Representation ID 4207
Examination Hearing Statement Suffolk Coastal Site Allocations and
Area Specific Policies DPD and
Felixstowe Peninsular Area Action Plan
Issue 3 – Cross Cutting Issues – Housing
On behalf of Pigeon (Trimley) Ltd
August 2016
1 Introduction
1.1 This Statement has been prepared by Strutt and Parker LLP on behalf of Pigeon
(Trimley) Ltd in respect of the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQ’s) for
the Examination of Suffolk Coastal Plans. In particular this Statement provides
comments in respect of Issue 3 – Cross cutting issues- housing and the following
matters :
19a:
Would the site allocations plan and the AAP make an appropriate contribution to
meeting the housing requirements or at least 7,900 dwellings over the plan period
2010-2027 in accordance with the CS.
23.
How does the spatial distribution of sites within the plans match the spatial strategy set
out in the CS and the settlement hierarchy? If there is any difference what is the
justification?
1.2 The Inspector will be aware from representations submitted on the Felixstowe
Peninsula Action Area Plan (AAP) and a further Hearing Statement presented for Issue
12 that my clients have a specific interest in Omission Site 3022a, Land at High Road,
Trimley St. Martin. Those representations and a separate Hearing Statement suggest
that this site should be included as an allocation to make an appropriate contribution
to meeting housing requirements.
2. Appropriate Contribution
2.1 In our representations at Preferred Options and Submission stage we were one of the
number of those making representations who expressed concerns and/or objections
to the approach of the Plans in not addressing the OAN of 11,000 dwellings; making
reference to the necessity to carry out an early review of the Policy SP2. We accept
the advice of the Inspector on this matter, as expressed in the Note provided on the
remit for considering the Plans accompanying the MIQ’s. We also note that the
Inspector has indicated that that the discussion at the Examination will focus on
provision of at least 7,900 homes set out in the Core Strategy.
2.2 By way of background to our comments on this issue for this Hearing Statement, the
NPPF places a clear duty on Planning Authorities to positively seek opportunities to
meet the development needs of their area and that Local Plans should meet objectively
assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change (para. 14).
2.3 As indicated by the Inspector, Core Strategy Policy SP2 requires the Council to make
provision for 'at least' 7,900 new homes across the District… The use of the words ‘at
least’ do not signify a target; rather a minimum level of provision which can be
exceeded.
2.4 Our client considers that SCDC’s approach has not been to focus on the provision of
'at least' 7,900 dwellings over the plan period. It is worth noting that it was only as a
result of the Examination into the Core Strategy that the wording of Policy SP2 was
changed from; “the creation of up to” to; “at least”. However, SCDC’s current
approach, in so far as they still do not see a need to include Omission Site 3022a as
an allocation, suggests that SCDC appear to view the housing number in Policy SP2
as a target.
2.5 The Council's Response to Representations received on the Proposed Submission
document (July 2016) seems to reinforce this approach. The Council’s assessment of
our representations in relation to Policy FPP1: New Housing Delivery 2015 – 2027 as
set out on page 8 of the document states:
“Sites have been identified in the AAP to deliver the Core Strategy housing target of
7,900 units over the plan period. The site (referring to 3022a) was considered
throughout the production of the AAP but was not required as an allocation to meet the
housing target. The planning application before the council will be considered on its
merits and any permission will be reflected in the AAP.”
2.6 In respect of our Client’s objection regarding the Sustainability Appraisal of respective
sites, the Council’s Assessment of site 3022a as set out on page 62 of the document
is as follows:
“The remit of the site allocations document (Felixstowe Peninsular Area Action Plan;
Site Allocations and Area Specific Policies Document and neighbourhood plans) is to
implement the strategy, objectives and policies in the Suffolk Coastal District Local
Plan – Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (the Core
Strategy). The Core Strategy was adopted in July 2013 having been found sound and
NPPF compliant.
Sites have been identified in the AAP to deliver the Core Strategy housing target of
7,900 units over the plan period. The site was considered throughout the production of
the AAP but was not required as an application to meet the housing target.
The sites identified in the AAP are considered to be sound and will ensure that the is
able to meet the Core Strategy housing target in accordance with the principles of
sustainable development as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.”
2.7 These statements clearly indicate that SCDC’s approach is to meet a ‘target’ of 7,900
units over the plan period, rather than meeting the objectives of the NPPF as set out
at 2.2 above.
