It is possible that these properties will
receive surface water flows from the site during extreme events.” This begs the question
that, if there is no capacity in the sewers, where is the water to go?
50.
The surface water scheme has used data appropriate to a 1:100 6 hour event. However
PPS25 would suggest that this data should be uplifted by 30%. We do not believe that
sufficient note has been taken of PPS25.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
13
51.
The documentation refers to a landfill site to the south-east. The PC believes that this
requires investigation in relation to the possibility of subsidence and contamination.
52.
The Air Quality Statement indicates that Babergh District Council has agreed that a full
quantitative assessment of NAQS pollutants is not required. However, the data quoted
goes back to 2003, which predates a considerable amount of new build in Great Cornard.
The PC believes that a full new survey should be carried out.
53.
The capacity of the Cornard Black Brook to cope with increased water flow, particularly at
extreme events, is believed to have been over-estimated. It is not right that run-off from the
new estate should be onto existing roads within the Carsons Drive development.
54.
The Section 106 Agreement should ensure that the woodland planting is based on the use
of native species only.
Heritage
55.
The PC endorses the comments made by the occupier of Abbas Hall as to the heritage
impacts of the development.
Other Matters - Dedication to Great Cornard Parish Council
56.
Should planning permission be granted - then all the open-space and the new woodland
belt around the development’s eastern edge, from Sheepshead Hill to Carsons Drive,
should be dedicated to Great Cornard Parish Council so that it can be properly maintained
and not allowed to go derelict.
Sudbury Town Council
57.
Raises objections and makes comments as follows:
Concerned about the cumulative impact of large developments such as this on the
infrastructure of Sudbury;

Concerned about traffic congestion and parking facilities and also the need for an
improvement in the cycling linkage from Great Cornard to Sudbury;

Large land developments have an aesthetic impact and this large development
needs some improvement on its design;

The amount of affordable housing proposed is welcomed.
Local Highway Authority
58.
First response 11 09 14 - Holding objection - Advised that there was no objection in
principle to the proposal but raised a number of concerns of detail and in relation to the
Transport Assessment. 29 recommended amendments to the layout were made regarding
parking layout, junction design, road alignment and the treatment of Restricted Byway 16
(known as Abbas Walk in parts).
59.
Subsequent response 20 01 15 - At this stage SCC raised no objections to the
development as amended. Conditions recommended to be applied by the Highway
Authority received 27 01 2015.
60.
Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and Flood Risk Assessment submitted in support of the
application all now satisfy the Highway Authority.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
14
SCC Travel Plan Team
61.
An updated version of the Travel Plan was submitted January 2015 - which the County
Council Travel Plan Team has now confirmed as acceptable (19 01 2015). The applicant is
willing to pay the costs of Travel Plan monitoring.
Environment Agency
62.
No objection to the grant of permission subject to 6 conditions being applied relating to the
following:
Development being undertaken only in accordance with the details provided in the
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA);

Provision of flood storage to safely manage the volumes of water produced by the
1 in 100 year return period critical duration rainfall event, including allowance for
climate change over the period of the development without causing harm or
nuisance;

The site layout for the whole development (including ground levels, road levels and
finished floor levels) to be designed to successfully manage exceedance flows in
the critical duration 1 in 100 year return period rainfall event so as to not cause
flooding to the proposed development or adversely impact the proposed
development or increase the flood risk to existing property in the area;

The production and implementation of a scheme to manage any exceedance flows
along the north western boundary of the site so as to ensure surface water does not
enter the adjacent existing development or adversely impact the proposed
development. This should contain details of proposed finished floor levels,
expected flood depths and volumes, flood routing and flow paths and design
measures to contain and manage any exceedance flows. Restrictive covenants
may be appropriate to ensure that future owners do not compromise the operation
of features;

The adoption and future maintenance of all elements of the surface water drainage
strategy to be agreed to ensure all elements of the strategy operate as designed for
the lifetime of the development. The specific design details of each feature will
need to be agreed;

Permeable paving to be incorporated into the drainage system where infiltration
allows. Modelling to be provided to demonstrate functionality in the 1 in 100 year
event inclusive of climate change;
English Heritage
63.
Objects to the development. “We remain of the view that the extension of the settlement
closer to Abbas Hall would erode the landscape setting of the building and cause some
harm to its significance.”
64.
“We have provided several letters of advice on the residential development of this site in
recent years, the latter dates from 25 May 2012. The application was the subject of an
appeal in November 2013 which was dismissed. The Statements accompanying the
resubmission state that full regard has been given to the issues raised by the Planning
Inspector and set out in his decision letter.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
15
65.
The impact of the proposed development on the setting of the Grade I listed Abbas Hall to
the north-east of the site is considered in detail in the Inspector’s report. This concludes
that the isolated character of the Hall would be compromised by the elevated position,
height and size of the proposed dwellings closest to the brow of the hill along the access
drive to Abbas Hall. Particular reference is made to the children’s play area and plots 82
and 138. The isolated character of Abbas Hall and the view from the driveway which is
accepted as inspiring Gainsborough’s pictures of Cornard Wood, and is described by the
Inspector as a non-designated heritage asset, would also be marginally affected by the
development in the southern half of the site. He concludes this would result in less than
substantial harm.
66.
The revised proposals show an amended planting scheme around the play area and along
the north-eastern edge of the residential development, next to the drive to the Hall.
Amendments have also been made to Plots 82 and 138, with the omission of one of the
larger properties and the relocation of the other away from the drive. Further planting is
also proposed in this location.
67.
These revisions should help to reduce the impact of the proposed development on the
setting and significance of Abbas Hall. However, we remain of the view that the extension
of the settlement closer to Abbas Hall would erode the landscape setting of the building
and cause some harm to its significance.”
Corporate Manager – Heritage
68.
No objection. Two houses and a play area are removed from the previous scheme, so the
ridge line would not be broken and views of the approach to Abbas Hall protected, albeit
with a smaller radius. Proposals accord with the Appeal Inspector’s wishes.
69.
The above initial comments were supplemented by the following,
Summary
70.
The proposal would not cause substantial harm or total loss of significance to Abbas Hall
and its setting, a Grade 1 Listed Building which has cultural associations with the artist
Thomas Gainsborough. The development therefore gives rise to less than substantial
harm which should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
Discussion
71.
The application site is located immediately to the east of the existing built-up area. The
land rises to the east and from a natural high point Abbas Hall, an isolated Grade 1 Listed
Building, becomes noticeable. The hall is set amongst mature trees and there is an area of
woodland to the south of the property.
72.
The application provides for the construction of 166 dwellings on land to the east of
Carsons Drive, Great Cornard. The proposal follows an application for the construction of
170 dwellings which was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal in January 2014.
The principal difference between the current and previous proposal relates to the position
and arrangement of the dwellings along the eastern boundary of the site and through the
centre to respect the alignment of a former drive to the hall.
73.
The proposal would not have any physical impact upon the fabric of Abbas Hall however its
significance as an example of an isolated manorial hall could be undermined by the
proposed development which is within its wider setting.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
16
74.
In accordance with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)
Act 1990 there is a general duty placed upon local planning authorities which requires them
to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings when
considering whether to grant planning permission.
75.
The Government’s planning policies for Conserving and enhancing the historic
environment are contained within Paragraphs 126 to 141 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset as,
‘The surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced - Its extent is not fixed and
may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a
positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to
appreciate that significance, or may be neutral’.
76.
As indicated by the NPPF, the concept of setting defies a precise definition. It therefore
becomes a matter of judgement whether a development proposal is likely to have an
impact or not.
77.
Abbas Hall is currently experienced as an isolated property in the countryside against a
backdrop of existing development on the edge of Great Cornard. The proposal would
bring the edge of that development closer to the hall however the existing topography is
such that it would be confined to land which is at a lower level and closer to the village. As
such it would be below the natural ‘ridgeline’ referred to by others thus maintaining the
relationship between the hall and the surrounding countryside.
78.
The relationship between the proposed development and the hall has been further
improved by revisions to the application. In particular two dwellings and a play area that
featured as part of the previous submission have been moved away from the eastern edge
and the overall layout has been amended accordingly. The hall would consequently
continue to be experienced in a similar manner and any harm that would be caused to its
setting as a result of the development would be very marginal.
79.
In conclusion Abbas Hall would continue to be experienced as being associated with the
wider countryside surrounding Great Cornard. The proposal would not unduly impinge
upon the setting of the property or cause substantial harm or total loss of significance
within the meaning provided by the NPPF. The development therefore gives rise to less
than substantial harm which should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
Natural England
80.
No objection.
81.
The site is in close proximity to Cornard Mere/Little Cornard Site of Special Scientific
Interest. Nonetheless, the view is taken that if the proposed development is carried out in
strict accordance with the details within the application, it will not damage or destroy the
interest features for which the site has been notified and does not represent a constraint in
determining the application.
82.
Officer Note - The rest of its response is composed of standard comments and advice
applied on a more general basis.
83.
It is worth noting that in regard to the previous scheme of development for development at
the site its advice also made comment in regard to nationally protected species. It does not
do so on this occasion. Its view previously was it did not consider that nationally protected
species presented a constraint on the site’s development, subject to the mitigation
suggested in the Ecological Assessment of 2010, which should be secured by condition. It
also noted previously that the site supported 12 pairs of skylarks, a UK Biodiversity Action
Plan (BAP) species. This is a high concentration of the species which benefits from areas
of “set-aside”.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
17
84.
No mention of skylarks is made by Natural England in their response under the current
application. However - it did mention skylarks in its response to the very similar previous
application for the site’s development for 170 dwellings determined at appeal.
85.
It should also be noted that a Skylark Mitigation Specification was agreed in October 2013
with the County Senior Ecological Officer following the refusal of planning permission
previously, this was accepted by the Planning Inspector at the subsequent appeal and,
furthermore, is proposed to be secured by legal agreement this time too. This issue is
discussed din more detail later in this report.
Corporate Manager - Strategic Housing
86.
No objections. Gives qualified support for the application as the development will deliver
35% affordable housing as required under policy, which equates to 58 homes. The mix
proposed is as stated earlier in this report.
87.
The following additional comments have, however, also been made.
88.
Although the mix does not truly reflect the preferred affordable housing mix as identified by
the Strategic Housing Team, it is still an acceptable mix insofar as there is a need for all
the different house and tenure types proposed - even if it is not the ideal. In terms of detail
– the following is also pointed out:-
89.
90.

in addition - the flats that are being proposed within the 3 storey blocks do not have
integral lifts - which is not ideal as coping with stairs can cause problems for some
people, for example, parents with young children or the elderly;

five fewer bungalows than the ideal identified housing mix are proposed and only
those bungalows that would be mobility or wheelchair accessible units would be
built to lifetime-homes standards, moreover the floor-space of these units would be
below the minimums identified within the draft HQI standards, to be released later in
2015;

the affordable housing would not be “pepper-potted” throughout the development being mostly concentrated within the body of the development close to the
boundaries with adjoining housing development.
Officer Note - These issues have been discussed with the agent who comments as
follows:
the floor-spaces that have been applied are the current standards;

the life-time homes standard has, so far is possible, been applied across the
development. Nonetheless, this has not always been possible and, ultimately,
insistence on this would result in a reduction in the number of units, which would
also reduce the number of affordable units that can be delivered;

there is currently no requirement for lifts and this could likewise only be achieved by
way of reducing the number of units.
The Corporate Manager (Housing) has responded that they would prefer a larger number
of dwellings to be provided.
Corporate Manager - Public Realm
91.
No comments received.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
18
92.
Officer note - Nonetheless previously cited concerns regarding the size and disposition of
play areas have been addressed. A key issue identified previously was the potential to
improve the linear park, which could include one of the LAPs, and a need for greater
surveillance of the area as a whole. In the current scheme - in-line with previous
comments and also the views of the Inspector that improved surveillance of the linear park
should be addressed - the layout has been changed so that there would now be
5 dwellings along the western side of the linear-park that would look onto the area
(previously there were 3), thereby achieving the greater surveillance previously lacking. In
addition - the incorporation of one of the LAPs within the area would also result in greater
surveillance. There would also now be a cycleway through the area so that too will bring in
more users of it and add to the degree of surveillance too. The linear-park is also slightly
larger than previously.
Anglian Water
93.
No objections - Requests that a number of informative notes are added to any planning
permission covering the following:
94.
95.
Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to
an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and
accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public
open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the
developer’s cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or, in the case of
apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It
should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before
development can commence.
It then goes on to comment that in respect of Wastewater Treatment the following is so:
Wastewater Treatment - The foul drainage from this development is in the
catchment of Great Cornard Sewerage Treatment Works (STW) that at present has
available capacity for these flows;

Foul Sewerage Network - The sewerage system at present has available capacity
for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to the Anglian Water sewerage
network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
The most suitable point of connection will then be advised;

Surface Water Disposal - The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment
submitted with the planning application is not relevant to Anglian Water as the
proposed method of disposal is via a brook and, therefore, is outside our jurisdiction
for comment and the Planning Authority will need to seek the views of the
Environment Agency.
It should also be noted that Anglian Water commented in respect of the previous scheme
that:
A water main runs along the access drive to Abbas Hall and then south across the
proposed biodiversity site;

there is sufficient water resource to serve the development but the development
should still be designed to high water saving standards;

a mains extension would be required to enable sufficient capacity;

Anglian Water is obliged under the Water Industry Act 1991 to provide water and
waste water infrastructure to residential development within their area when
requested to upon the service of a request under the appropriate section of the
Water Industry Act.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
19
Suffolk Constabulary
96.
No response.
Arboricultural Officer
97.
Objects - commenting as follows:-
98.
The arboricultural report submitted with the application is out-of-date and should be
updated.
99.
Other observations:
insufficient spaces between the proposed houses and protected trees giving rise to
future pressure for pruning and removal;

ownership of the strip of land containing the line of protected trees and the access
rights thereto needs to be clarified;

inadequate space for growth and/or excessive density of planting for some of the
proposed tree and ornamental planting;

use of ash within the proposed woodland belt needs to be re-considered in view of
disease currently affecting ash.
100.
Officer Note - The whole issue of trees and landscaping of the site, including the proposed
tree planting was considered at the Inquiry. The Inspector raised no substantive concerns.
The issue of the proximity of certain of the new houses to some of the protected trees was
likewise a consideration with the previous proposal but it was not a determining factor. All
significant trees in the site are to be retained, including those covered by Tree Preservation
Order TPO BT 132. The requirement for protection of protected trees during construction in accordance with the measures set-out in the document submitted with the application
entitled “Tree Condition Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment & Method
Statement” - can be achieved by planning condition and is considered to be an acceptable
way of safeguarding them during construction.
101.
As to the comment that some of the new tree planting - particularly that proposed in front
gardens - would be too dense or two close to buildings to be able to mature - this can be
addressed through the application of a landscaping condition that will address the
necessary detail; likewise, the need to consider species other than ash because of its
susceptibility to ash die-back.
SCC - Rights of Way
102.
No objections but comment as follows:
Restricted Byway No. 16 (RB16) which runs south-west/north-east through the
proposed development must remain on its current alignment unless legally diverted;
the proposed site plan drawing 08.6716.400 appears to show the route curving
where it leaves the existing estate. The surface requirement for this section is to be
agreed with Suffolk County Council Highways/Rights of Way;

RB16 north-east of Carsons Drive towards the development currently has a natural
surface; this is to be improved to a similar standard to the rest of the route through
the development;

Bridleway No. 12 and Public Footpath No. 13 are adjacent to the development area.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
20
103.
Officer Note - It is worth also noting that it was indicated in the context of the previous
application that the surface for Restricted Byway 16 would need to be suitable for horses
(and cycles) as well as pedestrians. This is a well-used equestrian route. Surfacing would
need to be agreed by the County Council Public Rights of Way Officer, this can be a
planning condition.
SCC - The Archaeological Service
104.
No objections - subject to any planning permission being granted with two conditions
requiring that (A) no development takes place until satisfactory archaeological investigation
of the site has taken prior to commencement of development and (B) no occupation of the
development takes place until site investigation and post investigation assessment has
been completed.
105.
It also comments that the proposal affects a large area and is located in an area of
archaeological importance recorded in the County Historic Environment Record. Adequate
archaeological evaluation has been undertaken and the results have been incorporated in
the current application. This work has revealed archaeological features, possibly the
remains of a pre-historic pond barrow in the north-east part of the site (to the north-east of
the existing access track).
Suffolk County Council Fire and Rescue Services
106.
No objections - subject to any planning permission being granted with a condition that
requires that the development does not commence until details of fire hydrant provision has
been approved and then implemented prior to occupation.
SCC Planning Obligations Manager
107.
108.
Developer/infrastructure contributions required as follows:
Primary school age children, age 5 to 11. 41 pupils. Cost per place is £12,181
(2014/15 costs). Total cost £499,421;

Pre-school provision. 15 hours per week over 38 weeks of the year. Plus 15 hours
for all disadvantaged 2 year olds. 16 pupils. Cost per place is £6,091 (2014/15
costs). Total cost £97,456;

Libraries: £35,856;

Waste: £51 per dwelling, giving a total of £8,466 for 166 dwellings.
With regard to the above planning application we will need to more precisely target the
developer contributions. On this basis I can confirm the following:
Primary School contribution to be spent at Great Cornard Wells Hall County
Primary School;

Early years contribution to be spent at Stepping Stones in Great Cornard;

Library contribution to be spent at Great Cornard Library;

Waste contribution to be spent on new household waste provision in Sudbury.
Officer Note - All of the figures given to-date are time-limited for six months and would,
therefore, need to be reviewed at the time of sealing the s106 obligations applying to the
development.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
21
Primary Care Trust
109.
No objections.
110.
Officer Note - Previously confirmed in the context of refused application B/10/00094/FUL
that there is no requirement for a contribution to mitigate any health care impacts reflecting the fact that no adverse impacts arise from the development because there is
sufficient local capacity.
Suffolk Wildlife Trust
111.
No response received in respect of the current proposal.
112.
Officer Note – the SWT previously responded in respect of the refused scheme that they
were satisfied with the findings of the ecological report and that sections 4 and 5 of the
report should be implemented in full via a planning condition. The creation and
implementation of a long term management plan is important. In particular - they strongly
recommended that an attempt is made to secure alternative habitat for skylarks and also
commented there is a need for adequate buffering of the hedgerows and woodland
abutting the site, which is not apparent on the plans.
Corporate Manager - Environmental Protection (Contamination)
113.
No objection - Any planning permission should be subject to a condition that requires
further investigation of ground conditions at the site, prior to the commencement of
development, and appropriate remediation to be undertaken, as recommended in the
applicant’s assessment.
Corporate Manager – Strategic Planning
114.
No Objection.
115.
The Babergh Local Plan (2006) saved policy HS17 (Carsons Drive, Great Cornard)
establishes the principle of development for approximately 4.4 hectares of land east of
Carsons Drive, Great Cornard to be allocated for about 170 dwellings. The status of this
allocation was reviewed for NPPF compliance in March 2012 and subsequently in
consideration of the schedule of saved policies as part of the Core Strategy examination
process. A further review of saved policies and designations has recently been undertaken
as part of the emerging local plan process which has proposed retaining the site’s
designation.
116.
The principle of development, in accordance with Policy HS17, was also endorsed by the
Planning Inspector’s (APP/D3505/A/13/2198853) in 2013 when the principle of
development on the site was not disputed.
117.
The proposed development has had regard to policy CN06 and the NPPF guidance (para
126, 133- 134). Saved Policy CN06 of the 2006 Babergh Local Plan has overall conformity
with the NPPF, although it should be noted that the NPPF provides for greater flexibility in
the consideration of specific impacts on heritage assets. In the context of the proposed
scheme consideration should be given to the NPPF, para 133 in that the significance of the
harm to the heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefit arising from the
delivery of an allocated housing site to contribute to meeting strategic housing need.
118.
The proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Development Plan
policies, in particular the NPPF and the Babergh Local Plan (2006) saved policies HS17 &
CN06.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
22
119.
In view of the potential implications of recent case law, this should be considered in the
context of the local planning policy framework, the NPPF (paras 132 – 134) and other
relevant material considerations.
BDC Corporate Manager – Waste
120.
The private drive on the left (past plot number 130 and then splitting left and right) is a
concern because there is nowhere for the dustcart to turn round. This means we would
have to reverse either in or out, which is a high risk activity and not one that we want to
entertain on new developments. Short reverses may be acceptable.
121.
I am concerned that the bend in the road adjacent to plot number 55 may be a tight for the
dustcart to get round easily – in the attached document there is info about area required.
122.
The is no designated point marked for plot numbers 33,34,35,36,37 to present their bins,
and the car parking area is not suitable for the dustcart to access. I would prefer that these
have a bin presentation area created near to the main roadway. Also plot numbers
105,106,107 would need a bin presentation area created at the entrance to their car park,
and for the other properties that border this car park – plots 100-104, 94-99, 88-93.
Perhaps a bin store is required for these as they do not have their own gardens in which to
store their bins.
123.
Can the surfaces on the shared driveways cope with the weight of the dustcart driving on it
every week? 32 Tonnes.
Officer Note – At the time of writing this matter is being discussed with the applicant
REPRESENTATIONS
124.
Eighteen letters of objection have been received in response to the first consultation including individual letters from the Cornard Tye Residents Association, the Sudbury
Preservation Society, the Sudbury Society Planning Group and the Colne-Stour
Countryside Association, three letters from the owners/occupiers of Abbas Hall and
11 letters from residents in the neighbouring area (including three from different parties at
the same address).
125.
Comments from residents are summarised as follows:
There would be an unacceptable increase in the amount of traffic along and
between Sheepshead Hill - which would not be widened - and the
Carsons Drive/Sheepshead Hill junction and this would compromise highway safety
(both for drivers and pedestrians);

