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.

7

Appendix A – Layout Plan – Planning Application DC/16/1919/FUL

8

Appendix B – Suffolk County Council Comments Planning

Application DC/16/1919/FUL

9