3. Spatial Distribution of Sites
3.1 Table 1 below provides a high level overview of what we believe to be the current
position on the District wide housing distribution compared with the adopted Core
Strategy having regard to of the proposed housing distribution as shown within Tables
2 and 3 of the AAP and the Site Allocations Plan (SAP):
Core Strategy (July 2013) (% of total)
Site Allocations/FPAAP (% of total)
Housing Distribution Change between CS and Site Allocations
Eastern Ipswich Corridor
2,320 (29%) 2,191 (25%) -129 (6% reduction)
Felixstowe and Trimleys
1,760 (22%) 2,123 (25%) +363 (21% increase)
Market Towns 1,520 (19%) 2,033 (24%) +513 (34% increase)
Key/Local Service Centres
1,350 (17%) 1,673 (19%) +323 (24% increase
Total At least 7,900 Approximately 8,620
+720 (9% increase)
Table 1: District Wide Housing Distribution of SAP and AAP compared with Core
Strategy (source: Tables 2 and 3 of the SAP and AAP)
3.2 On this basis it is clear that SCDC has, by completions, planning permissions or
proposed allocations in these documents provided for an increase from the Core
Strategy of around 720 homes, or a 9% increase, to meet the Core Strategy
requirement of providing at least 7,900 homes for 2010-2027. However, this increase
has not been applied in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, nor has it been
distributed evenly across the proposed locations for growth. In particular the proposed
allocations for the Market Towns are significantly greater than the growth levels
envisaged at the Core Strategy (34% increase) but demonstrate this increase on CS
growth levels is within an acceptable tolerance.
3.3 Given the fact that the Core Strategy housing requirement is a minimum and there
should be no restriction on additional sites being allocated that will contribute towards
sustainable development, if the same uplift were applied to Felixstowe and the
Trimleys the contribution from the Peninsula could potentially increase to 2,358 (i.e. an
additional 235 dwellings to those that have already been proposed for allocation within
the FPAAP).
3.4 Against this background, we would argue that an allocation of site 3022a for an
additional 70 units would be acceptable and well within this tolerance. Furthermore,
we consider that the imposition of a cap on the number of new homes to be provided
for within Felixstowe and the Trimleys is inappropriate and inconsistent with policies
contained within the NPPF, notably the requirement to boost significantly the supply of
housing.
3.5 On this basis, we consider that it is appropriate to reconsider those sites that have
been dismissed by the Council simply on the grounds that they are not required to
‘meet the housing target of 7,900’, where they sites are clearly capable of providing
additional housing in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.
3.6 Our representations elsewhere to the AAP have dealt with the suitability and
sustainability credentials of site 3022afor an allocation.
4. Overview
4.1 Having regard to the above we would therefore conclude that :
SCDC have been inconsistent in their application of the requirement for the 7,900
dwellings figure to be a minimum as evidenced in their assessment of our site 3022a
and the reality of what has happened since the adoption of the CS.
The spatial distribution of sites does not entirely accord with the CS settlement strategy
(at the time this Hearing Statement has been prepared the reasons for this are not
clear).
The AAP has the ability to contribute further to housing. Sites that have been dismissed
by the SCDC, simply on the grounds that they are not required to ‘meet the housing
target of 7,900’, and where these sites are clearly capable of providing additional
housing in accordance with the principles of sustainable development should be
reconsidered.
Site 3022a represents a suitable and sustainable location for an allocation for the
reasons set out in our representations to the Pre-submission AAP and should be
included as an allocation site within the final AAP.
Representation ID : 4207
Examination Hearing Statement Felixstowe Peninsular Area Action Plan
Issue 12 – Specific Sites/Policies
Omission Site, 3022a: High Road, Trimley St. Martin
Prepared by Strutt & Parker
On behalf of Pigeon (Trimley) Ltd
August 2016
2
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This statement has been prepared by Strutt Parker LLP on behalf of Pigeon Investment
Management Ltd in respect of land at High Road, Trimley St Martin, This is omission Site
No: 3022a identified by the Inspector under Issue 12 – Specific Sites/Policies at paragraph
77 of the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Options. This Statement deals with that site only
and provides comments on its suitability for inclusion in the plan.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 In November 2015, Strutt & Parker submitted comprehensive representations for the
Felixstowe Peninsula Area Action Plan (FPAAP) at Preferred Options stage in respect of
Omission Site 3022a. These demonstrated that the site was available and deliverable
and should be included as an allocation the FPAAP. The representations also set out
justification on the basis that the site was in a sustainable location and its allocation would
make a valuable contribution towards positively meeting the development needs of the
area.