Over-development of the area;

There is a lack of infrastructure in Great Cornard to facilitate further residential
development of this scale;

Harm to the spectacular and rare setting of Abbas Hall, from which there would be
views of the housing development which would encroach into the setting of the
building;

The development would be prominent in views captured within Gainsborough
paintings including Cornard Woods and Mr and Mrs Andrews;

The creation of publicly open space can never offset the harm caused to the view
and setting of Abbas Hall;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
23

Harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Gainsborough legacy;

Planning rules have recently been changed to protect ancient buildings;

There would be an adverse impact on the Special Landscape Area due to the scale
of the dwellings proposed and the cramped design of the development;

There would be a serious harm to adjoining residential properties off Carsons Drive
in terms of loss of light, overbearing appearance, overlooking and loss of view.
There would also be increased noise and disturbance for residents;

The 3 storey elements of the development would not be fit in the surroundings and
overall the new housing would be an over-development and would be out-ofkeeping with existing development in the local area;

Shared surfaces within the development will create problems for pedestrians and
cause parking problems;

Development should be directed to land on the edge of Sudbury close to Tesco;

Sudbury does not have enough parking or jobs for more residents;

There would be inadequate car parking and cycling facilities;

The drainage and sewage arising from this development cannot be dealt with via
the existing infrastructure and the brook - and existing sewerage facilities are
unable to cope;

Local services such as doctors’ surgeries, schools, nurseries and the local Fire
Station are at capacity or over-stretched and the development would place further
pressure on these facilities and the wider infrastructure of Great Cornard;

No amenities in Great Cornard for potential occupiers of the development;

Harm to wildlife and the landscape;

The surface water drainage scheme would not work, there is concern about
whether the brook would cope with surface water run-off and whether this would
result in flooding elsewhere in the village;

The proposal is for too many houses;

Loss of good quality farmland when there is a need for more food to be produced to
feed an ever growing population in the country;

The houses are unsympathetic to the character of the area;

Adverse impact on the character and beauty of the countryside;

The development is proposed in an area that is being considered for inclusion as an
extension of the Dedham Vale AONB;

Additional cars using Sheepshead Hill would be a danger to highway safety and
change the character of the rural lane;

There would be potential for noise nuisance;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
24
126.

There are plenty of sites that do not invade the Stour Valley - which the Council
accepts needs protection, as do all Councils in the area in that they have already
agreed the proposed extension to the AONB;

Need to wait and see how existing residential development just built, under
construction or proposed to be built impacts locally before permitting this
development to go ahead;

The remaining “green spaces” in Great Cornard are increasingly scarce.
The owners of Abbas Hall have submitted three letters:
the proposal would not be sustainable development and will cause irreversible harm
to the setting of Abbas Hall, a Grade I listed building, harm to which is not
outweighed by any public benefits and those same benefits could be achieved by
an alternative more sensitive design or location;

concerned to protect the heritage value of Abbas Hall and its setting for both
themselves and the community;

the Inspector’s decision at the recent appeal is inconsistent with the NPPF and,
therefore, the allocation of the land for housing under saved policy HS17 of the
Local Plan should be withdrawn;

we are proposing to offer the property for community use - reflecting its importance
as a Grade 1 listed building in its isolated setting and including visits by local
schools and the community - and it is difficult to progress any of this with the
prospect of housing development which will completely destroy the experience of
the building as an isolated Hall House;

if the bridleway/farm track is converted into a tarmacked or resurfaced cycle park,
with houses on one side, and play-equipment on the other, the impact on the
setting of the Hall would be very serious and this would not be mitigated by the
proposed screening since the bridleway runs through the development site;

the houses would block views to the west across the valley, while the proposed tree
planting will block views to the south;

no attempt has been made to design the scheme to minimise the harm to the
setting of the building nor to preserve the isolated character - an example of this
being the developer has not considered any alternative vehicular/pedestrian access
to Abbas Hall, albeit that an alternative route of access might be possible along or
adjacent to the footpath that leaves the C732 and takes a north-south line across
the valley floor towards Prospect Hill - neither has the developer sought any
discussion with them to reduce or avoid any harm to Abbas Hall;

if the development goes ahead the impression would not be of travelling into the
heart of the countryside to a unique example of an isolated Hall House but one of
going through an urban housing estate at odds with the Special Landscape Area
that surrounds it;

difficult to understand how the site came to be allocated for housing against the
background of the harm to the Hall that would result;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
25
127.

fortunately, however, the NPPF has now made it clear that great weight must be
given to the conservation of heritage assets and their setting and, where a proposal
causes harm, as this plainly does, then that harm has to be clearly and convincingly
justified by reference to the principles of sustainable development under the NPPF;

there is then discussion as the weight to be given to the judgement by the appeal
Inspector that “less than substantial harm” would be caused to the setting of the
listed building and the implications for the Local Planning Authority of case law in
this regard, along with the appropriate interpretation of the advice in the NPPF and
the need to attach considerable importance and weight to the harm that would be
caused to the heritage asset;

as to the balanced judgement that the NPPF advocates be undertaken in assessing
the impact on heritage assets - that is, the ‘great weight’ to be given to conservation
versus any public benefits cited in favour of development, for which there need to
be clear and convincing reasons - it is asserted that “in the present case there is no
good justification or counterbalance which outweighs the considerable importance
and weight which must be given to the desirability of preserving the Grade I listed
asset because the design of the development is not properly sensitive to the
location and has not been designed as such”;

finally - invitation is extended to Members of the Council for them to visit the site
and better appreciate the impact of the development and the site’s potential as a
local heritage asset that could be enjoyed by the community.
In summary the legal case that is being made against the development - as set-out by the
owner of Abbas Hall in his letter of 2 March - is as follows:
The developer agrees that there will in this case be at least moderate harm to the
setting of a Grade I listed building, Abbas Hall;

English Heritage has made it clear that an extension of the settlement close to the
Hall would erode the landscape setting of the building and cause harm to its
significance;

That harm (even if it “less than substantial”) is a matter of “considerable importance
and weight” which must be weighed against any asserted public benefits of the
development proposal, particularly when the asserted pubic benefits of the
development can be achieved by alternative more sensitive design or by alternative
location of the development;

The development in this case (the current application is the original planned
development with only very minor adjustment) was not designed in such a way as
to minimise harm to the setting of Abbas Hall by design;

There is a statutory presumption against approving such an application because of
the harm that it will cause. Any justification for such harm must be both “clear and
convincing”;

An alternative more sensitive design - not taken into account by the Developer that would substantially minimise harm to Abbas Hall would be along the bottom of
the valley. This would necessitate building an entrance and road-way from the
C732 where it turns sharp left (heading out of Great Cornard) alongside the current
footpath. If that entrance were utilised at least some of the agreed “moderate harm”
would be substantially mitigated because the “setting” of Abbas Hall - how it is
experienced by visitors and walkers - would be substantially ameliorated.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
26
Representations have also been received from the following groups:
Cornard Tye Residents Association
128.
The main points made are summarised as follows:
The development is not sustainable and is (i) contrary to the NPPF, (ii) has an
unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of Abbas Hall contrary to the NPPF and
Local Plan policies HS17 and CN06, (iii) has an unacceptable impact on the Special
Landscape Area contrary to the NPPF and Local Plan policies HS17 and CR04 and
(iv) has a poor quality design and general lack of place-making contrary to the
NPPF and Local Plan policy CN01;

More specifically - the proposal is not suitable or in-keeping with the surrounding
area, there would be harm to the Special Landscape Area, the setting of Abbas Hall
and the ancient rolling landscape;

Moreover - there is a statutory presumption against development that causes harm
to a Grade I listed asset and its setting and there has to be clear and convincing
evidence that the public benefits to be gained from the development outweigh the
harm that would be caused to the heritage asset. Such public benefits as would
arise from the development are not unique to the site and can be achieved with less
or no harm by alternative design or by utilising an alternative location. Furthermore
- the woodland belt would be ineffective to screen the proposal and there would be
long views from Abbas Hall through the gap in the proposed woodland to the
highest buildings in the proposal and the woodland belt will have its own negative
impacts on the landscape insofar as the long views from Abbas Hall across the
valley will be lost;

There would also be the noise and disturbance from the additional traffic to be
generated and the siting of the LEAPs and LAPS next to or in the proposed
woodland belt;

The proposal will also convert the bridleway (currently a farm track) - which is the
only public vehicular/pedestrian access to Abbas Hall - into a tarmac path for cycles
and prams bordered by housing and play equipment. This is a totally unacceptable
approach to a listed building;

In addition the isolated character of the setting of the Grade I Abbas Hall would be
destroyed;

There are no public benefits from this scheme in this location which outweigh the
harm that would be caused to a Grade I heritage asset and the Cornard Wood view
painted by Gainsborough (described by the Planning Inspector as a non-designated
heritage asset in its own right) - which are valued by the local community - the
enjoyment of which should be enhanced rather than destroyed;

As to the woodland screening belt proposed - not only will this be ineffective at
screening the development - it will have its own negative impacts on the landscape
insofar as the long views from Abbas Hall across the valley will be lost;

They also raise a number of points arising out of recent case law.
discussed below under “Impact on Heritage” - which starts at para 165;

They start by referring to the fact that the Planning Inspector in his 2014 decision
concluded that the development in question would lead to “less than substantial
harm” which would have to be balanced against any public benefits of the proposal;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
27
These are

129.
They then go on to refer to the fact that that the developer’s expert witness at the
Inquiry stated the impact on the setting of Abbas Hall would be “moderate” - that is
to say, neither negligible nor minor, but less than “major” - in turn, assert that it was
agreed that there would “moderate” harm to the setting of the listed building.
It also refers to the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in respect of two
cases - discussed below under “Impact on heritage” - namely:
Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council (2014)
EWCA Civ 137;

The Forge Field Society & Ors, R (On the Application of) v Sevenoaks District
Council (2014) EWHC 1895 (Admin) (12 June 2014).
Colne Stour Countryside Association
130.
Objects. Supports the objections cited by the Cornard Tye Residents Association;
131.
Specifically - it is concerned about the impact on the isolated character of Abbas Hall and
makes the point that allowing the development would be at variance with the plans supported by the Council - to extend the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
along the Stour Valley towards Sudbury, to include what many regard as “Gainsborough
Country”. They then raise concerns that the traffic issues raised as a concern in 2006 have
not been addressed, other concerns are also raised including - adverse impact on highway
safety, adverse impact on a historic landscape and the setting of Abbas Hall remain - finally
they comment that the original allocation was seriously flawed;
132.
Particular reference is made to the statutory presumption against granting planning
permission for any development that would fail to preserve the setting of a listed building.
They then comment that it is no answer to say that this is outweighed by the need for new
housing development in South Suffolk, otherwise any developer could always argue that
the public benefit in building new houses is more important. They also comment that there
are other more suitable locations for this number of houses.
Sudbury Society Planning Group
133.
Objects. Accepts that earlier concerns about the damaging impact on the setting and
isolation of Abbas Hall have been addressed and is pleased to see more generous
landscaping of the linear park running through the development and the incorporation of
play areas into the development. However - in terms of the design of the development
itself - it is still concerned that is lacks a sense of place and enclosure because the
development consists predominantly of detached and semi-detached houses rather than
terraced properties and there is little of the Suffolk tradition in the design. Concern is also
expressed about the impact of the development on Sheepshead Hill (C732) and the fact
that it is a narrow historic lane that is, in part, attractively sunken and may lose its character
in the interests of vehicle movement. It also comments that clear signage of the public
right of way would be helpful as the development may result in greater usage.
Suffolk Preservation Society
134.
Objects. “The Inspector identified a number of deficiencies primarily including the
character and appearance of the scheme in terms of its effect on the setting of Abbas Hall,
a Grade 1 listed building. However, he considered the scheme would be satisfactory in
terms of 4 of the 6 issues identified, namely: landscape impact, highway safety, biodiversity
and local infrastructure. Nevertheless, at para 114 he concluded that the adverse impact
upon view from Abbas Hall and the views associated with some of Gainsborough’s painting
are inherent disadvantages of the land allocation and then goes on to state at para 116 that
he dismisses the appeal on the grounds of specified deficiencies and not on grounds of the
allocation per se;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
28
135.
However, it is the Society’s opinion that this decision must be weighed against recent
decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal, namely, Barnwell and Forge Field, both
2014, which make clear that the duty under Section 66(1) of the 1990 Act requires “special
regard” to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building which means more
than merely giving weight to those matters in the planning balance and that “preserving”
means doing no harm. It was established that the proposal for 170 no dwellings and it is
therefore reasonable to assume that a similar scheme for 166 no dwellings will also result
in comparable levels of harm and should, therefore, be resisted in its present form. The
Society considers that the Local Planning Authority must be fully cognisant of recent
relevant case law and when considering this application give “considerable importance and
weight” to causing no harm to the setting of heritage assets (Justice Linbloom, Forge Field
Society & Ors, R vs Sevenoaks District Council, 12 June 2014);
136.
The Inspector’s conclusion that the appeal scheme would not lead to substantial harm and
therefore the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal is clearly
no longer the appropriate test. Rather the appropriate test is whether the harm is clear and
convincing. It is clear that the benefits of the scheme could still be provided a lower density
or smaller development or even an alternative site. In summary, the Society considers the
Inspector’s decision has been, in part, superseded by recent relevant case law which must
be fully taken into account when considering the current submission.”
137.
The Society’s also goes on to comment on the detail of the proposal as follows:
Specifically “…the revised scheme has addressed many of the localised
deficiencies set out in the Inspector’s decision…” but it then goes on to say that it
“…considers that the calibre of the design remains very low”…in particular “…the
inappropriateness of three storey blocks of flats and in particular the low grade
speculative design of individual units and the absence of place making. Whilst we
note that the Inspector agrees with the developer that the three storey blocks
successfully contribute to the sense of place and is content that standard house
types are a reasonable response in this context, we urge the Local Authority to
seek a significantly higher standard of design. To justify the poor standard of
design on the grounds that the standard exceeds that of the adjoining 1970’s and
1980’s developments appears to the Society to deny opportunity to achieve the
very best outcomes both in terms of place-making and distinctiveness;

The Society considers that the anodyne and banal design of the current scheme
could be much improved upon. Therefore, the Society would urge the Local
Planning Authority to take this further opportunity to seek improvements to the
layout, palette of materials and architectural detailing that could substantially
improve the quality of this development.”
Second Consultation
138.
Following receipt of the final layout plan detailing the last of the highway requirements those parties who had previously commented were re-consulted. Four further letters were
received, including one each from the Cornard Tye Residents Association and the Suffolk
Preservation Society. Objections raised include:
further development of this area will ruin it for walkers and cyclists;

additional flooding - the existing farmland acts as a sponge that absorbs rainwater;

insufficient availability of places to view the proposals;

Great Cornard is “always in the firing line” for new development;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
29

concern about the junction between Sheepshead Hill (C732) and the feeder-road to
the estates off Carsons Drive and the lack of any proposal to ameliorate extra
traffic;

Cornard Black Brook not unable to cope with the additional volume of water that is
likely to be generated;

Local schools already full;

The emphasis on footpaths and cycle-ways does not work when the rest of the
village lacks cycle-ways and current estate design seems to assume a diminishing
role for the motor-car.
139.
The Suffolk Preservation Society expresses regret that the revisions do not relate to more
substantive design matters, rather than simply parking etc.
140.
The Cornard Tye Residents Association expresses concern that not all the 4 bed houses
will have 3 parking spaces and 5 of the 3 bed houses will only have 1 parking space. It
also notes that the woodland planting proposed will extend to the edge of the
bridleway/farm-track leading to Abbas Hall and allowance needs to be made for the fact
maintenance vehicles used at Abbas Hall and farm vehicles. The developer’s say that they
do not intend to light the play areas or the farm track. This should perhaps be the subject
of a planning condition. Lighting of these areas would harm the setting of Abbas Hall and
the undesignated heritage view from it.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Context
141.
The decision in January 2014 to dismiss the appeal against the Council’s refusal of
planning permission for the development proposed under ref B/10/00094/FUL is a
significant and material consideration to which the Council has to have regard in
considering the current proposal - which has been submitted to address the shortcomings
in the scheme identified by the Planning Inspector. The reasons cited by the Council in
refusing planning permission were summarised earlier in this report.
142.
However - not all the refusal reasons cited by the Council were supported by the Planning
Inspector. It is, therefore, necessary to examine his decision carefully and take this into
account in the consideration of all the impacts and material planning considerations of the
case.
143.
In summary - the position is this: although the Inspector dismissed the appeal, he
accepted the principle of the site’s development for about 170 dwellings - indeed this has
been allocated in the statutory development plan -; the impact on the setting of the
Grade 1 listed building he considered to be “less than substantial”, the design and layout
of the development he also considered to be acceptable, again subject to certain changes
being made; the impact on the countryside and the Special Landscape Area would he
considered to be acceptable, indeed, there would be improvements; finally, the highway
impact he considered would be acceptable too, subject to certain matters being
safeguarded by condition.
144.
Officers have therefore considered the current application having regard to the Inspectors
decision as a material consideration. The application has however been considered afresh
with all material considerations re considered as part of the assessment.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
30
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
145.
The main issues arising are:
Principle of Development;

Resilience to Climate Change & Sustainable Transport & Construction;

Impact on Heritage (Setting of Listed Building);

Impact on Special Landscape Area;

Highway Safety;

Environmental Impacts;

Urban Design.
Principle of Development
146.
Notwithstanding the countryside location of the site - Saved Local Plan Policy HS17
allocates the site for residential development for about 170 dwellings. This allocation has
been carried forward from the previous Local Plan but has been reviewed and confirmed
on three occasions since its original allocation: firstly, following the issue of the NPPF in
2012, when it was found to be compliant with government policy as set-out in the
Framework; secondly, in the context of the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2014, when the
Government Office confirmed the validity of Policy HS17 as a saved policy to be
incorporated into the Council’s Local Development Framework; and, more recently in the
context of the exercise to produce a new joint local plan for Babergh and Mid-Suffolk
District Councils.
147.
Moreover, nothing in the Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal against refusal of
planning permission for the previous scheme of development (B/10/00094/FUL) changes
that. Indeed - in dismissing the appeal - he made it clear that he was not rejecting the
residential allocation of the land when he commented “I…in dismissing this appeal, make it
clear that I do so only on the basis of its identified deficiencies and not in contradiction of
the allocation of the site for development, including about 170 dwellings.”
148.
The application forms part of the Council’s current 5 Year Housing Supply and as such is
important in contributing to the district’s strategic housing needs.
149.
Turning now to the specifics of the policy HS17 - it applies a number of criteria that need to
be satisfied. Each criteria is examined in turn below and is discussed in terms of the
Inspector’s decision where appropriate.
Woodland Planting Along the Ridge-line and General Ecological Enhancement,
together with its Future Management
150.
As with the previous scheme - the development provides for woodland planting along the
ridgeline. The purpose of this planting is to mitigate the impact of the development on the
landscape and on the setting of Abbas Hall, a Grade I listed building on higher ground to
the eastern side of the development site.
151.
Under the previous application the Council was concerned that the proposal then lacked
detail in terms of planting and design and, therefore, did not demonstrate that the woodland
belt would provide the mitigation envisaged by both the Inspector and the Council when the
site was allocated for residential purposes. These were considered to be significant
omissions and formed part of refusal reason 3 cited by the Council - which mentions lack of
evidence that the mitigation proposed would be effective.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
31
152.
There was also concern previously that the package of ecological enhancement proposed
omitted mitigation for skylarks and was based on an ecological assessment that was outof-date, so there could be no certainty that in other respects the mitigation for ecology,
including protected species, could be relied upon either. This formed part of refusal reason
5 cited by the Council against the previous scheme.
153.
Under the current application the applicant has sought to address these issues by the
submission of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and by providing an updated
Ecological Appraisal. A Skylark Mitigation Scheme has also now been submitted, following
consultation with the SCC Ecologist.
154.
These documents were, in fact, produced for the Inquiry into the Council’s refusal of
planning permission for the previous scheme for 170 dwellings so have been subject to
examination in public and scrutiny by the Inspector. They have been resubmitted as part of
the application now before Members.
155.
The Inspector’s findings in respect of these two issues - the potential effectiveness of the
proposed woodland belt in providing mitigation for the development and the adequacy of
the Ecological Appraisal in supporting the conclusions to be reached on the impact of the
proposals on local ecology - are, therefore, important issues in the Council’s consideration
of the current proposals in terms of how they relate to this test of policy HS17.
156.
In summary - he concluded in respect of the first issue (mitigation against the impact of the
development) that “…the proposal would have no adverse effect on the character and
appearance of the surrounding countryside and aspects of the proposal, namely the
woodland planting and the attenuation pond would make a positive contribution to reinforce
the character and appearance of the Stour Valley Special Landscape Area. Provided that
appropriate arrangements are made, either by condition or through a planning obligation,
for the provision, retention and management of those parts of the proposal outside the
housing area, the proposal would comply with LP policies CR01 and CR04. He also stated
that “The provision of public open space and woodland planting would comply with the
specific requirement of LP policy HS17.” More specifically he commented that “The
scheme does not specify details of the woodland planting or of the habitat creation or their
maintenance regimes” but “the matter can be dealt with by planning condition”, including
the mix of species to be used to avoid the impact of disease currently affecting ash.
157.
Regarding ecology/biodiversity - his views were that the measures proposed to mitigate
and compensate for the ecological impacts of the development, including the Skylark
Mitigation measures - which were agreed by SCC’s Senior Ecologist at the Inquiry - would
be acceptable, subject to the skylark mitigation being secured by legal agreement and the
provision and maintenance of the woodland planting, wildflower meadow and open space
being secured by planning conditions. The monies required to ensure maintenance of
these areas into the future - possibly by Great Cornard Parish Council - will need to be
secured by legal agreement, to which the PC would also need to be a party, if it is the PC
which adopts these areas.
158.
The view of Officers is that - given that the Skylark Mitigation and the measures to mitigate
the ecological impacts are now agreed (these being off site habitat creation for the
Skylarks) - and the Inspector was content with these aspects, subject to their delivery being
secured accordingly - there is now little scope for the Council to take a contrary view. In
refusing planning permission the Council was basically saying that it is the detail of
woodland planting that is important in determining the acceptability of the development in
this regard to the extent that - without this - it is not possible to take a properly considered
view on the proposal. However - the Inspector clearly considered otherwise. He took the
view that the detail and delivery could safely be left to be dealt pursuant to planning
conditions and legal agreement. That being the case, objection to the proposals as
previously on the grounds that there could be no certainty that the mitigation proposed
would be effective is no longer considered to be sustainable.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
32
159.
It should, however, be stressed that in considering the detailed landscaping proposals
pursuant to planning conditions Officers will be seeking structural landscaping that would
provide lasting mitigation of the development in its surroundings and screening of it to/from
Abbas Hall, with the aim that the mitigation takes effect as soon as is possible. Density,
the species mix and the size of individual specimens would all be critical.
Public Open Space and its Future Management
160.
As with the refused application - the applicant has provided the required quantum of open
space (at least 10% of the site area) and sufficient recreational facilities (4 Local Areas of
Play and a Local Equipped Area of Play).
161.
The previous scheme would have provided 2 of the 4 LAPs within the woodland belt
proposed along the eastern edge of the development, whilst the LEAP would have been
provided within the woodland belt on the eastern side of the restricted byway that leads
from Sheepshead Hill up to Abbas Hall. The third LAP would have been located at that
point where the byway turns sharply eastwards towards Abbas Hall within what was
envisaged as a heavily landscaped “green gateway” (rather than within an enlarged ‘Linear
Park’ as initially recommended). Only one of the LAPs would have been provided within
the development itself. In addition, the two LAPs in the woodland would have been
surrounded on three sides by tree planting. The Linear Park had been intended to be the
main area of open space but this was insufficient, but rather than adapt this, the applicant
placed the play-areas in the woodland belt so as to avoid revisiting the housing layout. The
view of Officers was that this was undesirable due to safety concerns and harm to the
landscape, as they would be located on high ground, where they would be poorly lit and
would diminish the effectiveness of the woodland planting as screening.
162.
Whilst the undesirable location of the play areas was not referred to specifically within the
refusal reasons cited against that proposal - para 86 of the report that supports that refusal
reason nonetheless referred to this quite clearly - and, insofar as reason refusal 2 rejected
the design and layout of the development, the issue of the play-areas was covered there
and was, therefore, also considered at the appeal.
163.
The Inspector was also to some extent concerned about the location of the play-areas. In
particular he noted that “Two of the LAP+2s would be positioned within the woodland belt,
reducing its effective width from about 40m to about 20m and so reducing its potentially
beneficial effects on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside” and
“...the location of LAP+2 No 2 would contribute to the adverse effect of the proposal on the
setting of Abbas Hall.”
164.
On the other hand the Inspector also noted that “The larger (play) areas would have a
disproportionate effect on the efficiency of the layout and so, it is not surprising that the
choice has been made to locate the more land-hungry facilities within the open-space area
rather than within the body of the housing.” This implies that he accepts the play areas in
the woodland belt outside the development site, with the exception of LAP+2 No 2, which
he rejects because of its impact on the setting of Abbas Hall.
165.
The applicant has responded to the Inspector’s findings by (A) removing LAP+2 No 2 from
its location in the view to and from Abbas Hall - that is, adjacent to the sharp turn in the
byway where it leads-on up to Abbas Hall and (B) by extending and strengthening the
woodland belt landscaping, partly as a result of the removal of the LAP, partly as a result of
the removal of the houses proposed on plots nos 82 and 138 - this is discussed below
under “Impact on Heritage” in terms of the impact on the setting of Abbas Hall - and partly
as a result of the extension of the orchard proposed on the western side of the bridleway.
166.
It is, therefore, necessary to consider the extent to which these changes address concerns
raised by the Inspector.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
33
167.
The view of Officers is that the Inspector has, in fact, accepted the siting of the play-areas
outside the development itself within the woodland belt - in part on the basis that to
relocate them within the development would compromise the “efficiency of the layout”. He
does not say that they are unacceptable outside the woodland belt either, save for the play
area that would be harmful to the setting of Abbas Hall. Moreover, the complete removal of
LAP+2 No 2 (and its incorporation into the linear park within the development) - together
with the removal of the two houses previously proposed on plots 82 and 138 - would allow
significantly more landscaping/woodland planting to be provided. Finally - his concern
about the impact of the LAPs on the effective width of the woodland belt and these
“…reducing its potentially beneficial effects on the character and appearance of the
surrounding countryside” would arguably be offset by the additional landscaping and tree
planting proposed under the current application as detailed above.
168.
Officers do not, therefore, consider that further objection to the location of the play areas
would be justified, given the findings of the Inspector.
169.
As to the management of the public open space for the future - including the amenity openspace, the play areas, the woodland areas and the areas for ecological mitigation,
including the Habitat Creation Area - the applicant has submitted a Statement on Future
Open Space Management, which is discussed below. The securing of the future
management of any public open space is another of the requirements that applies under
policy HS17 and is an important practical consideration. The Council had under refusal
reason 6 cited the applicant’s failure to make provision to secure the delivery and on-going
management of infrastructure required - including, inter alia, open space, recreational
facilities and landscaping - as one of its concerns. However, the Inspector was clearly of
the view that - notwithstanding that - the actual delivery of the various categories of public
open space can be secured by condition, whilst their maintenance for the future, including
the funding for this, can be secured under a Unilateral Undertaking.
170.
However, the draft Unilateral Undertaking submitted with the application does not provide
for this at all. In any event - the view of officers is that a Unilateral Undertaking would not
be the appropriate vehicle by which to secure the maintenance of the public open-space
and its funding, rather a Section 106 agreement will be required. In part this reflects the
fact that in the “Statement of Future Open Space Management” submitted by the applicant
there is uncertainty as to who will maintain these areas into the future. The Statement
states that the open space areas will in the first instance be offered to the Parish Council
and, should agreement be reached on the adoption of these areas by the PC, the
proposals will be fully costed, not only for provision of the open-space (but presumably for
the cost of its maintenance too). The important point here is that - if the PC is willing to
adopt the public open space areas - then it too would need to be party to a Section 106
Agreement covering this and a Unilateral Undertaking would be inappropriate. If the PC is
unwilling to adopt the areas or no agreement is reached on the terms under which this
might happen, then they would be managed by a Management Company on behalf of the
developer at its cost - in which case it might be possible for the issue to be secured through
a Unilateral Undertaking. The view of officers is that it would be preferable if the matter
was to be secured in any event by means of Section 106 Agreement between the parties.
171.
The Skylark Mitigation Scheme would also need to be subject to its own Section 106
Agreement as the mitigation is to be undertaken on land that is in the ownership of another
party and - to secure this - that party needs to be bound by legal agreement this too needs
to be the subject of a Section 106 agreement. The use of a Unilateral Undertaking - as
proposed by the applicant - is inappropriate.
172.
In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural
Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 insofar as it is applicable to the proposal and
the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in relation to
protected species.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
34
Deletion of the proposed expansion of the Special Landscape Area (SLA)
designation for the housing site
173.
The Local Plan removed the allocation site from the SLA.
174.
The impact on the Special Landscape Area was a key concern under the previous
application and formed one of the refusal reasons (refusal reason 3) cited against the
development. . The Inspector however, did not share the view of the Council in finding no
harm to the SLA due to the woodland planting and that some impact on the countryside is
inevitable from allocating the site for residential development.
Archaeological Investigation
175.
Archaeological investigations at the site have already been undertaken. The County
Archaeologist has reviewed this and raises no objections to the development, subject to
any planning permission being granted with appropriate safeguarding conditions.
176.
No concerns in relation to the archaeological interest of the site and its protection,
therefore, arise; neither was this a concern under the previous refused application or at the
subsequent appeal.
Highway Improvements including Provision of a Footpath with Satisfactory Detailed
Proposals for Transport Measures to serve the Site
177.
The application is supported by an updated Transport Assessment. Because the current
proposal is for 4 fewer units than the refused scheme of development it will generate
marginally lower trip generation than previous forecast. Nonetheless a new trip generation
exercise has been undertaken and this has shown that all the junctions assessed are
comfortably able to accommodate the extra traffic to be generated by the development and
will operate satisfactorily. All junctions were found to have significant spare capacity. The
overall conclusion is that, subject to some improvements, the development will cause no
detriment to highway safety and may improve it in some areas.
178.
The improvements include the following:
measures to improve visibility and signage at the A134/C732 junction at
Cornard Tye;

gateway markers at each end of the village to emphasise the residential area;

an additional gateway marker at the entrance to Great Cornard in the vicinity of the
site;

an extension of the 30 mph speed limit beyond the site entrances and installation of
30 mph repeater signs along the C732 between the A134 and the north-eastern
corner of the site;

improvements to the C732/Carsons Drive/Shawlands Avenue/Canhams Road
junction with further footways/cycleways, including pedestrian crossing-refuges to
the benefit existing road users and those arising from the development;

widening of the C732 to a minimum of 6m and re-alignment of the carriageway
alongside the site to provide 2 points of access into the development;

footways to be constructed at 3m width, where there is sufficient highway land.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
35
179.
The Highway Authority’s initial response to the scheme as originally submitted was in effect
a “holding objection” - when it advised that it had no objections to the scheme in principle
but that points of detail needed to be addressed. 29 recommended amendments to the
layout were put forward relating to parking layout, junction design, road alignment and the
treatment of Restricted Byway 16 (known as Abbas Walk in parts).
180.
The scheme has now been amended accordingly and the Highway Authority’s revised
position is that it now has no objections to the development as amended and has
recommended simply that a number of planning conditions be applied if planning
permission is granted. It accepts the findings of the Transport Assessment, the proposals
in the Travel Plan and the Flood Risk Assessment (in so far as it relates to surface water
drainage from the public highway).
181.
When considering the previous application for the site’s development (B/10/00094/FUL) the
Council was concerned that the applicant had not demonstrated that the development
would be both safe and sustainable in relation to highway impact. This was largely
because the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan were inadequate - meaning that it was
not possible to fully assess the acceptability of off-site improvements, mitigation and
sustainable transport measures and the residual impact on highway safety.
182.
However, by the time of the Inquiry, the shortcomings in the Transport Assessment had
been addressed and documents were submitted to the Inquiry showing the detailed
highway measures that had been agreed between the Council and the Highway Authority.
These were accepted by the Inspector and there is nothing in his decision that has any
bearing on the position to be taken on this matter under the current application.
183.
There was, however, some dispute at the Inquiry over the Travel Plan - in particular, the
payment for monitoring of the Travel Plan, a payment towards a car-sharing scheme
participation in which is a requirement under the Travel Plan and a payment of a bond
providing insurance against failure to implement the Travel Plan. These matters were
eventually resolved.
184.
The Inspector’s conclusion in respect of these issues was that: (A) payment towards
monitoring the Travel Plan was unnecessary as the Plan would be monitored by the Travel
Plan Co-ordinator and no planning consequences would arise if payment is not made; (B) if
there is participation in the County’s car-sharing scheme payment will need to be secured
by legal agreement; and (C) the payment of a bond against failure to implement the Travel
Plan is necessary and needs to be secured by legal agreement.
185.
Implementation of the Travel Plan per se will need to be secured by planning condition.
Payments due under the Plan will be secured by legal agreement.
186.
It should be noted that - although the Inspector at the appeal concluded that payment for
Travel Plan monitoring was not warranted in that instance - the situation regarding
monitoring is slightly different with the current application. The County Council now has
clear obligations to meet under the new Travel Plan in terms of providing developer support
in the monitoring of the Plan. This was not a feature of the previous Travel Plan. Without
payment for its services - the County has indicated that it will not provide developer support
in this respect and the full scope of the monitoring required will fall to the developer,
including the costs of doing this. In the circumstances, the applicant is, therefore,
agreeable to the payment of a monitoring fee to the County reflecting the fact that it is only
right and proper that, if the County is to undertake work on its behalf, it should be paid
accordingly. The legal agreement will, therefore, need to secure the payment of this sum.
187.
As to the various highway improvements required under the Transport Assessment - these
will also need to be secured by planning condition, with the highway contribution secured
through legal agreement.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
36
188.
With the above arrangements in place - differing from the case considered at appeal only in
that a Travel Plan monitoring fee now arises - the Inspector was satisfied that the
requirements of Local Plan policy HS17 would be met in this regard and the development
would have a satisfactory effect on highway safety. Given that are no concerns under the
current application in relation to the Transport Assessment and the Travel Plan - it follows
that, subject to appropriate planning conditions being applied and obligations being
imposed by legal agreement to secure the payment of monies, then the Council’s previous
concerns under refusal reason 4 that the development had not been shown to be safe or
sustainable have been addressed by the current application now before Members as
confirmed by the LHA, which has no objections to the application.
Adequate & Appropriate Sewage Treatment
189.
This is the final criteria under saved local plan policy HS17.
190.
Anglian Water has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity at the Great Cornard Sewage
Treatment Works to accommodate the development sought. No concerns, therefore, arise
in this regard.
Conclusion (Saved Local Plan Policy HS17 Requirement
191.
The current amended proposal is, therefore, considered to satisfactorily meet the various
criteria applicable under saved Local Plan policy HS17 - subject to various matters as
described above being secured by planning condition and legal agreement.
Resilience to Climate Change and Sustainable Transport & Construction
192.
The NPPF gives great weight to the sustainable development which is considered to be a
golden thread running through the planning system. Adaption to, and resilience against,
climate change is a key consideration of sustainable development in the NPPF, as is
sustainable transport. The adopted Core Strategy places emphasis achieving on
sustainable development in policies CS12, CS13 and CS15.
193.
The ‘sustainability’ of the proposal and its resilience to climate change can be broken down
into a number of key issues, such as the accessibility of the proposed development and
measures for sustainable transport, the developments resilience to climate and social
change and the impact of construction and building performance. Other important aspects
of sustainable development such as quality design, ecology, open space provision and
safeguarding heritage are discussed elsewhere in this report.
Sustainability/Accessibility
194.
The site is considered to be in a sustainable/accessible location given the proximity of
nearby facilities. The site is within 0.5km of nine bus stops (linking Great Cornard with
Sudbury town centre) with the ability for easy pedestrian access to Carsons Drive from the
site to access them. This would open-up the town centre’s facilities to future residents
including the leisure centre, theatre and shopping. Education facilities are also easily
accessible with four schools located within 1km of the site (7-10min walk).
195.
The applicants Transport Assessment states that the average pedestrian journey in the UK
is 0.6km with the average cycle journey being 2km-5km. The Urban Design Compendium
supports this stating that a comfortable walking distance is between 0m - 400m (with 800m
being the likely maximum). The site can therefore be said to be within a comfortable
walking distance of public transport with schools being located just outside of this
threshold. Cycling would bring most of Sudbury into reach for residents without using a
car.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
37
196.
The applicant is intending to improve pedestrian and cycle connectivity so as to make
walking and cycling more convenient. Such measures include upgrading the pedestrian link
from the site to Canhams Road, providing a footpath from the site along the C732 to
Canhams Road and a cycle path through the development. The applicant has also
prepared a Travel Plan which would include a welcome pack with information on local
service and bus routes and free bus season ticket (for three months). This would assist in
establishing “sustainable” patterns of behaviour and - in principle - the measures proposed
would assist in making the development more accessible by modes other than private car
and therefore more sustainable. Future residents would, therefore, have alternative travel
options other than private car if they wanted to access the town centre or schools.
197.
Other facilities are also located nearby, including Chilton Industrial Estate and the adjoining
retail park (currently comprising of shops such as Pets at Home, Farm Foods and
Halfords). These facilities would be accessible by foot, bicycle or a short journey by car.
The industrial estate, along with the town centre, would provide reasonably convenient
employment opportunities for future residents.
198.
Local facilities are also available - such as the shops on Bures Road and Poplar Road and
a Co-op located off The Drift 500m from the site. There is also easy access to recreation
with the site abutting the countryside, linked via public rights of way, which are to be
improved, and in close proximity to Cornard Country Park, a health and fitness centre on
Canhams Road and Sudbury Rugby Club. Community facilities are also available at the
Stephenson Centre. The location of the site relative to these facilities allows for resilience
if, for example, petrol prices increase, reducing the ability to travel by private car.
Resilience to Climate Change
199.
A key issue when considering ‘resilience’ is whether the development has been designed
to adapt to climate change, such as an increased risk of flooding from heavy rain or high
energy prices.
200.
The site is located in Flood Zone 1, where there is little or no risk of flooding from rivers.
The main issue, therefore, is the risk of flooding from surface water. The site is also over
1 hectare so a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is mandatory - and has been provided,
updated as at June 2014. The applicants have developed a sustainable drainage system
to deal with surface water drainage.
201.
A surface water management strategy has been developed that has the support of the
Environment Agency. Soakage testing has demonstrated that infiltration does not provide
a suitable rate to be the primary method of surface water disposal. The strategy, therefore,
employs an attenuation basin (a lake) to allow reduction of the post development discharge
rate to a maximum of the pre-development Greenfield rate. Water would be collected in
the development in tanks, or in a swale, and piped to this lake. The water would be stored
here and slowly released into Cornard Black Brook. Water would be cleaned before
entering the Brook. All calculations for the proposed drainage features included an
appropriate factor (which was agreed by the Environment Agency) to account for climate
change and heavy rainfall.
202.
It is intended that Anglian Water and SCC would adopt elements of the system. SCC is not
entirely supportive of the proposals as they do not entirely meet their adoption standards,
but given that the EA supports the proposal, the strategy can be secured by condition with
an ongoing management and maintenance plan to be approved (this would likely involve
adoption by a suitable authority, which may or may not be SCC).
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
38
203.
Refusal reason 6 cited by the Council was concerned that the previous application made
no provision to secure the delivery and management of infrastructure - which includes the
surface water drainage system to be implemented. Surface water drainage is an element
of sustainability which was considered at the Inquiry and the view of the Inspector was that
this could be adequately be secured by conditions. Accordingly - the view of Officers is
that subject to conditions as set out in the “Recommendation” below - this matter would be
satisfactorily safeguarded in accordance with the conclusions of the Inspector on the
matter and as recommended by the Environment Agency.
High Energy Prices/Low Carbon Development
204.
To address the potential prospect of high energy prices, and to promote low carbon
development, applicants are required to prepare an Energy Assessment which should
demonstrate that at least 10% of energy produced by the dwellings could be provided from
renewable energy generation. The application is, therefore, supported by a Statement on
Renewable Energy that demonstrates this is achievable. The report, however, is unclear in
that it goes through all of the options but does not conclude which renewable options are
preferred or proposed. Certain technologies were ruled out due to noise (wind turbines) or
because it would be unviable (passive solar design). Solar power (PV and solar thermal)
appears to be the most likely. The applicant is undecided at this point in time as to which
options they propose to use.
205.
On balance, it is considered that a condition as set out in the “Recommendation” below
could be used to secure at least 10% of the predicted energy from renewable,
decentralised or low carbon sources given that there is sufficient evidence that this can be
achieved via solar panels. This would be in-line with the Inspector’s views on the matter at
the Inquiry.
Sustainable Construction
206.
Other than 10% energy generation from renewable technologies - the development would
also incorporate some sustainable construction techniques - such as higher performance of
the building envelope (the insulation of the buildings) than is required under the Building
Regulations and more internal drying space. However - overall - the commitment to
sustainable construction is fairly minimal.
207.
Core Strategy policy CS12 supports the achievement of sustainable design and
construction. However - there is nothing prescriptive under current policy or any of the
Development Plan Documents
208.
Note 1 to Core Strategy Policy CS12 indicates that site specific policies for allocated sites which this is - will eventually be set-out in Site Allocations/Development Management
DPDs, requiring compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes and at what level.
These documents have not, however, yet been produced and has been superseded by the
Governments Housing Standard Review (which has removed Code for Sustainable
Homes). In the meantime objection to the proposals on grounds that it does not achieve a
sufficiently high level under the Code for Sustainable Homes is not possible.
209.
The proposal is, therefore, policy compliant - at least in terms of current policy
requirements.
Social Cohesion & Mix
210.
Concerns have been expressed about social cohesion and mix, a key aim of sustainable
development as defined in the NPPF. The concerns relate to the siting of the proposed
affordable housing in one location mainly towards the centre of the site abutting the
footpath. Whilst there may be an aspiration for the ‘pepper potting’ of affordable housing
throughout a development the provision of affordable housing normally takes the form of
small groups of housing, as Registered Providers/Social Landlords prefer to have the
houses grouped for ease of management.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
39
211.
Although the integration of market and affordable housing could certainly be improved, the
location of the affordable units is considered acceptable as they would be central to the
development resulting in functional and practical linkages with the market houses and in
terms of the footpath link into Great Cornard. For example - the roads and access points
would be shared and market and affordable units would be side-by-side in some locations.
The dwellings would also be ‘tenure blind’ as the same materials and detailing is proposed
(although the affordable units would not have garages). It should also be noted that there
would be a good mix of affordable homes - ranging from 2 bedroom houses/flats up to five
bedroom houses. 12 bungalows are also proposed. This weighs in favour of the proposal.
212.
Because this was not an issue under any of the refusal reasons cited by the Council - it
was not an issue that was considered at the Inquiry either. The view of Officers is that the
mix and distribution of affordable units would be satisfactory, notwithstanding the
comments of the Corporate Manager – Strategic Housing.
Conclusion (Resilience
Construction)
213.
to
Climate
Change
and
Sustainable
Transport
&
In summary, the location of the development is considered to be sustainable and resilient.
The development has been designed with climate change in mind as a SuDS system has
been employed and renewable energy considered (and a condition applied to secure 10%
energy from renewable sources. The applicant has also had regard to community cohesion
by placing the affordable units where they would be integral to the scheme rather than on
the edge or in a large self-contained ‘block’. In terms of adaption to climate change and
sustainable construction the applicant has sufficiently met current policy expectations.
Impact on Heritage (Setting of Listed Buildings)
214.
The impact on the setting of Abbas Hall, a Grade I listed building, is paramount in
determining the acceptability of the application now before Members. The assessment is
complex but has been approached by considering the relevant legislation and policy, the
significance of the building, an analysis of the Appeal Inspectors findings when considering
the previous appeal (the impacts that resulted in the dismissal of the appeal), the impacts
of the current scheme before Members, what public benefits the development would deliver
and then a final balance.
Legislation and Policy
215.
In accordance with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)
Act 1990 there is a general duty placed upon local planning authorities which requires them
to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings when
considering whether to grant planning permission.
216.
Recent case law2 relating to the interpretation of s66(1) has concluded two main points,