2.2 Further representations were submitted in May 2016 in response to the Proposed
Submission Documents. These made reference to the submission of a full planning
application to Suffolk Coastal Council (SCDC) on behalf of Pigeon (Trimley) Ltd on 10th
May 2016 for the erection of 69 new homes with associated access, landscaping and
amenity space on land adjacent to High Road on the Omission Site 3022a. Full details of
the application are available to view on the Council’s web site (application reference
DC/16/1919/FUL).
2.3 The representations again contended that the site is available, deliverable and
developable and as such should be included as an allocation.
2.4 The content of these representations are still relevant to the Inspector’s consideration of
the Matters Issues and Questions identified for the Examination hearings.
3
3 ISSUE 12 – Specific sites/policies – Comment on suitability or
otherwise in the Plan – Option Site 3022a
3.1 Policy FPP1 of the FPAAP: New Housing Delivery 2015-2027 breaks down the
allocations by settlement for the purposes of the FAAP. It indicates that for Trimley St
Martin an allocation of 430 additional homes to meet the minimum Core Strategy
housing requirement for the plan area.
Critically, Paragraph 3.22 states:
“The figures in the above table (at Policy FPP1) are to be read as minimums and
demonstrate that the Council is meeting the Core Strategy targets for housing provision.
The AAP outlines a number of residential sites across the Felixstowe Peninsular which
collectively have the potential to deliver approximately 1,100 units which exceeds the
Core Strategy target.”
3.2 In our submissions we have argued that the inclusion of our client’s site as an allocation
therefore not be at odds with this policy statements and would be a positive addition to
the allocations helping to ensure that as set out in FPP1 “…at least the minimum Core
Strategy housing delivery for the plan area…” over the plan period will be met.
3.3 The current planning application referred to at 2.2 above, demonstrates that the site is
available and deliverable and that previous concerns about highway access have been
overcome. As such there are no justified reasons why the site should not be included
as an allocation.
3.4 Whilst it is accepted that the purpose of the Examination is not to prejudge the
determination of planning applications, as indicated above, the full planning application
for the erection of 69 new homes currently awaiting determination by SCDC was brought
forward following pre-application engagement with both SCDC, Suffolk Council
Highways and community engagement with local stakeholders. Full details of the
application are available to view on the Council’s web site.
3.5 The proposal comprises a range of detached and semi-detached houses, bungalows,
apartments, including both market and affordable homes to meet local requirements.
A copy of the current layout plan for the development appears at Appendix A.
3.6 The planning application and consultation responses received from statutory consultees
as part of the application process provide evidence that the site will deliver sustainable
development with no adverse impacts.
3.7 The site’s inclusion as an allocation will make a positive contribution towards the plans
identification of sufficient allocations to the Core Strategy housing requirement of ‘at
least’ 7,900 dwellings over the period 2010-2027.
4
FPAAP Sustainability Appraisal Report
3.8 Omission Site 3022a, was identified as suitable in the SHLAA 2014. However, it was
not included in the Preferred Options and discounted on the basis of the Sustainability
Appraisal accompanying the Preferred Options. Apart from its negative score in respect
of loss of Grade 2 agricultural land that is common to all of the proposed Trimley
allocation sites, the main reason for it not being allocated appears to be in respect of its
impact on where people live. At the time SCDC incorrectly assumed that access for the
site would be via the adjoining residential area, Mill Close.
3.9 In the latest Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report (April 2016) prepared for the
Publication FPAAP one sole reason is given for rejecting site 3022a as an alternative
policy option. This is set out at the table at 1.14 (pages 16 and 17) on the grounds that:
It remains to be established if proposed access arrangements would be satisfactory.
Highways a dvice that site should not access directly onto High Road. However,
alternative route via Mill Close also problematic.
3.10 The site layout plan at Appendix A shows that access can be achieved from High Road.
Moreover, the Transport Statement (TS) and Transport Plan (TP) prepared by MLM
Consulting Engineers Ltd accompany the application has concluded that the proposed
access fully accords with highway standards with the required visibility and dimensions.