That ‘preservation’ within this context means ‘doing no harm’, so if a development
does harm a listed building or its setting then there is a strong presumption against
granting planning permission for it.

That the requirement to have ‘special regard’ is not a material consideration against
which a Local Planning Authority can attach such weight as it sees fit. It must give
‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preserving the setting of
listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise.
2
Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v (1) East Northamptonshire District Council, (2) English Heritage, (3)
National Trust and (4) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2014) EWHC Civ 137;
and R (on the application of (1) Forge Field Society, (2) Martin Barraud, and (3) Robert Rees) v Sevenoaks
District Council (Defendant) and (1) West Kent Housing Association and (2) Philip John Algeron Viscount De
L’Isle (Interested Parties)(2014) EWHC 1895 (Admin).
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
40
217.
The NPPF states at paragraph 132 that ‘great weight’ should be given to the objective of
conserving designated heritage assets and, given this objective, all harm including harm
through development within the setting of a heritage asset, requires ‘clear and convincing
justification’. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence but
also from its setting.
218.
In this case, the impact is on the setting of the listed building rather than its fabric. The site
is considered by Officers to be in the setting of the listed building and this is not disputed
by the applicant. The Government’s planning policies for Conserving and enhancing the
historic environment are contained within Paragraphs 126 to 141 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset as,
‘The surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced - Its extent is not fixed and
may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a
positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to
appreciate that significance, or may be neutral’.
219.
As indicated by the NPPF, the concept of setting defies a precise definition. It therefore
becomes a matter of judgement whether a development proposal is likely to have an
impact or not. It is therefore important to consider the significance of the building and its
setting – i.e. what are the important features contributing to how it is understood and
experienced.
The Significance of Abbas Hall
220.
The development is located in close proximity to Abbas Hall, a Grade I listed building
located approximately 380m to the east of the residential development proposed. This
residence, built about 1290, was listed Grade I in 1971 - being a rare surviving example of
a late C13 aisled hall (albeit notably altered in the 15th and 16th centuries). The property
was associated with a medieval monastic community, the manor of Cornard having been
granted to the Benedictine Nunnery of Malling in Kent in the early 12th century and in
whose hands it remained until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century. It is
suggested that the Hall may have been the residence of the manorial steward who
managed the distant estate on behalf of the abbey.
221.
The setting/significance of Abbas Hall, the way it is experienced, comprises of three main
elements which can be summarised as follows,

The experience on approaching Abbas Hall – The hall is read in a rural landscape
and is an isolated building within a small valley. One starts to experience the Hall
on exiting the village as the rural landscape places the hall in context. The
bridleway through the site was also the historic approach. On arrival at the minor
ridge the views of the Hall start to reveal themselves. The
experience/understanding of the heritage asset begins before the building comes
into view as the landscape context is so important to understanding and
appreciating the building as are the historic approaches.

The experience once at Abbas Hall – Once at the Hall there are impressive views
back towards Sudbury and Great Cornard and across the Stour Valley. Again this
gives a sense of rural isolation with development appearing to be in the distance.
The connection of the Hall to its landscape is again reinforced here.

The cultural association with Thomas Gainsborough – This is important as the
painting ‘Cornard Wood’ is considered to have been a view looking out of the site
towards the development site and Great Cornard. The site is also considered to be
in the background of another painting, Mr and Mrs Andrews. The cultural
association is an important link to the Stour Valley landscape and is important in
appreciation the significance of the site.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
41
222.
The applicant’s Heritage Statement acknowledges that the Hall’s surroundings and setting
contribute significantly to its character. The statement notes that the Hall would still stand in
isolation and at a significant distance from other dwellings. It concludes that the proposed
development would only impact to a minor extent upon the setting of the Hall.
223.
As explained above, the ‘experience’ of the Hall commences with the first section of its
access drive which runs south from the highway and parallel with the existing BUAB. This
section of the drive appears to have been only a secondary track, following an earlier field
boundary, until it became the principal route to the Hall by the mid-C20. This section
moves, at present, through an open landscape and provides a sense of leading to an
isolated, rural site. It would be preferable for any new development, including its screening,
to be located solely to the west of this track, thereby affording the ability for the track to
retain a relationship with its landscape. Such a conclusion however, conflicts with the
allocation in the Local Plan, which is still extant and material. Therefore, the design of the
open space and LEAP would need to be sensitive, reinforcing a transition from village to
countryside.
224.
After this first section of the drive, the track turns east and it is at this point that the first
view of the Hall is possible, occupying a distant wooded site on higher ground in a gently
undulating rural landscape. Prior to the mid-C20, the principal route to the Hall appears to
have come from the west from the Wells Hall Road (it is now a bridleway/footpath).
225.
The eastern section of the drive (over the minor ridge) has the sense of a rural approach to
a remote site.
226.
Abbas Hall itself sits on a raised bank and views in a westerly direction are afforded from
the elevated west garden. The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by
reference to visual considerations. Views both of and from the asset will play an important
part. From this site, looking in the direction of the spire of the church of Saint Andrew, the
view is of distant settlement comfortably nestling within a shallow hollow in the rural
landscape. The existing development is of little architectural merit but does, to some
extent, respond to some of the site constraints, as the scale has been kept low, dark
materials used, roofs dark and unbroken and as the built form rises up the landscape, the
scale reduces to single storey (in Sheepshead Hill). Therefore, despite the amount of
housing that has occurred on the eastern edge of the village in the late C20, the perception
of the Hall as an isolated site has, to an extent, been maintained.
The Inspector’s Conclusions on the Previous Application
227.
The impact on the setting of Abbas Hall was considered at length at the Inquiry into the
previous application. The Inspector’s conclusions on this are important considerations to
which the Council must have regard.
228.
In summary - the Inspector concluded that - although the isolated character of Abbas Hall and the view from the Abbas Hall driveway that is accepted as inspiring Gainsborough’s
pictures of Cornard Wood - would be marginally affected by the development in the
southern half of the site and would also be compromised by the elevated position, height
and size of the proposed dwellings closest to the brow of the hill along the access drive to
Abbas Hall - the development overall would not lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of the heritage assets. Rather - it would be less than substantial harm and - in
accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF - this less than substantial harm should be
weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
229.
It is important to emphasise that the Inspector was not querying the allocation of the site for
housing because of the marginal impact that the site’s development would have on the
setting of the listed building and on key views to and from it. Indeed, he states in
paragraph 116 that:“I…in dismissing this appeal, make it clear that I do so only on the basis of its identified
deficiencies and not in contradiction of the allocation of the site for development including
about 170 dwellings.”
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
42
230.
He also commented that:“There is no information to suggest that a scheme cannot be designed which would be fully
satisfactory in all respects; indeed, several of the Council’s witnesses expressed the view
that this could be done fairly speedily. I have no reason to disagree…”
231.
It was also stated at paragraph 111 that although there are:“…marginal impacts on the view from Abbas Hall and the view associated with the
Gainsborough paintings caused by the development of the southern part of the site…this is
not a new impact resulting from this particular scheme; the impact on the view from the
lake in the grounds of Abbas Hall is inherent in the allocation of the land within the
development plan and was specifically taken into account at the time that the allocation
was made.”
232.
The principle of the site’s development for housing per se was, therefore, clearly accepted
by the Inspector - notwithstanding the “less than substantial” impact of the development on
heritage assets. The impact/harm related to the specific detail of what was proposed.
233.
Turning now to the detail of the development and the implications of this for the listed
building and its setting - the Council’s main concerns in refusing planning permission for
the previous scheme on grounds of harm to the setting of the listed building (refusal
reason 1) were that;

the particular design, scale and layout of the development on its eastern side mean
that parts of it would be visible above the top of the slope on its eastern side and
would be visible from the Hall and the access track that leads up to it on the eastern
side of the ridge that is proposed to be planted as a woodland belt and

the mitigatory woodland planting was inadequate.
234.
These were key issues for consideration at the Inquiry and it is, therefore, necessary to
examine carefully the views of the Inspector on these matters.
235.
He concluded in this respect at paragraphs 34 - 36 and 76 of his decision letter that:-
236.
(A)
“…the isolated character of Abbas Hall would be compromised by the elevated
position, height and size of the proposed dwellings closest to the brow of the hill
along the access drive to Abbas Hall. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to
policy CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration no 2) adopted in 2006 (the LP)
which requires that new work within the setting of a listed building should retain a
setting that is appropriate to the listed building and the relationship with its
surroundings. The isolated character of Abbas Hall and the (non-designated)
heritage asset which is the view from the Abbas Hall driveway accepted as inspiring
Gainsborough’s pictures of Cornard Wood would also be marginally affected by the
development in the southern half of the site, though not to an extent greater than
that envisaged by the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector. Bearing in mind that the
isolated character of Abbas Hall is not its primary significance and that the effect on
the “Gainsborough” view would be marginal and in-line with that anticipated by the
local plan Inspector, it follows that the development would not lead to substantial
harm to or total loss of significance of the heritage assets. It would be less than
substantial harm. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF, this less than
substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal;”
(B)
“the location of LAP+2 no 2 would contribute to the adverse effect of the proposal
on the setting of Abbas Hall.”
It is this detail that the applicant has attempted to address in the current submission.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
43
Impact from the Current Application
237.
Dealing with his concerns under (A) - the Inspector is referring to the 2 houses on plots 82
and 138 adjacent to the access-way to the Hall. He noted that the ridge of house on plot
82 would stand about 4m higher than the brow of the hill and that on plot 138 about 4.5m
higher than the brow of the hill. More specifically he went on to comment that “…the
houses on both plots 82 and 138 would be substantial five-bedroomed houses. Their
footprint would be about 75 square metres each, comparable to, and therefore competing
with, Abbas Hall itself. From this, it is clear that the isolation of Abbas Hall in its setting
would be compromised by this aspect of the development proposed.”
238.
It is, therefore, clear that, if the impact on the setting of Abbas Hall is to be satisfactorily
addressed, then these two aspects of the scheme need to be changed.
239.
The current application has, therefore, been amended to ensure that development does not
now project above the brow of the hill at this point and does not visually encroach into the
setting of the Hall and the views to and from it. This has been achieved by the removal of
the two houses in question and also the children’s play area at the brow of the hill (LAP+”
No 2) - which has now been taken into the development as part of the linear-park - and the
area so released given over to landscaping.
240.
In refusing planning permission on grounds of harm to the setting of the listed building the
Council was likewise concerned about these elements of the scheme - though probably
more so than the Inspector insofar as Officers took the view that houses at the top of the
slope that is easternmost side of the site should probably not be the tallest and biggest of
those proposed, which is what is sought, and/or that the development should lie below the
45m AOD contour and/or that it should be designed to harmonise and integrate with the
landscape - for example, by giving the plots on the edge of the development large gardens
capable of accommodating significant landscaping.
241.
It is correct now as a matter of planning judgment to give most weight to the Inspector’s
view on these matters. Insofar as he was only concerned about the impact of the two large
houses on plots 82 and 138 and the intrusion of LAP+2 No 2 into the setting of the Hall and
did not comment that the smaller and lower houses should be proposed on the higher parts
of the site, then the judgement that needs to be made here is whether the removal of the
two houses in question and also the play area would satisfactorily address his concerns.
242.
As to the Council’s concern about the adequacy of the mitigatory woodland planting in
terms of its ability of limit the impact on the setting of the listed building - this is not
something on which the Inspector commented specifically. Nonetheless, it is fact that the
removal of the houses on plots 82 and 138 and also the LAP+2 No 2 would in combination
release a sizeable additional area that is now available for landscaping as part of the
woodland belt. This would satisfactorily address the concerns of officers about the
adequacy of the woodland belt at this point and its ability to protect the setting of
Abbas Hall.
243.
The view of Officers is that the unsatisfactory impact of these aspects of the scheme has
been satisfactorily addressed in terms of the Inspector’s conclusions. The Heritage Team
have concluded that the specific points of detailed concern raised by the Inspector have
been mitigated but there is still ‘less than substantial’ albeit ‘very marginal’ harm, as one
would still be aware of the presence of the estate when approaching Abbas Hall or from
looking back at Great Cornard – in this regards the development is an encroachment into
the buildings setting which diminishes the sense of rural isolation. The identification of
harm therefore requires Members to balance the harm against public benefits having
regard to the s66 test. There is the need to have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the listed building and its setting and to give the harm to the setting
considerable importance and weight.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
44
Alternatives
244.
In Forge Fields [above] it was accepted that normally a local authority need not consider
alternatives but that on the facts of that case there was a need to consider alternatives.
[paragraph 84 and 85]. That was a case where there were relatively few sites and an
identified need in Penshurst for about six dwellings and the site applied for was not
allocated.
245.
Forge Field does not seek to go further than Trusthouse Forte v Secretary of State (1986)
P&CR 239 which it cites with approval. Trusthouse sets out at principle 3 and 4 that
comparison with alternatives will generally be material where only very few permissions
can be granted for the development like for an airport in contrast to a development for
housing.
246.
In addition the Court of Appeal in Derbyshire Dales v Secretary of State set out that for a
wind farm development that conflicted with the Development plan and with policies that
sought to protect a national park it did not require there to be consideration of alternatives.
247.
The site was submitted through the local plan process and was subject to a rigorous site
selection process. Alternative sites were considered both district wide and in the locality at
the 1st and 2nd Deposit Plan Stages. The Carson’s Drive site was selected as appropriate
for development through the Local Plan site selection and examination process and
consequently was allocated in the Local Plan (2006).
248.
The application as submitted has to be considered on its merits. The application is on a site
allocated in the Babergh Local Plan (2006).
249.
The Cornard Tye Residents Association suggested that there needs to be proper
consideration of 3 matters.

Putting many fewer units on this site and putting the remaining units somewhere
else at ES1-5 or Chilton and the area of Radiator Road;

Designing the development so as to minimise the harm to the heritage asset and its
setting;

Locating the development in a way to minimise harm to the heritage asset and its
setting including relocating the access track along the valley floor.
250.
Looking at these matters in turn;
251.
There is not an alternative proposal for consideration which brings forward a development
of fewer units on this site. The alternative site suggested by the Residents Association at
Radiator Road is not an allocated site, and the site ES1-5 referred to is at an early stage of
consideration within the Council’s Issues and Options consultation for strategic site
allocations. None of the sites referred to are currently the subject of planning applications
at this time.
252.
As regards a different design of the proposal, there is no proposal which has been put
forward that would cause less harm but achieve the benefits sought in the allocation by
Cornard Tye Residents Association or anyone else. In previous consideration by the
Planning Inspector, the contribution to supply and the principle of development at the site
was noted, including the issues that were inherent in the allocation of the site. The issue
which resulted in the appeal being dismissed was the design and the developer has
already made many iterations of the design. The Inspector at the appeal effectively came
to the conclusion that a scheme could be made acceptable with the modifications that have
now been made. The scheme that has come forward has sought to minimise the harm to
the setting without losing the benefits of the allocation.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
45
253.
Relocating the access track along the valley floor is not part of the proposal and is not,
therefore, something that can be considered as part of the application. As detailed above,
the assessment to be made now is in respect of the application as submitted.
254.
The Council is now satisfied through various iterations and plans and applications for this
site that the developer has considered reasonably whether it is possible to develop this site
and minimise harm to the setting of the listed building. The application does minimise the
harm without compromising the benefits of building out the allocation.
Balance
255.
The above assessment has demonstrated that the development would result in some very
marginal harm. This is considered to be less than substantial harm as per Paragraph 134
of the NPPF. Although the harm is considered to be very marginal, it is still harm and
therefore in accordance with s66 special regard must be given to the desirability of
preserving the setting of the listed building i.e. special regard should be given to doing no
harm. This does not mean that harm cannot occur, it means that any harm must be given
considerable importance and weight but can be outweighed by compelling public benefits.
256.
In this instance, the public benefits can be summarised as follows,

Delivery of 166 homes – the housing forms part of an allocation. The delivery of the
housing would have inherent social and economic benefits and assist with five year
housing supply;

Delivery of 35% affordable housing – due to viability constraints, few recent
developments have been able to deliver full policy compliance in terms of affordable
housing, this factor therefore weighs in favour of the proposal;

The proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Development
Plan policies, the NPPF and the Babergh Local Plan (2006) saved policies HS17 &
CN06;

Improved access to the countryside - The proposal would also deliver improved
public access to the countryside here and improved pedestrian and cycling links
with the surroundings more generally to make walking and cycling more convenient.
Such measures include upgrading the pedestrian link from the site to Canhams
Road, providing a footpath from the site along the C732 to Canhams Road and a
cycle path through the development;

There would also be landscape improvements to the Special Landscape Area as a
result of the considerable woodland planting that would be undertaken and this
would not only help screen the development in the setting of the listed building but
would also help enhance the isolation of its setting. Specially managed areas of
new habitat for wildlife would also be created. These are worthwhile and significant
public benefits that would also offer improved connectivity and opportunities for
informal recreation by local people and would benefit local ecology and biodiversity.
These are not necessarily benefits that would accrue from the development of other
sites instead and could link into the Parish Councils wider aspirations for green
infrastructure around Great Cornard;

Interpretative material - an interpretation board would be erected to better aid the
understanding and significance of Abbas Hall (this would be secured by way of
planning condition).
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
46
257.
The applicant has also attempted to avoid and lessen some of the impacts by making the
approach to Abbas Hall more ‘leafy’ giving the impression that one would be walking
through a transition zone from Great Cornard to the Special Landscape of the Stour Valley
from which Abbas Hall derives much of its significance.
258.
In isolation, none of these public benefits would be sufficient to outweigh harm to the
setting of a listed building. However, in combination these public benefits are sufficient to
outweigh the very marginal harm to the setting of the listed building identified even when
considerable importance and weight is given to the desirability of preserving the setting of
that building.
259.
In summary, therefore, your Officers conclude the following,
260.

That the applicant has mitigated the impacts identified by the Planning Inspector;

Nonetheless there is still very marginal harm to the setting of Abbas Hall as the
development would erode its rural isolation – this harm being categories as ‘less
than substantial’;

Officers have therefore applied the balance required by para 134 of the NPPF
having special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed
building as required by s66 and given the harm to the setting considerable
importance and weight;

The outcome of this balancing exercise is that public benefits identified outweigh
the less than substantial harm (which itself is very marginal) even when that harm is
given considerable importance and weight.
The impact on the setting of Abbas Hall is not therefore, considered to be a reason to resist
the approval of this application.
Impact on Special Landscape Area
261.
The Council also refused planning permission for the previous scheme on grounds of
adverse visual impact on the countryside and Special Landscape Area by virtue of the
proposed design and layout of the scheme.
262.
However, the Inspector for the most part rejected the Council’s objections in this regard.
263.
He identified a key consideration here to be the effect of the development on the
surrounding countryside, much of which is designated as the Stour Valley Special
Landscape Area - in relation to which the key question is whether upper valley slopes
above the proposal would remain undeveloped, offering a setting of mature vegetation.
264.
His conclusion was that “…the development would not break the skyline and there would
remain undeveloped upper slopes on higher ground behind the development. Some of
these are well-wooded. The woodland planting proposed as part of the development,
although located on the ridge-line within the site, would not, in fact, be on the skyline, which
is formed by a higher plateau beyond, but it would, in time, add to the setting of mature
vegetation on the valley sides.” He then went on to comment at paragraph 41 that “…from
much of the surrounding area, views of Sudbury would still be of a town sitting comfortably
in the valley and set amongst mature vegetation, irrespective of the success of any planting
within the site.”
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
47
265.
Moreover “…the effects of the proposal on the countryside in short distance views are,
therefore, entirely consistent with the expected effects of the inclusion of the proposal
within the development plan, namely; there would be a change in character from
countryside from countryside to urban development. However, this does not amount to a
reason to refuse permission for such a development on a site included within the
development plan for that purpose. In any event, none of these short distance views
encompasses land within the Stour Valley Special Landscape Area.”
266.
His conclusion was that “…the proposal would have no significant adverse effect on the
character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and that aspects of the proposal,
namely, the woodland planting and the attenuation pond would make a positive
contribution to reinforce the character and appearance of the Stour Valley Special
Landscape Area.”
267.
Officers are of the view that the Inspector’s overall conclusion on this matter should be
given considerable weight and that the scheme should not be refused on the grounds of
harm to the appearance of the countryside and SLA.
268.
The one area where the Inspector did agree with the Council was in relation to the two
houses previously proposed on plots 82 and 138. These have been removed from the
scheme. It is also the case that LAP+2 No 2 has been removed from the location in the
woodland belt - to make the impact on the setting on the listed building acceptable - but
this also lessens the impact on the appearance of the countryside and the Special
Landscape Area.
269.
Objections to the scheme on grounds of harm to the appearance of the countryside and the
Special Landscape Area are, therefore, no longer sustainable.
Highway Safety
270.
The issue of highway safety has largely been dealt with under Principle of Development where the tests applied under saved local plan policy HS17 if residential development of
the site is to be judged to be acceptable are discussed. One of the tests is that which
requires appropriate highway improvements if the site’s development is to proceed.
271.
From assessing the consultation responses received it is clear that the impact on highway
safety is an issue of considerable concern for residents in the area. The consultation
responses show that residents are concerned by the volume of traffic and the
intensification of use of the surrounding road network, particularly along the C732.
272.
Nonetheless - the conclusions of the Transport Assessment that supports the application
are accepted by Highway Authority, which is - subject to certain specific measures and
improvements - is content with its highway impact.
273.
Moreover the specific measures/improvements proposed to make the development
acceptable in highway terms will satisfactorily limit its impact on the functioning of the local
road network and junctions and on highway safety more generally.
274.
Subject to the securing of the highway improvements by condition - and where payments
are required - the securing of these through legal agreement, no highway concerns arise.
275.
The appeal Inspector was also content with the measures proposed, subject to these being
secured by planning condition as appropriate and, where monies are payable, through
legal agreement.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
48
Environmental Impacts
276.
The Council’s Environmental Protection Team has confirmed that the development would
have an acceptable impact on air quality and land contamination. The reports submitted to
address these issues are sufficiently robust.
277.
The main environmental issue is, therefore, whether the development would have an
adverse impact on ecology.
278.
The Suffolk Wildlife Trust has been consulted on the current scheme but no response has
been received this time. That said - the current scheme of development is substantially the
same scheme (in terms of its broad approach and its ecological impacts) as that previously
considered at the appeal in November 2013 (B/10/00094/FUL) - and this relied on survey
data from July 2013. Whilst more up-to-date survey data might ideally be desirable - it is
not considered that what is available from July 2013 is so out-of-date as to be inappropriate
for use in assessing the ecological impacts today.
279.
The findings of the appeal in terms of the ecological impacts are, therefore, considered to
be relevant in taking a view on these issues today.
280.
The Council had refused planning permission (refusal reason 5) on the grounds that the
survey data on which the Ecological Assessment was based was too out-of-date (2009) for
the Council to rely on it and be able to reach a properly considered decision on the matter
in 2013. In the event - between the Council’s decision in April 2013 and the appeal in
November 2013 - the applicant commissioned a fresh survey for the appeal and this was
the basis for the Inspector’s findings on the matter. In the meantime - the Council had
commissioned the County Council’s Ecology Team on a consultancy basis to provide it
with advice.
281.
Key findings were that - although the biodiversity enhancements within the development
generally are welcomed - mitigation and compensation for impacts is also required to
comply with planning policy - in particular, specific measures are required in respect of the
high number of skylarks associated with the habitat provided by “set aside” land within the
application site which - subject to up-to-date survey still finding them to be present. In turn,
if high numbers of skylark are still using the development site, the applicant should
consider the provision of alternative habitat within their ownership as mitigation. Survey in
July 2013 found skylarks still present. That being the case - the applicant should,
therefore, consider the provision of alternative habitat within their ownership as mitigation;
alternatively, if this is not possible, then the impact should be offset by securing sufficient
skylark plots in cereal crops in the ownership of neighbouring landowners. This is the
option that was suggested in the Ecological Assessment submitted with the previous
application (Jan 2010) and this is carried through into the Ecological Position Statement
submitted with the current application.
282.
Because there had been no resolution of this matter at the time that the previous
application was being considered - and because of the Council’s duties, in assessing
planning applications, to have regard to the provisions of (i) the Natural Environment and
Rural Communities Act 2006, and (ii) the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 - in relation to protected species - the previous application was refused.
283.
The position now is that the issues relating to ecology generally and to skylark mitigation in
particular are resolved. The appeal Inspector considered these matters at the appeal and
was of the view that those relating to the woodland planting, the wildlife meadow and the
open space generally could all be dealt with by condition. He also considered the
measures to protect skylarks - with which he was content, as set-out in the Skylark
Mitigation Scheme - were acceptable. The same specification as he agreed at the appeal
has been carried forward with the current application.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
49
284.
The view of officers is, therefore, that - subject to these matters being secured through
condition and by legal agreement as appropriate - there are no longer any grounds to reject
the proposal on these grounds and refusal reason 5 may be considered to be addressed.
The Skylark Mitigation Scheme would need to be secured by legal agreement – rather than
unilateral undertaking - as this involves the use of land not in the ownership of the
applicant.
Urban Design
285.
Policy CN01 of the Local Plan requires all new development to be of an appropriate scale,
form, design and finish. Delivering quality urban design is a core aim of the NPPF stating,
in Paragraph 56, that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and
indivisible from good planning, and in Paragraph 64 it states that permission should be
refused for poor design which fails to take opportunities to improve the character and
quality of an area and the way it functions. The NPPF (in paragraph 62) also promotes
local design review to ensure high standards of design.
286.
This approach is reinforced by the Planning Minster (in a statement of the 6 December
2012) where he raised concerns that new residential developments lacked “beauty”,
specifically he stated that:“Local authorities put too few sites in their local plans....Developers respond by stuffing as
many units as they can onto any site and, in an attempt to make the properties affordable,
skimp on room size, architectural features, vernacular materials, communal spaces and
landscape design...in a nutshell, because we don’t build beautifully, people don’t let us
build much. And because we don’t build much we can’t afford to build beautiful. ....my
personal mission as planning minister, is to help us break out of this vicious circle where
we build beautiful urban landscapes full of affordable houses surrounded by green
spaces...”
287.
It was against that application that the previous proposal was considered. The Council’s
view was that good design is a key element of sustainable development and the design
and layout of the scheme were poor and lacked place-making and should be rejected.
288.
In reaching that view - it was also informed by its assessment of the proposal under the
criteria set out by CABE (now part of the Design Council) in a toolkit called ‘Building for
Life’ (BFL), which assesses how a development integrates, looks and functions resulting in
a more objective assessment of design quality. It scored poorly.
289.
The proposal was also considered by an Independent Design Panel of experts in line with
the advice of para 62 of the NPPF. The view of the Panel was that they could not support
the proposal either - though they did consider that a design solution was achievable that
would mitigate the landscape impact whilst making a positive contribution to the settlement.
290.
The views of the Inspector on this matter are now, therefore, critical in reaching a view on
this important matter in the context of the current application. He considered this in detail
in paragraphs 48 to 93 of his decision letter where he identified a range of issues to be
examined.
291.
His overall conclusion on the refused scheme was that “…the local context does not set
such a good example in all respects that the scheme should be bound by it. The appeal
scheme would be of its own time, would have its own character and that would not be
wrong.” In short - he did not reject the basic design concept.
292.
He also said that some elements which would contribute to its character are as yet not fully
specified or would require to be secured by conditions - for example, the materials to be
used.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
50
293.
That said - he also acknowledged that there were certain elements that did need attention.
In particular “…the conclusion must be that the scheme is capable of improvement in a
number of elements which would not, by themselves, amount to a reason for dismissing
the appeal but which need to be taken into the overall balance and there is one part of the
proposed scheme which would be quite unacceptable and that is the setting of plots 105110….Although the proposal would largely comply with Local Plan policy CN01, which
requires developments to be of an appropriate scale, form, detailed design and
construction materials, it would fail to comply with its fifth bullet point in this respect. That
requires interesting and attractive public and private spaces in and around the
development, which plots 105 to 110 lack entirely.”
294.
Other areas he identified as requiring attention - in addition to plots 105 to 110 - are: the
degree of surveillance of the linear park; and the parking arrangements in certain parts of
the site.
295.
Each issue of concern is taken in turn:The Setting of Plots 105 to 110
296.
The Inspector was very concerned about the environment proposed for the 6 flats that
comprised plots 105 to 110.
297.
As proposed - this block of flats would have been almost devoid of all landscaping and
would have been surrounded by car-parking or roads on all 4 sides. It would also have
backed onto a parking area at the rear and would have been so close to the back-edge of
footway that there would be little in the way of a landscaped setting for the development
and it certainly would have not enjoyed the “interesting and attractive public and private
spaces” in and around it - as required under bullet point five of Local Plan (saved) policy
CN01.
298.
The block in question was part of a larger development of flats on this part of the site - now
comprising plots 88 to 104 - and the applicant has responded to this criticism by redesigning this whole area entirely to provide a more spacious and better landscaped
setting for all the flats, which would now be set-back from the road and would look onto an
enclosed communal amenity space of reasonable size shared by all the units. As now
amended - this would be a significant improvement and Officers consider to satisfactorily
address the Inspector’s concerns in this regard (and the requirements of policy CN01).
Degree of Surveillance of the Linear Park
299.
The Inspector was also concerned about the degree of surveillance that would apply over
the centrally located linear-park that would run roughly east-west through the site. This
has already been discussed above under “Consultations” where the position of the
Corporate Manager - Public Realm was noted.
300.
The main point here, however, is that the layout has been amended to increase the
number of houses that would look into the linear-park - to increase the degree of
surveillance afforded to the area. In addition - one of the LAPs has also now been
incorporated into the area, along with a cycleway - thereby increasing the presence of
people in the area and adding to the degree of surveillance enjoyed. The size of the linear
park has also been increased as a result of these changes.
301.
In combination, it is the view of officers these changes will satisfactorily address this
concern.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
51
Parking
302.
The third main area of concern expressed by the Inspector was in relation to 3 areas of
parking within the development.
303.
In his decision letter the Inspector commented that an analysis carried-out during the
Inquiry showed that “…there were three points where the layout proposed would require
residents to drive past their own house before reaching their designated parking space in a
rear parking court. This is a feature which is recognised as likely to lead to on-street
parking in preference to the less-convenient parking court…. Although an undesirable
feature which must be taken-in to the overall balance…” he also commented that there
would be “relatively few instances where this feature is manifest…unlikely to lead to a
general problem requiring the appeal to be dismissed for this reason alone.” Nonetheless his view was this is clearly an issue that contributes to the success of a layout and amounts
to an inefficient use of land because an access-way needs to be provided to a rear parking
court. It, therefore, falls to be addressed.
304.
The applicant has responded by changing the layout in the areas identified by the
Inspector. Rear parking-courts have been removed where possible, different house-types
have been substituted - though still within the same range overall - and units removed
where necessary to achieve improvements. These improvements will also benefit the
appearance of the development, the way in which it functions and reduce the extent to
which on-street car-parking might take place.
305.
One of the areas of concern was the terraced houses comprising plots 25 to 32 - which
were previously to have consisted of two no 4 unit terraces, served by a central-positioned
parking-court. Some of the residents here would certainly have needed to drive past their
house to reach this parking court. The scheme here has, therefore, been amended to
substitute 4 pairs of semi-detached houses, each with their own in-curtilage parking - which
clearly minimise any propensity to park on the road.
306.
Another area of concern in this regard was the parking arrangements in the vicinity of the
flats comprising plots 105 to 110. This was also a matter of concern to the Inspector in
terms of the quality of the environment that would be created for potential occupiers, which
has already been discussed at paras 275 to 277.
307.
In making the changes they have and as described above - the applicant has also revised
the parking arrangements to make them more conveniently and more easily accessible to
flat-dwellers on this part of the estate. The Highway Authority raises no objections to the
revised parking layout as proposed either.
308.
The final area where the Inspector raised concern was the parking arrangements for plots
64 to 70 - which were previously to have been provided as 7 units in two short-terraces, all
served by a rear parking-court. This layout would, however, likely have resulted in some
on-street parking because residents would have needed to drive past their house to access
the rear parking court.
309.
The applicant has responded to this criticism by completely re-designing this part of the
development. The rear parking-court has now been removed completely and rather than
the units being provided as two short terraces - they would now be provided as 3 pairs of
semi-detached houses (1 unit has been removed), each with their own in-curtilage parking,
with only the visitor parking spaces provided communally in a small group that would be
directly accessible from the private shared-surface drive serving this part of the estate.
This too would be an improvement that would reduce the propensity for residents to park in
the road.
310.
This arrangement is likewise acceptable to the Highway Authority.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
52
311.
Overall - it is the view of Officers that the revised layout and parking arrangements are not
only a significant improvement in terms of minimising the likelihood of drivers parking
indiscriminately on the road but would also be a benefit visually. The concerns of the
Inspector are considered to be satisfied.
Impact on Residential Amenity
312.
The NPPF states that the amenity of existing and future resident is a key planning
consideration. Within this context, the main issue is whether the dwellings on the periphery
of the development would unreasonably reduce the level of amenity current enjoyed by the
occupants of surrounding houses by way of loss of light, overlooking and overbearing.
There are no section drawings to demonstrate the relationship.
313.
Nonetheless, the distance between Chaplin Walk and Turkentine Close and the residential
properties proposed is in excess of 25m; 21m is generally considered an acceptable
distance. Although the proposed properties would be on higher land and two and a half
storeys high, this distance along with the intervening landscaping (the TPO tree belt) would
ensure there is no unreasonable over-looking, loss of light or over bearing impact.
314.
The properties in De Greys Close would be slightly closer but the proposed dwellings are
orientated sideways on so there is no back-to-back over-looking and the massing is
reduced. The distance is also reasonable being on average 21m away, although the
closest property is 4m (but located in a building-line with the existing properties).
315.
There are no concerns relating to the relationship of properties within the development. All
properties would have a reasonable level of amenity.
Planning Obligations
316.
The provision and management of public open space has already been discussed in this
report as has sky lark mitigation and affordable housing. Other planning obligations would
be
317.
Other obligations identified and agreed by the applicant are

Primary school age children, age 5 to 11. 41 pupils. Cost per place is £12,181
(2014/15 costs). Total cost £499,421; Primary School contribution to be spent at
Great Cornard Wells Hall County Primary School;

Pre-school provision. 15 hours per week over 38 weeks of the year. Plus 15 hours
for all disadvantaged 2 year olds. 16 pupils. Cost per place is £6,091 (2014/15
costs). Total cost £97,456;
Early years contribution to be spent at Stepping
Stones in Great Cornard;

Libraries: £35,856; Library contribution to be spent at Great Cornard Library;

Waste: £51 per dwelling, giving a total of £8,466 for 166 dwellings. Waste
contribution to be spent on new household waste provision in Sudbury.
318.
The above are considered to be Policy complaint (Policy CS21) mitigating the impacts
identified.
319.
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.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
53
Summary/Conclusion
320.
This then is an appraisal of the current application, incorporating an analysis of the appeal
decision too and assessing the extent to which the previously cited refusal reasons can
apply any longer in the context of the appeal decision and appraising the specific changes
made to meet the Inspector’s concerns. The Inspector’s conclusions are an important
consideration to which the Council must have regard in reaching a view on the current
proposal - which is substantially the same scheme as that dismissed at appeal, save for
the changes necessary to address the specific points of detailed concern raised by the
Inspector.
321.
It is important to keep in mind that - although the appeal was dismissed - the principle of
development was not rejected and in essence the Inspector’s findings were that - subject to
certain matters of detail being satisfactorily addressed the development is acceptable.
322.
The Inspector’s decision has, therefore, changed the context in which the application falls
to be considered and the current scheme is substantially the same as the previous scheme
- amended solely to address the Inspector’s concerns. In those circumstances it is correct
to give very considerable weight to Inspector’s conclusions on the issues.
323.
Clearly not all the Council’s refusal reasons were supported. For example, refusal
reason 3 (adverse impact on the surrounding countryside and special landscape area) was not supported at all - indeed, the Inspector concluded that aspects of the proposals
would be an improvement for the Special Landscape Area, while refusal reason 1 (harm to
heritage - in particular, harm to the setting of Abbas Hall, including the views to and from
the building) - was considered to amount to “less than substantial harm” such that the
impact could be satisfactorily reduced by appropriate amendment, which has been done in
this latest application. Likewise - save for those areas discussed above - many of the
design and layout deficiencies cited against the development (refusal reason 2) he
regarded as matters of judgement and balance; missed opportunities and matters which
could be improved upon rather than matters which actually cause harm such that they
constitute grounds to refuse permission in themselves.
324.
For the avoidance of doubt - the issues identified by the Inspector are in summary:-
325.