The TS also confirms that the amount of traffic that would be generated from the
development can be accommodated on the local highway network without significant
impact. Since submission of the application Suffolk County Council Highways (SCC)
have raised no objection to the principle of the highway access and a copy of the SCC
response appears at Appendix B. SCC have requested clarification on some points of
detail relating to the access which have now been provided in revised plans that have
been submitted to SCDC.
3.11 In all other respects the planning application scheme has been prepared to align with
SCDC’s policies, including those relating to affordable housing, open space and
sustainability in development. The application also demonstrates that detailed matters
of noise, flooding and drainage, air quality and contamination can be satisfactorily
addressed.
3.12 It is also worth noting that the SA Report confirms at the Policy Assessment Full
Assessment Proformas at page 225 that the site scores well in terms of economic effects
due to its close proximity to employment opportunities and relatively good public
transport provision. The loss of Grade 2 agricultural soil results in a major negative
environmental effect. However, there may be scope for mitigation.
5
3.13 The site attracted a red banding on criterion 11, Environmental Effects relating to the
conservation of soil resources and quality. However the sites shown for allocation in the
FAAP at Trimley St. Martin at FPP6, Land opposite Hand in Hand Public House, and
FPP7, Land off Howlett Way, attracted the same comment but have been
selected/retained as allocations. Against this background we consider that neither the
SA Report nor SCDC, in rejecting the site came to the view that this matter was critical
to 3022a not being selected.
Council’s Response to representations received on the Proposed Submission Document
(July 2016)
3.14 SCDC’s Council’s Response to our representations on the Proposed Submission
Document for inclusion of the site within the FPAAP simply states that:
Sites have been identified in the AAP to deliver the Core Strategy housing target of 7,900
units over the plan period. The site was considered throughout the production of the
AAP but was not required as an allocation to meet the housing target. The planning
application before the Council will be considered on its merits and any permission will
be reflected in the AAP.
3.15 In terms of actions as result the Council’s response then indicates that a
Minor change to settlement boundary of Trimley St Martin may be required if the
application site is granted planning permission. (page 8 of the document)
3.16 On this basis there now appears to be no fundamental planning objections from SCDC
to the suitability or sustainability credentials of site 3022a. SCDC’s reason for not
including it within the FPAAP now appears to solely relate to the assertion that an
allocation is not necessary to meet the housing target of 7,900 units.
3.17 However the target is expressed as a minimum by policies FPP1 in the FAAP and the
adopted Core Strategy Policy SP2 as referred to at 3.7 above.
3.18 Whilst it is accepted that the planning application will no doubt be considered on its
merits in due course the Planning Practice Guidance says that a Plan “should make
clear what is intended to happen in the area over the life of the plan, where and when
this will occur and how it will be delivered” (ID 12-002). It goes on to say that “where
sites are proposed for allocation, sufficient detail should be given to provide clarity to
developers, local communities and other interests about the nature and scale of
development (addressing the ‘what, where, when and how’ questions)” (ID 12-- 7 -010).
The FPAAP should make clear what is intended to happen in the area over the life of
the plan, where and when this will occur and how it will be delivered. In our
representations we have been able to address these questions. Site 3022a is
deliverable, viable, available now and offers a suitable location for development now
6
with a realistic prospect that it can be delivered within five years. This reinforces the
need for an allocation to come forward for 3022a in the FPAAP and that it is not simply
deferred to the consideration of the planning application.
Suggested Changes
3.19 It is considered that the FPAAP should be subject to a modification to include Omission
Site 3022a as an additional allocation within the Physical Limits Boundary. The wording
for a possible policy relating to the site is set out below:
Policy FPP…: Land at High Road, Trimley St Martin
3 ha of land, east of High Road, Trimley St Martin, as shown on the Policies Map, is
identified for approximately 70 residential units. Development will be expected to accord
with the following criteria:
Primary vehicular access from High Road,
Links to the existing Public Rights of Way network and Mill Close,
Affordable housing provision to be in line with Core Strategy Policy DM2,
A range of housing types and tenures in keeping with the surrounding area and in
line with Core Strategy Policy SP3 and Table 3.6,
On site open space and play facilities
We would be willing to discuss the precise wording of the changes to the Plan to provide
for clarity of any criteria within an allocation with SCDC and/or the Inspector.