adverse impact on the setting of Abbas Hall as a result of the two houses previously
proposed on plots 82 and 138 - removal of the two houses on plots 82 and 138 to
ensure that development does not project up over the brow of the hill and into the
views to and from Abbas Hall;

unsuitable location of the play area at the brow of the hill in terms of convenience
and proximity to potential users - which would also harm views to and from
Abbas Hall;

unsatisfactory environment for the flats on plots 105 to 110, which would be
surrounded on all sides by parking and roads;

potential for indiscriminate on-street parking in particular areas of the development
where rear parking-courts are remote from and/or inconvenient to the houses they
serve;

inadequate surveillance of the “linear park.”
Overall the view of Officers is that the matters identified by the Inspector as needing
attention to make the development acceptable have been satisfactorily addressed by the
amendments that have been made to the scheme, namely:-
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
54

removal of the two houses on plots 82 and 138 to ensure that development does
not project up over the brow of the hill and into the views to and from Abbas Hall;

relocation into the development of the play area at the brow of the hill - which would
harmed views to and from Abbas Hall;

redesign of that part of the site what includes plots 105 to 110 to give these
particular units - and others around - an improved environment;

improvement of the parking arrangements so that fewer of the units would be reliant
on rear parking courts and reduce the tendency of drivers to park on the main roads
through the estate;

improved surveillance of the “linear park” by amending the layout of this part of the
development so that more houses look over the park, locating the play-area
previously sited at the brow of the hill on the approach to and from Abbas Hall where it would be harmful to the setting of the listed building - into it and
incorporating of a separate cycle-way through it.
326.
He also considered that many matters could be satisfactorily dealt with by planning
condition and/or secured by s106 planning obligations and, subject to these being
satisfactorily agreed and applied, the impact of the development would be acceptable.
327.
The Inspector did, of course, state at paragraph 114 that “The proposal would bring
disadvantages of its own with no advantages of its own” but he then went on at paragraph
116 to say that “I…in dismissing this appeal, make it clear that I do so only on the basis of
its identified deficiencies and not in contradiction of the allocation of the site for
development, including about 170 dwellings.”
This, in turn, means that, subject to
identified deficiencies being addressed satisfactorily, it was his view that the development
of the site as sought would be acceptable.
328.
The assessment of this application has identified that the development as now proposed is
in accordance with the development plan, the NPPF and the Babergh Local Plan (2006)
saved policies HS17 & CN06. In particular regard to policy HS17, the proposal has been
assessed against the specific criteria set out within policy HS17 and is considered to
satisfactorily meet these criteria - subject to various matters being secured by planning
condition and legal agreement.
329.
The application has been submitted with a draft Unilateral Undertaking covering various
matters.
330.
However - Officers are of the opinion that not all matters can be dealt with by Unilateral
Undertaking and certain of them will need to be dealt with by Section 106 agreement.
331.
The first matter that needs to be secured by section 106 agreement is Skylark Mitigation
because this involves the use of land in the ownership of another party and they need to be
bound by legal agreement too. The applicant has included this in the draft Unilateral
Undertaking but this is not appropriate for use where third parties need to be bound;
332.
The second such matter that needs to be secured by Section 106 Agreement would is the
maintenance of the woodland belt, the wild-flower meadow and other areas of habitat
creation, along with the various play-areas and public open-space - together with the
provision of monies to cover this - for an agreed period. A Section 106 Agreement is
required to secure this too - as opposed to a Unilateral Undertaking - as the likelihood is
that the Parish Council will be adopting these for the future and they will need to be party to
an agreement too.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
55
333.
Other matters - such as the County Council contributions required in respect of such
matters as education, libraries, etc. - as detailed below - and the highway and Travel Plan
contributions can be dealt with by s106 obligation.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 31 OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING
(DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2010 (AS AMENDED)
334.
When determining applications the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 requires Local Planning Authorities to
explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve
any problems or issues arising. In this case the viability of the proposals, their ability to
deliver the range of social and physical infrastructure required of new housing
development, including affordable housing, and the changes necessary to address the
Appeal Inspector’s concerns have been subject to extensive discussion and scrutiny including at appeal - in relation to the previous scheme of development on the site (ref
B/10/00094/FUL) and has led to the Council being able to take a positive view of the
current proposals.
RECOMMENDATION
(1)
That, subject to satisfactory resolution of the matters raised by the Corporate Manager –
Waste, the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to:(i)
secure s106 planning obligations in respect of the following:
payment of developer contributions in respect of the following -

libraries;

waste handling;

pre-school provision;

primary school provision;

secondary school contribution age 11 years to 16 years;

secondary school contribution 16 years plus;

highway contribution;

Travel Plan monitoring;

Travel Plan Bond.

provision of Affordable Housing in the mix and forms of tenure agreed and
constructed HCA Design & Quality Standards and a minimum of Level 3 of
the Code for Sustainable Homes required by the HCA or such other
specification as may be agreed and subject to (A) not more than 25% of the
Open Market Dwellings being occupied until 50% of the Affordable Housing
Dwellings (i) have been constructed to the satisfaction of the Registered
Provider, (ii) are ready for occupation; and (iii) have been transferred to the
registered provider and (B) not more than 75% of the Open Market
Dwellings being occupied until all of the Affordable Housing Dwellings (i)
have been constructed to the satisfaction of the Registered Provider, (ii) are
ready for occupation; and (iii) have been transferred to the Registered
Provider.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
56
(2)

implementation of the Skylark Mitigation Scheme on the Skylark Mitigation
Land;

the maintenance of the play-areas, the woodland planting, the wild-flower
meadow, the other areas of habitat creation and the areas of public openspace, either by the developer at its cost or by such other party as may be
agreed by the Local Planning Authority, in which case the payment of
agreed monies to cover this for a period to be agreed will also be required.
That, subject to the satisfactory completion and delivery of the Planning Obligations in
Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager - Development
Management - the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to grant
planning permission subject to planning conditions and informative notes including:
time limit for commencement;

external finishing materials;

protection of all trees during construction - protected by Tree Preservation or not;

as recommended by the Highway Authority (x10) - including details of storage for
refuse and recycling and, in addition, no dwelling to be occupied until carriageways
and footways serving the dwelling have been constructed to at least base course
level ;

provision and details of gateway facilities and raised table;

implementation of agreed Travel Plan;

hard and soft landscaping, including the detail of the planting of the woodland belt
and linear park and the phasing of its implementation;

details of the play-areas and the proposed woodland belt, the linear-park, the
wildflower meadow and all habitat-areas to be created and a landscape and
ecology management plan for all landscape areas;

lighting of site, including footways, cycle-ways and play-areas

archaeological investigation of site;

land contamination;

boundary treatments - walls and fences;

market-housing to be built to Level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes;

10% energy supply from decentralised or low-carbon energy sources;

details of design, equipment and surface treatment of play areas;

details of levels - existing and proposed - including finished floor levels of all
buildings and structures;
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
57

as recommended by the Environment Agency - surface water drainage to
sustainable drainage principles and in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment,
including adherence to Surface Water Management Strategy therein - in addition, a
requirement for a plan to be submitted and agreed that addresses on-going
management and maintenance of the entire system to be installed;

retention of garages for use as garages;

lighting scheme;

provision of fire hydrants;

provision of high speed broadband;

details of recycling/waste management – including bin-storage and collection points
where appropriate;

construction management plan

Submission and approval of heritage interpretation boards relating to the history of
Abbas Hall
Plus various informative notes to the applicant.
(3)
That, in the event that the Planning Obligations in Resolution (1) above are not delivered
and secured, the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to refuse
planning permission for the following reasons:
failure to provide compensatory benefits in terms of affordable housing and other
social and physical infrastructure, including necessary highway and environmental
improvements;

contrary to Core Strategy policies CS07, CS08, CS09, CS10, CS14, CS15, CS19.
Planning Committee
27 May 2015
58
Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 12-14, 19-22 and 25-26 November 2013
Site visits made on 14 and 19 November 2013
by P W Clark MA MRTPI MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 9 January 2014
Appeal Ref: APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
Land east of Carsons Drive, Great Cornard, Sudbury, Suffolk
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Persimmon Homes (Anglia) Limited against the decision of
Babergh District Council.
The application Ref B/10/00094/FUL/GC, dated 28 January 2010, was refused by notice
dated 18 April 2013.
The development proposed is the erection of 170 № dwellings and construction of new
vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access, provision for public open space and play areas,
woodland planting and new wildlife habitat.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural matters
2. The application was the subject of amendment during its consideration by the
Council. The description above is taken from the appeal form in recognition of
this fact.
3. Subsequent to the decision, further amendments were made to the layout and
to the street elevation drawings of the proposal largely to reconcile identified
discrepancies. Although these amended drawings were only submitted on the
opening day of the Inquiry, I am satisfied that the Council and third parties
were able to give them adequate consideration and that nobody would be
prejudiced if I were to base my decision on them, which I have done.
4. Further drawings making adjustments to aspects of the layout were submitted
at the end of the Inquiry (documents 29 – 33) but I understand that they are
the result of agreement between the two main parties. Taking account of their
minor nature and the fact that they address matters at issue in the appeal
without raising new issues, I judge that nobody would be prejudiced if I were
to base my decision on them, which I have done.
5. A unilateral undertaking was the subject of negotiations between the Council
and the appellant at the time the Inquiry was taking place. A draft was the
subject of discussion amongst all parties towards the end of the Inquiry.
Although the signed and dated undertaking was not delivered until after the
end of the Inquiry, this was by agreement amongst the participants and so
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
nobody would be prejudiced if I take it into account insofar as it is compliant
with the CIL regulations. Insofar as it is not compliant with the CIL
regulations, I have taken no account of those elements of the undertaking.
6. During the Inquiry, reference was made to the European Landscape Convention
(ELC), signed by the UK government in 2006. The government considers that
the UK is already compliant with the ELC and so, although the government
wishes to facilitate a strengthening of performance through policy and practice
across as wide a section of society as possible and has commissioned Natural
England to develop its own Action Plan towards that end, there are no specific
implications resulting from the ELC for consideration in this appeal.
Main Issues
7. There are six. They are the effects of the proposal on
•
The character and appearance of the area
o
forming the setting of Abbas Hall, a Grade 1 listed building
o
within the surrounding countryside including the Stour Valley Special
Landscape Area and
o
within the development itself
•
Highway safety
•
Biodiversity, particularly skylarks
and
•
Local infrastructure, including affordable housing, open space, recreational
facilities, landscaping, education, waste facilities, libraries and transport
facilities.
Reasons
The setting of Abbas Hall
8. The significance of Abbas Hall is largely evidential; that is, its importance lies in
the survival of its physical fabric as historical evidence. This would not be
affected by the development proposed. But, as Professor Williamson points
out, the Hall also has some significance as a quintessential example of an
isolated manorial hall. This derives from its setting, a view confirmed in appeal
decision APP/D3505/A/03/1108548 which records that the historic setting of
the house comprises its isolated rural location with few disruptions from urban
incursions. The Hall also has significance for associations (challenged by
Professor Williamson), between its grounds and paintings by Thomas
Gainsborough. I will consider each in turn.
Isolation
9. The isolation of Abbas Hall is reflected both in the approach to the building and
in views from it.
10. As the definition of setting in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
points out, its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its
surroundings evolve. The evidence of Andrew Derrick suggests that nobody
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
has yet sought to define the setting of Abbas Hall in terms of a red line on a
map. Based on his evidence, and that of others, the setting of Abbas Hall may
once have extended as far west as Wells Hall Road where, according to
Councillor Beer, entrances remain to what was once the main approach to
Abbas Hall.
11. Since that time, development has encroached on Abbas Hall, even to a small
degree inside the 1813 estate boundaries which undermines Mr Derrick’s
suggestion that they provide a good working definition of the extent of the
present-day setting of the hall. The proposal would encroach yet further.
12. Yet, neither former land ownership boundaries nor mere distance from
encroachment define setting; as the expert witnesses for both main parties
agreed, it is how one experiences the approach to a listed building which
defines its setting. In this analysis, there is a convincing coincidence of opinion
between the appellant’s expert and the representatives of the Cornard Tye
Residents’ Association.
13. Professor Williamson records that “at present, Abbas Hall can be viewed and
experienced – in the distance – from the suburbs of Sudbury, glimpsed
between modern housing, standing in isolation on the rising ground above the
town. But it is also, perhaps more importantly, experienced by the public – as
CTRA suggest – from the bridleway that turns south off the C732, or that
leading directly east from Carson’s Drive – the two meeting on the eastern
edge of the proposed development area and then continuing directly towards
Abbas Hall. In both cases the hall, while not viewed as if surrounded by
modern development, is nevertheless seen in its context: before the bridleways
meet, walkers on either can hardly fail to be aware of the ranks of modern
buildings to their left, and behind them. Only beyond this point of junction are
the suburbs really left behind, as the path climbs towards Abbas Hall”.
14. Similarly, Mr Hyam, in paragraph 17 of his proof of evidence comments “that
the approach to Abbas Hall is made along the public bridleway which runs
through the proposed development. Every day, walkers and dog owners take
this footpath over the brow of the hill away from Great Cornard and into the
open countryside and can view the setting of Abbas Hall.” Likewise, Mr Evans,
in paragraph 29 of his proof of evidence uses almost identical language; “Every
day, walkers and dog owners take this footpath over the brow of the hill away
from Great Cornard and into the open countryside and can view Abbas Hall in
its setting.” It is clear from those statements by the owner of Abbas Hall and
by the Chairman of the local residents’ association that they regard the setting
of Abbas Hall as one to be experienced after passing the brow of the hill.
15. These sentiments concur with the view of the Inspector who reported on the
objections to the Babergh District Council Local Plan Alteration № 2. In
paragraph 3.96.12.7 of his report he recorded that from his visits to the area,
the part of the land to the west of the ridgeline reads more with the built up
area of the village than the countryside. I agree and so now turn to consider
what effect the proposal would have on the experience of passing along the
bridleway over the brow of the hill and viewing Abbas Hall in its setting.
16. The drawings show the introduction of a meandering cycleway through the
housing development, running parallel to the line of the footpath which
represents the historic approach to Abbas Hall through the site. Many took this
to be disrespectful of the historic approach. But it is by no means clear that
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
3
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
the cycleway would supplant rather than supplement the footpath. The
detailed layout of the open space can be left for later consideration as the
requirement of a condition. It is sufficient now to observe that the extent of
the linear open space proposed would allow for the retention of the original
footpath on its original alignment.
17. The brow of the hill along the bridleway is just under the 50m contour line. (To
the north, the land rises higher). At that point, the nearest houses on the
development site (plots 82 and 138) would be approximately 40-45m away,
across a children’s playground. The ground floor slab of Plot 82 would be about
4m below the brow of the hill but its roof ridge would be about 4m higher than
the brow of the hill. The ground floor slab of plot 138 would be about 3.5m
below the brow of the hill but its roof ridge would be about 4.5m higher than
the brow of the hill. The next nearest houses would be 60m away from the
brow, either lower down the hill, or more hidden by the higher end of the ridge
but these two houses, together with the children’s play area would be
imminently present. In consequence, there would be little sense, at this point,
that the suburbs had really been left behind, to use Professor Williamson’s
phrase.
18. Furthermore, the houses on both plots 82 and 138 would be substantial fivebedroomed houses. Their footprint would be about 75 sq m each, comparable
to, and therefore competing with, Abbas Hall itself. From this, it is clear that
the isolation of Abbas Hall in its setting would be compromised by this aspect
of the development proposed.
19. In views from Abbas Hall, its isolation does not express itself in an absence of
any sight of other development. As Professor Williamson observes, “the edge
of the built-up area lies, at present, only c.520 metres from the hall. The view
from the area around the hall embraces ploughed fields and some hedges in
the foreground; but the distant prospect is not across a picturesque village but
over modern suburban development.”
20. Two key facets about this observation are distance and height; the existing
built development which can be seen from the Hall and its lake is between 560
and 600m distant and on contour lines ranging from about 35 - 37.5 m. As Mr
Hyam observes, cumulative effect must be considered; if the expansion of
Sudbury were to continue without limit, there would come a point at which
Abbas Hall would lose its character of isolation.
21. This point has been previously considered in the report of the Inspector
considering objections to the Babergh District Council Local Plan Alteration №
2. He wrote that because of its topography and location, the area to the west
of the ridgeline would be a logical extension to the village of Great Cornard.
“The view from the lake to the east would be marginally affected by the
development in the southern triangle on Drawing 6 but on balance I consider
that with effective planting the view from and the setting of Abbas Hall and the
village would be enhanced.”
22. With the present appeal, three section lines are submitted (two on ASD
Engineering drawing 1006/Gen/002B, and one of the three contained within Mr
Neesam’s proof of evidence) from which it is possible to evaluate the degree to
which the current proposal would fulfil the local plan inquiry Inspector’s
expectations. The most northerly is section 1 on the ASD drawing. This shows
that the tops of the roofs of houses in Carsons Drive 730m distant can just be
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
4
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
seen from Abbas Hall, in winter, through leafless trees and that the tops of the
roofs of houses proposed, 460m distant, would be visible in winter, through
leafless trees. Mr Neesam’s section A-A is very similar, showing that the
effects of about 3m growth of trees on the ridgeline would raise the line of
sight above the roofs of both existing and proposed development.
23. ASD’s section 1 and Mr Neesam’s section A-A are both drawn through the ridge
line at its highest, and most effective point. ASD drawing section 2 is drawn
through a point somewhat down the ridgeline, where the ridge would have less
of a screening effect. The photographic basis of Mr Evans’s exhibit MJE5
appears to be looking along a similar section line.
24. ASD drawing section 2 shows that the full flank height of houses in Walsingham
Close, off Carsons Drive, is presently visible from Abbas Hall, at a distance of
about 615m. It suggests that the full flank height of plot 82 of the proposal
would be visible at a distance of about 440m; however, I concur with the
Council’s witness, Mr Derrick, that an error has occurred in depicting the
proposed development on this section and that, as noted above, only the top
halves of the houses on plots 82 and 138 would be visible from Abbas Hall.
25. Although the first photograph in Mr Evans’s exhibit MJE5 appears to be an
actual photograph including a board marker showing the 55m contour, which
would be about 0.5m higher than the ridge of plot 138, his subsequent
photomontage appears to depict buildings substantially higher still and so I am
not convinced of the accuracy of the photomontages.
26. Even so, the greater elevation (45m against 37m) of these plots compared with
those of Walsingham Close, combined with the foreshortening effects of a
distance reduced by about 28% would mean that they would have a
considerably greater presence in views from Abbas Hall. Although Abbas Hall
would still be sited on ground some 15m higher, the view along this section line
would be less “over” suburban development than “towards” it.
27. Of course, the woodland belt to be planted as part of the proposed
development is intended, in part, to restore rural seclusion to Abbas Hall. But
even Mr Neesam estimates that it will take up to 15 years to grow to a
sufficient height and density (when in leaf) to hide the dwellings on plots 82
and 138 from their prominence in the view from Abbas Hall. In any event, as
Mr Ingram points out, there would be a gap in the proposed planting, to allow
the existing access route to pass through, which would mean that the proposed
development would never be fully hidden. It is clear therefore, that this
element of the proposed development would compromise the isolation of Abbas
Hall in its setting.
28. As noted by the local plan inquiry Inspector (quoted above) and by English
Heritage in its comments of 1st March 2006, the southern, triangular, section of
the site is more exposed to view from Abbas Hall because the ridge line is
reducing in height and so acts less as an effective screen. However,
development on this part of the site would be on much lower contours, both
falling and receding from Abbas Hall and so the relationship of Abbas Hall with
development on this part of the site would be much more akin to its
relationship with existing housing in Brands Close, Turkentine Close and
Chaplin Walk. Accordingly I am not convinced by English Heritage’s view that
the development proposed on this part of the site would be particularly
damaging. In my view, it would have no more impact on the setting of Abbas
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
5
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
Hall than was envisaged by the local plan inquiry Inspector in his report,
quoted previously.
Associations with Thomas Gainsborough
29. In the background to Thomas Gainsborough’s picture of Mr and Mrs Andrews is
the wooded slope of the Stour valley to the south-east of Sudbury. A small
fleck in the painting is thought to represent Abbas Hall and its barn. The barn
is now demolished; the wooded hillside considerably built up by the expansion
of Sudbury as noted below. The development proposed would make little
further difference to the view; it would not rise so high up the valley side as
Abbas Hall, which would remain as visible in the view as ever it was.
30. Of more significance perhaps is the association with Abbas Hall of two paintings
by Gainsborough nowadays know by the title Cornard Wood. They are thought
to represent the view of the Stour Valley seen from the driveway to Abbas Hall,
though that is challenged by the appellant’s landscape history expert.
Although the attribution is challenged, elements of the paintings bear an
uncanny resemblance to elements in a present day photograph of the view
towards the Stour valley from the Abbas Hall driveway.
31. Even if the pictures include artistic licence and so are not a precisely accurate
rendering of the view in reality, it would be prudent to presume that, at the
least, Gainsborough was inspired by the view from Abbas Hall. As such the
view should be regarded as a heritage asset in its own right, though not one
designated in any way.
32. The view seen from the Abbas Hall drive today differs from the view depicted in
Gainsborough’s painting, not least in the visibility of the upper part of the
appeal site where the painting shows dense woodland in the foreground. The
owner of Abbas Hall has planted and intends to plant trees to recreate the view
depicted in the painting and so obscure views of the upper part of the appeal
site. It follows that that part of the development would have no impact on the
view as a heritage asset.
33. The part of the painting which contains a view of Great Henny parish church
corresponds to a view in reality (in which Great Henny parish church is not
actually visible) across the southern tip of the appeal site. It also corresponds
to “the view from the lake to the east” described in the local plan inquiry
inspector’s report. I have reported earlier in this decision on how that view
(and hence the undesignated heritage asset) would be no more affected by the
appeal proposal than was anticipated and found acceptable in the local plan
Inspector’s report.
Conclusion on setting of listed building
34. I conclude that the isolated character of Abbas Hall would be compromised by
the elevated position, height and size of the proposed dwellings closest to the
brow of the hill along the access drive to Abbas Hall. The proposal would
therefore be contrary to policy CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration №2),
adopted June 2006 (the LP) which requires that new work within the setting of
a listed building should retain a setting which is appropriate to the listed
building and the relationship with its surroundings.
35. The isolated character of Abbas Hall and the (non-designated) heritage asset
which is the view from the Abbas Hall driveway accepted as inspiring
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
6
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
Gainsborough’s pictures of Cornard Wood would also be marginally affected by
the development in the southern half of the site, though not to any extent
greater than that envisaged by the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector.
36. Bearing in mind that the isolated character of Abbas Hall is not its primary
significance and that the effect on the “Gainsborough” view would be marginal
and in line with that anticipated by the local plan Inspector, it follows that the
development would not lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance
of the heritage assets. It would be less than substantial harm. In accordance
with paragraph 134 of the NPPF, this less than substantial harm should be
weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I make this balancing
exercise in later sections of my decision.
The surrounding countryside
37. To set the context, I can do little better than to refer to and quote from a
landscape appraisal carried out in 2002 by the Landscape Partnership. The
River Stour valley extends broadly north-west to south-east on the south-west
side of Sudbury at a level of approximately 20-25m AOD. Above it on its
eastern side the plateau land undulates very gently at levels of 60-75 m. The
medieval centre of the town abuts the river flood plain, lying on the valley
floor. Later development extends along the roads that follow the river on its
north-east side. In the north, this development has spread up the valley sides,
with the outer industrial and business park developments almost reaching the
high plateau land beyond. To the south-east, where the appeal site lies, the
built-up areas have remained predominantly below a height of 50m AOD,
leaving the upper valley slopes undeveloped. Consequently, from much of the
surrounding area, views of Sudbury are of a town sitting comfortably in the
valley and set amongst mature vegetation.
38. Much time was spent at the Inquiry in establishing the precise elevation AOD of
the ground floor level and roof ridge line of the most elevated houses on the
appeal site. For the purposes of establishing the effects of the development on
the setting of the listed building, the precision of that exercise was essential
because a couple of metres would make the difference between a conclusion of
harmful or not harmful. For the issue now in consideration, which is the effect
on the surrounding countryside much of which is designated as the Stour Valley
Special Landscape Area, such precision is less significant; the key question is
whether there would remain above the proposal upper valley slopes left
undeveloped and offering a setting of mature vegetation.
39. The parties agreed on a number of viewpoints from which longer-distance
views of the site might be obtained and I made accompanied visits to each of
these. In some cases, any view of the site would be quite marginal. In others
it would be fully on display. But, in all cases, I am satisfied that the
development would not break the skyline and there would remain undeveloped
upper slopes on higher land behind the development. Some of these were well
wooded. The woodland planting proposed as part of the development,
although located on the ridge line within the site, would not, in fact, be on the
skyline, which is formed by the higher plateau beyond, but it would, in time,
add to the setting of mature vegetation on the valley sides.
40. In these longer views, much existing suburban development around Sudbury is
clearly visible rising up the hillside. In some instances (such as the view from
outside Middleton Hall) the hillside is well covered with trees so that only
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
7
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
glimpses of roof are visible, variously comprising weathered, reddish tiles, dark
grey slate or even solar panels. In middle-range views, from the south in
particular, the suburbs of Sudbury are clearly laid out in the forefront of the
view without much tree cover again displaying a variety of roofing materials
and some instances of renewable energy equipment. The appeal proposal
would simply be just one more such suburb.
41. The parties disagree about the extent of tree cover which would be achievable
within the site. I consider this point further when considering the effects of the
development within the site itself. In relation to the issue of the effects of the
proposal on the wider landscape, clearly, planting within the site would be
beneficial in adding to the setting of mature vegetation on the valley sides but,
whether or not this would be achievable to any significant degree, the
development proposed would result in the built-up area remaining
predominantly below a height of 50m AOD, leaving the upper valley slopes
undeveloped. Consequently, from much of the surrounding area, views of
Sudbury would still be of a town sitting comfortably in the valley and set
amongst mature vegetation, irrespective of the success of any planting within
the site.
42. The parties’ analysis of the effects of the proposal on the landscape included
appraisal of its effect on short-distance views from positions immediately
surrounding the site. In the technical terms of landscape appraisals, these
assessments include several findings of high and medium-high significance
adverse visual impact.
43. In layman’s terms, these mean no more than was reported to the local
planning authority in considering the objections to the modifications to the
Babergh Local Plan (alteration № 2) following the Inspector’s report; “It must
be recognised that for occupiers of houses in Carsons Drive and Sheepshead
Hill, a view onto a field is preferable to a view onto new housing. Similarly, this
applies to walkers, etc. using the local rights of way network (although it would
only affect that part of the network closest to Great Cornard). In the
immediate locality then, the views of these parties would be adversely
affected.”
44. The effects of the proposal on the countryside in short distance views are
therefore entirely consistent with the expected effects of the inclusion of the
proposal within the development plan, namely; there would be a change in
character from countryside to urban development. However, this does not
amount to a reason to refuse permission for such a development on a site
included within the development plan for that purpose. In any event, none of
these short distance views encompasses land within the Stour Valley Special
Landscape Area.
45. Part of the site not proposed to be built on lies within or adjacent to the Stour
Valley Special Landscape Area. Reference is made within the appellant’s
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) to Suffolk County Council’s
Landscape Character Assessment 2007. The LVIA notes that within this
Assessment, Landscape Character Type 4, Ancient Rolling Farmlands (LCT4),
which encompasses the site and its surroundings, is characterised by blocks of
ancient woodland amongst other features.
46. The LVIA also notes that Guidance Notes produced alongside the assessment
include guidelines for land management. The guidelines for LCT4 include
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
8
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
maintaining the extent of woodland cover and maintaining and restoring the
stock of moats and ponds in this landscape. Although, as Mr Evans pointed out,
maintaining does not mean increasing, nevertheless, I am satisfied that the
inclusion within the appeal proposals of planting a block of woodland and of
forming an attenuation pond would be entirely consistent with the aims of the
guidelines and the character of the Stour Valley Special Landscape Area.
47. I conclude that the proposal would have no significant adverse effect on the
character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and that aspects of
the proposal, namely the woodland planting and the attenuation pond would
make a positive contribution to reinforce the character and appearance of the
Stour Valley Special Landscape Area. Provided that appropriate arrangements
are made, either by condition or through a planning obligation, for the
provision, retention and management of those parts of the proposal outside the
housing area, the appeal proposal would comply with LP policies CR01 and
CR04. These require developments in the countryside to be restricted to
forestry and to appropriate outdoor recreation and to maintain or enhance the
special landscape qualities of the area identified in the relevant landscape
appraisal. The provision of public open space and woodland planting would
comply with a specific requirement of LP policy HS17.
The character of the development itself
48. The council’s second reason for refusal refers to scale, form, design, finish,
layout and place-making. These were elaborated into a Building for Life
Assessment and a Table of Main Concerns in Anne Westover’s evidence and by
Anthony Ingram on behalf of Shape East and the East of England Design Panel
who were asked to undertake a Design Review at a late stage in the Council’s
processing of the application.
49. Some of these criticisms (I hesitate to call all of them objections) relate to
process matters; (discrepancies between drawings and technical studies;
absence of visualisations and photomontages; incomplete analyses or
assessments) or to a lack of information (the reason for the dwelling mix
proposed). Others relate to issues discussed elsewhere; the effect on the
special landscape qualities of the setting; the effects on the setting of Abbas
Hall; the provision of infrastructure and skylark mitigation.
50. A distillation of the substantive points not discussed elsewhere suggests the
following list for examination;
•
Local context
•
Connectivity
•
Tree protection
•
Streetscape (fronting/not fronting streets, open space, open country)
•
Adequacy of parking provision
•
Efficiency of layout
•
Placemaking /views/landmarks
•
Tree planting
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
9
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
•
Location of play areas
•
Surveillance
•
Road gradient
•
Sustainability/energy efficiency
•
Cycle storage provision
•
Materials
•
Lighting
•
Details – of woodland planting, habitat creation
Local context
51. Although Sudbury is an historic market town with numbers of listed buildings,
its growth during the 1960s as part of the Greater London Council’s expanded
town programme means that existing built development likely to be seen in
conjunction with the site is typical of that period. Rectilinear, open plan layouts
of terraced houses in buff and brown brick with shallow (approximately 22
degree) pitched roofs covered with concrete tiles are typical of the
development of Sheepshead Hill and Carsons Drive, the latter almost entirely
devoid of any street trees.
52. They draw little inspiration from Suffolk vernacular building which, as I could
see on my site visits to viewpoints in the surrounding countryside, includes
materials such as half timbering, render and brick, either orange or reddish in
colour, paired with plain clay roof tiles of similar colour (though now
weathered) on 45 degree pitches (approximately), or white gault paired with
slate roof tiles on 30 degree pitches (approximately). Realistically, Suffolk
vernacular building does not form the context for this appeal site.
53. Further south along Carsons Drive is housing more typical of the 1980s with
more informal layouts of detached and semi-detached houses in a variety of
materials and with roofs pitched more steeply. Unlike the earlier housing, this
later development is not contiguous with the site but is separated from it by a
former green lane, now overgrown with mature trees, many of which are
subject to a tree preservation order. A few street trees are also evident.
54. The proposal’s organic, informal layout, mixture of house types, materials
(insofar as specified) and roof forms would have more in common with the
housing along the southern parts of Carsons Drive than with the housing along
the northern part of Carsons Drive and Sheepshead Hill with which it would be
contiguous in part. In this, it is criticised for a failure to respond to its context.
But these adjoining developments are largely self-contained, turning their
backs or flanks to the site and, in the case of Sheepshead Hill, separated from
the site by a sward of grass and a hedge.
55. From the evidence given there is no particular reason why the appeal proposal
need replicate forms of development of fifty years ago which, whatever their
quality, are now out of fashion. There were hints of a disparagement of the
use of developers’ standard house types but no specific information to
demonstrate that this would cause harm to the resulting character or
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
10
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
appearance of the development. It would be of its time and there is no reason,
in fact, why the development should not display a character of its own.
Connectivity
56. The development proposed is criticised for failing to connect with surrounding
development but, as already noted, it is separated from the Sheepshead Hill
development by the latter’s landscaped boundary and from the 1980s
development in the southern part of Carsons Drive by a belt of trees on a
former green lane outside the appeal site. The only potential for connectivity is
along the bridleway formerly the western approach to Abbas Hall and into the
three culs-de-sac at the northern end of Carsons Drive.
57. Of these three opportunities, the opportunity of connecting to the bridleway
would be taken by the development. The layout proposed affords opportunities
for footpath connections into the cul-de-sac at the northern end of Carsons
Drive and into the footpath in front of number 15 de Grey’s Close. It also
offers the opportunity for a piece of open space within the development
(between plots 24 and 25) to be linked to similar open space running between
22/24 de Grey’s Close and 8/9 Walsingham Close. However, evidence was
given and not contradicted that the Council as owners of de Grey’s Close and
Walsingham Close responded to the views of local residents by refusing its
permission for connections to be made. Nevertheless, the opportunity remains
in the layout proposed and so this matter is not a reason for dismissing the
appeal.
Tree protection
58. The site itself is relatively treeless. Outside the site, along the southern part of
its western perimeter, is a former green lane, now so colonised by shrubs and
trees as to be impassable. Parts have now been taken into the curtilage of
houses in Brands or Turkentine Closes. Many of the trees are protected by a
tree preservation order. The proximity of the proposed development to these
trees is said to constitute a threat to their preservation. In fact, the proposed
houses would be, in most cases, less close to the protected trees than is the
existing development in Brands and Turkentine Closes and Chaplin Walk.
There would be some interference with root protection areas, which could be
limited by conditions requiring protection during construction but insufficient to
cause a significant threat to the trees’ survival.
59. In general, the rear gardens of houses within the proposed development would
abut the former green lane and the line of preserved trees. This too is said to
present a threat to the trees’ preservation because it would make them less
accessible for maintenance purposes but there is no information to
demonstrate or reason to suppose that trees located to the rear of properties
are more or less likely to be maintained than those located to their front. I
therefore take the view that this is a criticism without substance.
Streetscape
60. Elsewhere, the layout proposed is variously criticised for fronting or not
fronting the open space proposed, both within the housing and lying to its east.
The appellant’s landscape consultants comment adversely on the existing
housing in the northern part of Carsons Drive because it turns its flank or rear
to the appeal site and so is said not to present a clearly defined edge to the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
11
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
urban development of Sudbury. Without disagreeing, the County Council’s
Landscape Officer considers the adverse effect to be moderate.
61. The substantial belt of planting proposed along the west side of the top of the
ridge is said to provide a much stronger boundary. I have already accepted
that the woodland planting would make a positive contribution to reinforce the
character and appearance of the Stour Valley Special Landscape Area. That
would be so, irrespective of the orientation of house fronts or rears to the open
space proposed within or on the edge of the development.
62. Advantages of dwellings fronting on to open space include the probability of
more direct surveillance from the dwellings and hence, greater public safety
and the avoidance of access to the rear of dwellings from public spaces, as
advised in the government’s 2004 publication Safer Places. Disadvantages
include the introduction of public street lighting abutting open land and the
inherently inefficient land use of single-sided access roads used where houses
front onto public open space but there is no clear evidence to show that the
use of either approach is inherently wrong or harmful. I return later to the
issues of surveillance and crime prevention in relation to particular parts of the
appeal scheme and to the consequences of inefficient land use.
Parking provision
63. Elected representatives who made appearances at the Inquiry were anxious to
ensure that car parking provision would be adequate and would not lead to onstreet parking along narrow estate roads. An analysis of future residents’ likely
behaviour in parking their cars was undertaken during the Inquiry. It showed
that there were three points where the layout proposed would require residents
to drive past their own house before reaching their designated parking space in
a rear parking court. This is a feature which is recognised as likely to lead to
on-street parking in preference to the less-convenient parking court. Although
an undesirable feature which must be taken in to the overall balance, the
relatively few instances where this feature is manifest are unlikely to lead to a
general problem requiring the appeal to be dismissed for this reason alone.
Efficiency of layout
64. Some of the parking courts proposed would be to the side of houses, accessed
directly from the street. Although the use of rear car parking courts would not
be universal, in those instances where they are proposed, they would be an
inherently inefficient use of land because they require an access way to be
provided. Examples are those serving plots 6-18, 33-43, 64-70 and 116-118.
Similarly, as noted above, the use of single-sided access roads serving plots
71-75, 111-116, 134-138, 139, 144 and 145 would be an inherently inefficient
use of land.
65. Both parties agreed that the site was pressured, in terms of the quantity of
housing it was expected (both by developer and by local plan) to
accommodate, and that in consequence it would need to be laid out efficiently
in order to achieve an acceptable result. No party had tested the efficiency of
the layout proposed to demonstrate that the potential of the site had been
optimised in the way sought by the third bullet point of paragraph 58 of the
NPPF.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
12
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
66. Some inefficiencies of layout are an inevitable result of the shape of the site.
Others may flow from the demands of the local authorities themselves, such as
the reported requirement of the local highway authority, accepted by the
developer, for a loop road to give alternative access in case of emergency for
the numbers of dwellings proposed, or the requirement, accepted by the
developer, for a buffer zone around children’s play areas. However,
consequences flow, in terms of placemaking, tree planting and the location of
play areas, from the efficiency with which the site is used. These are
considered in the following paragraphs.
Placemaking
67. The comments of the East of England Design Panel on the scheme include the
observation that it is perfectly reasonable to use standard house types but
essential to configure them to contribute to quality of place. In their view the
urban design could be improved by designing the configuration of standard
house types to contribute to the quality of space. In response to my questions,
Mr Ingram, representing the Design Panel, accepted that the proposed layout
of the southern part of the site was approaching the quality of placemaking
sought and that some areas of the layout worked quite well.
68. It is possible to discern, from the proposed site layout, that there would be
instances of the creation of a sense of place; for example the handed pairings
of plots 82 and 138 (although harmful in other ways noted earlier) and 81 and
128 around the eastern third of the linear parkway, or the handed pairings of
plots 151 and 153 at one of the entrances to the site from Sheepshead Hill.
The developer’s architect pointed to the greater height of the flats (plots 90100 as creating a focal point and the grouping of plots 63, 64 and 38-45
around a green space as creating a sense of place, both points not
controverted.
69. Elsewhere, however, it is hard to escape the substance of some of the points of
criticism levelled in the section of the Council’s Committee report headed
“Urban Design”. In particular, I agree that many spaces and streets would
have little sense of enclosure or of design and appear to be no more than
pragmatic arrangements of houses and roads and that internal views are
frequently terminated by garages, parking courts, fences, sides and rears of
properties giving a sense that internal views have been little considered.
70. Much of this criticism is a matter of judgement and balance; missed
opportunities and matters which could be improved upon rather than matters
which actually cause harm. An exception to that generality is that in response
to my questions, the developer’s architect accepted that he would have liked to
have improved on the quality of life which would be experienced by the
potential future residents of plots 105-110, closely surrounded by car parking
or roads on all four sides. I agree with that. Although the poor living
conditions likely to be experienced by the residents of 6 flats out of a proposed
170 dwellings might seem to be a disproportionate reason for dismissing this
appeal, they are clearly a factor to be taken into account in the overall
assessment of the scheme.
Tree planting
71. Although the landscape masterplan for the scheme indicates that
approximately 200 new street trees would be planted (in addition to that in the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
13
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
woodland and copses of trees in the open space) only a little over half that
number is shown on the proposed site layout as amended by document 31 and
it is evident that many of those could not have a canopy of more than about
2.5m radius before fouling a proposed building. It is evident therefore that
effective tree planting within the housing layout would be quite limited, albeit
far more than is provided within the adjacent housing developments along
Carsons Drive.
72. On the other hand, the scheme includes a linear park, about 20m wide, across
the centre of the site, which would provide considerable scope for planting
substantial trees. It also provides for a woodland belt, typically about 40m
wide, to the east of the housing layout. Overall therefore, although the
proximity of house to the streets, the extent of hard surfacing for access and
car parking and the lack of room for street tree planting would produce a
relatively hard character within the housing layout, somewhat similar to that of
the houses off the southern end of Carsons Drive, that would be relieved by the
central linear park and by the surrounding woodland to a much greater degree
than in the existing housing off of Carsons Drive, which sets the context for the
appeal scheme.
Play areas
73. All parties accept that the scheme would meet the Council’s quantitative
standards for the provision of open space and play areas, if secured by
conditions or a planning obligation. In the terms of the Council’s Open Space,
Sport and Recreation Strategy September 2010, the proposal would provide a
Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP), three Local Areas of Play with play
equipment (LAP+2) and one “doorstep” Local Area for Play (LAP).
74. Only the last would be provided within the housing development itself. The
other facilities would be located within the land set aside for open space, to the
east of the housing. This design choice is apparently made in response to the
Council’s requirement for a minimum distance to a property boundary around
the activity zone associated with each facility.
75. Whereas for a LAP the minimum distance required is only 5m, increasing its
total land take from 150 sq m to 600 sq m if surrounded by housing, for a
LAP+2 the minimum distance required is 13m, increasing its total land take
from 250 sq m to 1600 sq m and for a LEAP the distance required is 20m,
increasing its land take from 625 sq m to 4225 sq m. The larger areas would
have a disproportionate effect on the efficiency of the layout and so, it is not
surprising that the choice has been made to locate the more land-hungry
facilities within the open space area rather than within the body of housing.
76. Nevertheless, in consequence, the catchments of the three LAP+2s would be
eccentric to the housing and two small areas of the site, comprising about 14
houses and nine flats (about 13% of the total) would lie outside their defined
catchments. Two of the LAP+2s would be positioned within the woodland belt,
reducing its effective width from about 40m to about 20m and so reducing its
potentially beneficial effects on the character and appearance of the
surrounding countryside, noted earlier. As also noted earlier, the location of
LAP+2 № 2 would contribute to the adverse effect of the proposal on the
setting of Abbas Hall.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
14
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
Surveillance
77. Although there are level differences between the LEAP, LAP+2s №s 1 and 2
and nearby housing, the location of the LEAP and the three LAP+2s, either
close to well-used public footpaths or overlooked by proposed housing, would
mean that surveillance would be adequate. The outer ends of the linear park
would be adequately overlooked but I am less convinced of the adequate
surveillance of the central section, one side of which would be entirely bounded
by rear gardens and the other side partly bounded by side walls.
78. Within the housing layout, the use of alleyways to provide rear access to
terraced houses inevitably introduces an element of security risk but is a
necessary attribute of that form of housing. Elsewhere in the housing layout,
the exposure of flanks and rears, which present a security risk, is largely
minimised but there are exceptions. The occasional use of rear parking
courtyards, noted above, presents a security hazard. So too does the
incidence of houses presenting their rear gardens to public space such as plots
78-80, 83-89 and 139-142.
79. Nevertheless it has to be recognised that the elimination of all risk is an
unrealistic expectation. The Suffolk Constabulary comments on aspects of the
proposal do not amount to a reason to dismiss the appeal; even its most
strongly expressed concern, relating to the LEAP, that it is likely to become a
meeting point for teenagers and would result in a risk of crime and anti-social
behaviour, is a statement which would be true of any LEAP, wherever located.
Although crime risk needs to be minimised and weaknesses need to be weighed
in the balance, there is little evidence that the design of this appeal proposal
would lead to a housing development characterised by high levels of crime or
insecurity.
Road gradients
80. Mr Ingram’s evidence points out that the layout implies a gradient of about
1:10 for about 40m in length on the access to plots 135-146, in contrast to the
developer’s aspiration, expressed in the Design and Access Statement, for a
maximum 1:15. Paragraph 6.3.27 of the government’s Manual for Streets
(MfS) advises that longitudinal gradients should ideally be no more than 5%
(1:20) but acknowledges that topography or other circumstances may make
this difficult to achieve. As this site is on a hillside, that comment clearly
applies. A steep gradient is obviously undesirable but as the example quoted
would affect less than 10% of the dwellings proposed, I am not convinced that
it is, by itself, a reason to dismiss the appeal.
Sustainability and energy efficiency
81. The Council’s committee report advises that the appellant’s surface water
management strategy would result in a post-development discharge rate no
higher than the maximum pre-development rate, is supported by the
Environment Agency and can be secured by condition. I have no reason to
disagree and so find this aspect of the proposal acceptable in principle.
82. The County Council’s landscape officer gave evidence to the effect that certain
of the features proposed appear to be incompatible with the proposed site
layout, instancing the difficulties of digging by hand a drainage ditch or swale
alongside the western edge of the development. However, the appellant’s
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
15
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
surface water management plan clearly shows this as an existing ditch to be
retained and cleaned, not a new ditch to be constructed. A similar misreading
of the drawing was given in evidence relating to an existing culvert and ditch
adjacent to Sheepshead Hill, so I am not convinced that the surface water
management plan would be inconsistent with the housing layout proposed.
83. The Council’s committee report asserts that the appellant’s Energy Assessment
is unclear in that it goes through all of the options but does not conclude which
renewable option is preferred or proposed. Only in a pedantic sense is this
correct, in that the appellant’s Statement on Renewable Energy by Millard
Consulting, dated November 2009 goes through all the options and concludes
against all but one that they are not recommended. It follows that one
remaining option survives that process and could be secured by condition, as
indeed the Council’s committee report records.
84. Mr Ingram, in his evidence, correctly points out that solar panels are not shown
on the submitted drawings but that does not preclude their requirement by
condition, nor does it preclude consideration of the implications of such
reflective roof glazing upon views primarily from the south and west. The
implications of the proposal on such views are considered earlier in this
decision and the choice of materials to be used is considered further below.
Cycle storage provision
85. Other than for the flats proposed, no specific building is shown to house cycles
or refuse bins. But all the houses have their own private rear gardens with
rear access in which residents could store refuse bins or bicycles in whatever
manner they choose without affecting the character or appearance of the
development. Many would be provided with garages, more likely to be used for
storing bicycles or refuse bins while cars are parked on drives. For these
reasons, I find no substance to this point of objection.
Materials
86. The materials proposed to be used in the construction of each house are not
individually specified but are generically described on the application form as
red/brown facing brick, buff facing brick and render for walls and red roof tiles
and slate for roofs. As noted above in the discussion of the context for the
site, these generic descriptions would not be inconsistent with the locality,
although I emphasise that in my observations of the local vernacular, the clay
roof tiles I saw were reddish and weathered rather than bright red concrete
tiles which I only observed on the recent estate developed on the former rugby
ground. In any event, the particular specification of each material used could
be required by condition to be the subject of approval to ensure consistency
with the character and appearance of the area.
Lighting
87. The appellant’s proposed design code for lighting in effect suggests that a
condition be imposed to require the submission of details to be agreed with the
local authority. It suggests that footways and cycle ways within the area of
open space be lit but, as that all lies within the area for development allocated
to the west of the proposed woodland planting belt within local plan policy
HS17, that would comply with the expectations of the local plan. There is no
suggestion that areas to the east, in the habitat creation area or in the skylark
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
16
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
mitigation area would be lit and so I take the view that the effects of lighting
on the character and appearance of the area would be no different from the
expectations implicit in the development plan allocation and are not therefore a
reason for dismissing the appeal.
Details of woodland planting and habitat creation
88. The scheme does not specify details of the woodland planting or of the habitat
creation or of their maintenance regimes. The expectation that the woodland
planting would largely comprise ash has been confounded by the ravages of the
disease currently afflicting that species. Nevertheless, I am satisfied by the
suggestion that other species, such as hornbeam, could be used to achieve the
desired effect, so the absence of a detailed planting scheme at this stage does
not require the appeal to be dismissed; the matter can be dealt with by
condition.
Conclusions on the character of the development itself
89. The above analysis shows that the local context does not set such a good
example in all respects that the scheme should be bound by it. The appeal
scheme would be of its own time, would have its own character and that would
not be wrong. It is a relatively treeless site but the scheme would adequately
protect all existing trees of significance. The part given over to housing would
offer restricted opportunities for street tree planting but the proposed
development would still be more treed than existing housing on Carsons Drive
nearby. The relatively hard, urban character of the housing area would be
more than adequately balanced by the open space and belt of woodland
planting to the east.
90. Some elements which would contribute to its character are as yet not fully
specified or would require to be secured by conditions. These include the
materials to be used, the sustainable drainage scheme, renewable energy
provision and public lighting. However, there is no indication that any of these
matters would not result in a satisfactory outcome if left to be resolved through
conditions.
91. The proposal would be as connected to adjoining development as it could be.
The layout takes a varied (some would say inconsistent, some would say
pragmatic) approach to the question of frontages which is not inherently wrong
but in places leads to inefficiencies of land use and some less well supervised
areas of open space. The eccentric location of three of the play areas would
reduce the effectiveness of the service they would provide. The site is on a
hillside so some steep gradients would result. The layout also produces three
areas where, in practice, on-street parking is likely to be preferred over the
intended provision. Some efforts at placemaking are evident but there is one
instance of an unacceptable outcome, which is the setting of plots 105-110.
92. After a fairly exhaustive examination of the elements which would contribute to
the character of the development itself, the conclusion must be that the
scheme is capable of improvement in a number of elements which would not,
by themselves, amount to a reason for dismissing the appeal but which need to
be taken into the overall balance and there is one part of the proposed scheme
which would be quite unacceptable and that is the setting of plots 105-110.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
17
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
93. Although the proposal would largely comply with Local Plan policy CN01 which
requires developments to be of an appropriate scale, form, detailed design and
construction materials, it would fail to comply with its fifth bullet point in this
respect. That requires interesting and attractive public and private spaces in
and around the development, which plots 105-110 lack entirely.
Highway safety
94. Local Plan policy HS17 contains specific requirements for highway
improvements including provision of a footpath in the development of this site.
A note to the policy records that satisfactory detailed proposals for transport
measures to serve this site will need to be agreed before any development
scheme is implemented and that planning permission will not be granted until
these matters are resolved. It specifically records that the proposals should be
adequate for the detailed residential scheme, based on sustainable
development principles and that accordingly, road widening of the C732
throughout its length will not be considered acceptable.
95. This conclusion was reached in full knowledge of the evidence given to the
Local Plan Inquiry in 2004 by Alan Newman on behalf of Suffolk County Council
as the highway authority and which was re-presented to me without any
further evidence which would persuade me to reach a conclusion different to
that reached previously.
96. At the time the Council determined the application, satisfactory detailed
proposals for transport measures to serve the site had not been agreed. On
the penultimate day of the Inquiry, documents 29-33 were presented showing
detailed transport measures to serve the site, with the advice, not
contradicted, that they represent measures agreed with the local planning and
local highway authorities. They can be secured partly by condition and partly
by provisions within the Unilateral Undertaking for a Highway Contribution
towards public transport improvements and appropriate Traffic Regulation
Orders in the vicinity of the development.
97. As the evidence of Chris Ward, the County Council’s Travel Plan Officer
confirmed, the Interim Residential Travel Plan dated November 2011 prepared
by ASD consultants on behalf of the developer was also agreed. However,
there remain disputes between the County and the developer over the funding
of the travel plan and related matters. These would be secured by the
submitted Unilateral Undertaking but only to the extent that I confirm that they
are required.
98. The three remaining matters in dispute are a payment for monitoring the
Travel Plan, a payment towards a car sharing scheme and a payment of a bond
providing insurance against failure to implement the travel plan.
99. I note that paragraph 3.4.1 of the Travel Plan records that Persimmon Homes
will be required to make a one-off payment to Suffolk County Council to cover
their costs of monitoring and reviewing the Travel Plan but such is not included
within the estimated costs of the travel plan itself set out in paragraph 3.4.2 of
the Travel Plan. Monitoring is a necessary feature of a travel plan but section 8
of the Travel Plan includes monitoring as one of the functions to be carried out
by the travel plan coordinator to be appointed and funded through the travel
plan itself. In cross-examination, Mr Ward accepted that even if a travel plan
monitoring payment were not made, no planning consequences would ensue
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
18
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
and Suffolk County Council would in any event monitor the travel plan over and
above any monitoring carried out by the travel plan coordinator.
100. Given this advice, it follows that, without the Travel Plan Monitoring
Contribution, monitoring would occur anyway, not least as part of the travel
plan coordinator’s functions and no planning consequences would ensue.
Therefore, the specific Travel Plan Monitoring Contribution is unnecessary to
make the development acceptable and so would fall outside the CIL
regulations. I have therefore taken no account of it in reaching my decision.
101. Section 6.9 of the Travel Plan discusses car sharing. It makes it quite clear
that car sharing is an integral part of the Travel Plan, indicates how the travel
plan coordinator might effect such a scheme, recommends its adoption on a
trial basis and commends the County’s scheme both as an alternative
(paragraph 6.9.4) and as an advantageous supplement (6.9.5). There is
provision within paragraph 3.4.2 of the travel plan to fund a car sharing
scheme and, if that takes the form of a subscription to the County’s scheme,
then clearly, provision within the Unilateral Undertaking is necessary and I
have taken account of it in reaching my decision.
102. All parties are agreed that a travel plan is necessary as part of the
satisfactory detailed proposals for transport measures to serve this site
required by Local Plan policy HS17. It follows that a bond to insure against the
possible failure to implement the plan is necessary for the development to be
acceptable. Such is provided for within the Unilateral Undertaking and I have
taken account of it in reaching my decision.
103. The travel plan itself would be secured by condition; the highway
improvements partly by condition and partly by the Highway contribution
within the Unilateral Undertaking. With these arrangements in place, I am
satisfied that the requirements of Local Plan policy HS17 would be met and the
development would have a satisfactory effect on highway safety.
Biodiversity
104. The written evidence of Mrs Sue Hooton, the Senior Ecologist of Suffolk
County Council confirms that the practical measures proposed to mitigate and
compensate for the ecological impacts of the development would be
satisfactory in her view. I have no reason to disagree. Those relating to the
woodland planting belt, the wildflower meadow and the open space could be
secured by conditions. The submitted Unilateral Undertaking would secure the
skylark mitigation measures for a period of not less than ten years as
recommended by Mrs Sue Hooton. I therefore conclude that the effects of the
proposal on biodiversity, particularly skylarks, would be acceptable and that
the proposal would comply with the third bullet point of paragraph 109 of
section 11 of the NPPF.
Local infrastructure
105. This includes affordable housing, open space, recreational facilities,
landscaping, education, waste facilities, libraries and transport facilities. The
adequacy of provision of open space and recreational facilities has already been
discussed and found to be adequate if secured by conditions and subject to the
submission of detailed layouts to be required by conditions. So too has the
provision of the transport facilities, partly secured by conditions and partly by
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
19
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
provisions within the Unilateral Undertaking which, with the exception of the
Travel Plan Monitoring Payment are necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
106. The evidence of Mr McManus submitted to the Inquiry, together with the
answers he gave to my questions demonstrate that the various contributions
proposed within the Unilateral Undertaking for financial contributions to the
provision of education, waste facilities, libraries and transport facilities would
be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly
related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind
to the development. Furthermore, it is clear that the County Council can
identify specific measures on which the financial contributions would be spent
which would alleviate the impact of the development on local infrastructure.
These provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking therefore comply with the CIL
regulations and so I have taken them into account in making my decision.
107. The Unilateral Undertaking would also make provision for affordable housing
in the proportions required by Local Plan policy HS08. This too is necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the
development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. These provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking therefore comply
with the CIL regulations and so I have taken them into account in making my
decision.
108. With these provisions in place, I conclude that the effects of the proposal on
local infrastructure, including affordable housing, open space, recreational
facilities, landscaping, education, waste facilities, libraries and transport
facilities would be acceptable. The proposal would comply with Local Plan
policy LP01 by which the Council seeks the provision or payment for all
services, facilities and other improvements directly related to the development.
Conclusions
109. In addition to the main issues discussed above, a number of other matters
were mentioned by objectors to the scheme, including observations made
about the procedures followed in the modification and adoption of the Local
Plan. Although not specifically mentioned in this decision, I have nevertheless
taken them into account.
110. This proposed development would be satisfactory in terms of four of the six
issues identified; namely its effect on the character and appearance of the
surrounding countryside including the Stour Valley Special Landscape Area; on
Highway safety; on Biodiversity, particularly skylarks; and on local
infrastructure, including affordable housing, open space, recreational facilities,
landscaping, education, waste facilities, libraries and transport facilities.
111. To be taken into account are the marginal impacts on the view from Abbas
Hall and the view associated with the Gainsborough paintings caused by the
development of the southern part of the site. But this is not a new impact
resulting from this particular scheme; the impact on the view from the lake in
the grounds of Abbas Hall is inherent in the allocation of land within the
development plan and was specifically taken into account at the time that the
allocation was made.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
20
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
112. The additional deficiencies which this particular scheme brings lie in the
character and appearance it would create within the housing development itself
and in terms of its effect on the setting of Abbas Hall in its approach. Most of
these defects are localised; they consist of the elevated position, height and
size of the proposed dwellings closest to the brow of the hill along the access
drive to Abbas Hall; the positions of the LAP+2s (particularly № 2); the three
locations where on-street parking is likely to ensue from the inconvenience of
rear courtyards; the setting of plots 105-110; and the lack of surveillance of
parts of the central linear park.
113. Much of the development proposed is quite acceptable. Indeed it would
bring considerable benefits; the implementation of a sizeable provision of the
development plan, including a substantial contribution to housing supply in
general and affordable housing in particular in a district where there has been
an under-performance in terms of delivery, and enhancements to the Stour
Valley Special Landscape Area in terms of the woodland planting belt and the
attenuation pond.
114. But these benefits are not peculiar to this particular scheme; any proposal
complying with the local plan allocation would also bring those benefits; just as
the marginal adverse impact on the views from Abbas Hall associated with
Gainsborough are an inherent disadvantage of the land allocation, so those
benefits are an inherent advantage of the land allocation. The proposal would
bring disadvantages of its own with no advantages of its own.
115. It is government policy that developments which accord with the
development plan should be approved without delay. But this scheme does not
fully accord with the development plan. Its defects, particularly those which
compromise the setting of plots 105-110 would be counter to the objective of
the fourth bullet of paragraph 17 of the NPPF to secure high quality design and
a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and
buildings.
116. Were I to allow this scheme, its adverse effects on the living conditions of
some of its residents and on the setting of Abbas Hall would be permanent.
There is no information to suggest that a scheme cannot be designed which
would be fully satisfactory in all respects; indeed several of the Council’s
witnesses expressed the view that this could be done speedily. I have no
reason to disagree and so, in dismissing this appeal, make it clear that I do so
only on the basis of its identified deficiencies and not in contradiction of the
allocation of the site for development including about 170 dwellings.
P. W. Clark
Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
21
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Richard Ground, of Counsel
He called
Anthony Ingram DArch
RIBA, Architect
Anne Westover BA
DipLA CMLI
Andrew Derrick BA
DipBC NIHBC
William Richards MRTPI
Chris Ward BA
Neil McManus BSc
MRICS ACES
Keith Barber
and Peter Black
took part in the discussion
Instructed by the solicitor to Babergh Distrtict
Council
Director, Anthony Ingram Design and
Architecture
Landscape Planning Officer, Suffolk County
Council
Director, Architectural History Practice
Director, Aspinalls Planning
Travel Plan Officer, Suffolk County Council
Planning Obligations Manager, Suffolk County
Council
Legal Officer, Babergh District Council
Suffolk County Council Highways Officer
on potential conditions
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Meyric Lewis, of Counsel
He called
Simon Neesam BA DipLA
CMLI
Professor Tom
Williamson MA PhD
David Goodin DiplArch
RIBA
Raymond Ricks DipTP
MRTPI
Associate Director, The Landscape Partnership
University of East Anglia
CHBC Architects
Director, Boyer Planning
FOR CORNARD TYE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION:
Jeremy Hyam, of Counsel
He called
Michael Evans
and gave evidence in
person
Instructed by Cornard Tye Residents’ Association
Chair, Cornard Tye Residents’ Association
Local resident
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Councillor Beer
Mr Cornish
Chairman, Planning Committee, Babergh District
Council
Chairman, Great Cornard Parish Council
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
22
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
DOCUMENTS submitted during the Inquiry
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Bundle of additional or revised plans numbered 08.6716.400 P, 08.6716.410
B, 08.6716.411 C, 08.6716.412 C, 08.6716.413 B
Extract from Ordnance Survey map with footpath numbers and photograph of
footpath W.2760160
Extract from Babergh District Council Local Plan Alteration No.2 Second
Deposit Inspector’s Report
Extract from The Setting of Heritage Assets; English Heritage Guidance
Extract from Seeing the History in the View
English Heritage letter dated 25 May 2012
Extract from The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance
Extract from supplementary notes to Screening Analysis for EIA
E-mail from Gareth Durrant to Ray Ricks 04 January 2010
Chris Ward Proof of Evidence, Supplementary Proof and supporting
documents
A Picture of Britain (the East) documentary by David Dimbleby (on DVD)
English Heritage; National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Heritage
Assets
Two photographs with flag on pole
Appeal decision APP/N5660/A/10/2129558
Appeal decision APP/K2610/A/12/2177219
Appeal decision APP/C3105/A/12/2189191
Extract from Planning Portal listing current planning policy and legislation
Department of Transport Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans
through the Planning Process
Explanation of Public Open Space Commuted Sum Calculation
Extract from Landscape Appraisal of Land at Great Cornard, Sudbury
E-mail exchanges between Steven Fisher, James Nichols, Gareth Durrant,
Mark Tavernor and Ray Ricks concerning LAPs and area coverages
Tables of 2011 Census Information - dwelling sizes for Great Cornard Parish
and Babergh
Appeal decision APP/D3505/A/12/2188742
Draft of suggested conditions
Further draft of suggested conditions
Note on Housing Land Supply
Draft of conditions with tracked changes
Draft of Unilateral Undertaking
Drawing PHSY2/150A – Location of proposed gateway features
Drawing PHSY2/A134 – C732/A134 junction
Drawing 1006/HWY/003A – Additional footway/cycleway location plan
Drawing 1006/HWY/01 Rev A – Proposed junction improvements at Carson’s
Drive/C732 junction
Drawing 250612 101 1 – Acton Gateway manufacture details
Mitigation specification for skylark
Proforma submitting appeal proposal for Design Review
E-mail trail concerning appointment of Andrew Derrick
Drawing number PHSY2/1-1 – Survey drawing
Revised draft of Unilateral Undertaking
Conveyance Plan
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
23
Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/13/2198853
DOCUMENTS submitted by arrangement following the Inquiry
1
2
Signed Unilateral Undertaking
E-mail from AshtonKCJ solicitors instructing that Unilateral Undertaking be
dated
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
24