planning statement - borough of great yarmouth€¦ · 1.1 this planning statement has been...

Persimmon Homes (Anglia) Land at Pointers East, Caister-on-Sea Planning Statement

May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989

CONTENTS:

Page No:

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 3

3. APPLICATION PROPOSALS AND PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS 5

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY 8

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 31

6. CONCLUSION 35

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX 1: RESPONSE TO SCREENING REQUEST

APPENDIX 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING STATEMENT

APPENDIX 3: FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared by Pegasus Group on behalf of

Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (and its successors in title to the land) (‘the

applicant’) in support of a full planning application comprising 194 dwellings and

associated infrastructure.

1.2 This submission follows a programme of consultation with the local community,

details of which are set out in the Statement of Community Consultation and

informal engagement with officers at Great Yarmouth Borough Council.

1.3 It was acknowledged that the proposals may constitute ‘EIA Development’ under

Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011. A formal

Screening Request under Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations was therefore

made by Pegasus Group on behalf of the Applicant on 20th November 2014. This

was in reference to a scheme of up to 200 dwellings.

1.4 Great Yarmouth Borough Council responded on 13th January 2015 identifying

that insufficient information with regard to the in-combination effects of potential

development of another site (Nova Scotia Farm) was included in the request.

However, following a meeting, officers agreed that the application “…is unlikely

to warrant significant adverse environmental effects which would require

EIA” in an e-mail sent on 26th January 2015. This was confirmed in a letter

received on 10th February 2015 (included as Appendix 1), which identifies that

“…the proposal does not constitute EIA development”.

APPENDIX 1: RESPONSE TO SCREENING REQUEST

1.5 The purpose of this planning statement is to demonstrate how the proposed

development accords with the Development Plan having regard to other material

considerations, including the emerging Core Strategy, the Interim Housing Land

Supply Policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

1.6 The structure of this Statement is as follows:

Section 2 – Describes the application site and surroundings;

Section 3 – Provides a summary of the application proposals and the

community consultation undertaken and feedback received;

Section 4 – Sets out the relevant national and local planning policy context

applicable to the application proposals;

Section 5 – Addresses the main planning issues;

Section 6 – Provides a summary and sets out the overall planning balance.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 2

1.7 This Statement should be read alongside the supporting documents that are

submitted in support of the application.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 3

2. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application site covers an area of approximately 7.55 hectares and lies to the

north of the settlement of Caister-on-Sea, in the Parish of Ormesby St Margaret,

adjacent to the Caister by-pass to the west and Ormesby Road to the east. The

northern boundary is delineated by vegetation associated with a paddock. To the

south, and partially to the south east, the boundary is defined by the back

gardens of residential development off Reynolds Avenue and Meadowcroft

Bungalows.

2.2 The site is separated into three distinct areas. The western area is currently in

agricultural use and is dissected in the middle by an existing hedgerow. This most

westerly area is approximately 1.5 metres below the ground level of residential

development off Reynolds Way to the south and Caister by-pass to the west. The

middle section is also in agricultural use and is defined to the east by Yarmouth

Road. The north eastern area is bounded to the west by Yarmouth Road and

Ormesby Road to the east. It is an area presently used for rough grazing,

although extensive hedgerows and vegetation around the pocket of land currently

limits access.

2.3 Caister-on-Sea is defined in the emerging Great Yarmouth Core Strategy as a Key

Service Centre based on an assessment of the services and facilities provided in

the settlement and the connection to services in other settlements. The emerging

Core Strategy proposes that 30% of all development will occur in the Key Service

Centres (namely Bradwell and Caister-on-Sea).

2.4 Local services and facilities, within Caister-on-Sea would be readily accessible by

future residents of the site by walking, cycling and public transport, as

demonstrated on Drawings 006/01 and 006/02 of the accompanying Travel Plan.

The nearest primary schools (Caister Infant School and Caister Junior School) are

both located approximately 2.3km from the site. There are 2 secondary schools

which serve Caister-on-Sea, namely Caister High School which is 2.2km from the

site, and Flegg High School in Martham which can be reached from the site by

bus services 1 and 6.

2.5 The site lies within flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and is not subject to

any statutory landscape, ecological or heritage designations.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 4

2.6 The application site has been identified as being suitable and achievable within

the Great Yarmouth Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The

site has the reference OMA02.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 5

3. APPLICATION PROPOSALS AND PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS

Application Proposals

3.1 This planning application relates to the delivery of residential development of 194

dwellings and associated infrastructure.

3.2 The documents submitted in support of this planning application demonstrate that

the principles of the development have been carefully considered and the design

minimises adverse impacts on the environment, whilst providing significant

economic, social and environmental benefits. The scheme has been formulated

having regard to the policies in the development plan, the emerging Core

Strategy and the NPPF.

3.3 The scale of development proposed is consistent with the development strategy

and complies with the settlement hierarchy as proposed in the emerging Core

Strategy. As one of only two Key Service Centres within the District the

proposals are appropriate to this settlement and do not undermine the wider

development strategy as set out in the emerging Core Strategy.

3.4 The site will provide for a mix of house types and sizes. Building heights would be

a mix of 1 to 2.5 storey properties.

3.5 Affordable units will be provided in accordance with the requirements set by local

planning policy, with the remaining units provided as open market dwellings. An

affordable housing statement is included in Appendix 2.

APPENDIX 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING STATEMENT

3.6 Recreational spaces and green infrastructure are proposed throughout the site.

The Masterplan illustrates how the layout will include areas of native planting,

trails and natural play facilities.

3.7 The proposed development will include robust sustainable drainage methods

(SuDs) to manage flood risk and run off. The SuDs system will include soakaways

as well as an attenuation pond. These will ensure that flows are fully retained

within the site boundaries (with an allowance for an increase in rainfall intensity

of 30%) prior to discharge to soakaways.

3.8 The primary access to the site will be a new T-junction arrangement on the

eastern boundary leading to Ormesby Road. An emergency access will also be

provided approximately 50m to the south of the primary access point and will


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 6

connect to the disused section of Yarmouth Road, which will be retained and

enhanced as a pedestrian and cycle route. The access strategy includes a

proposal to reduce the speed limit on the local section of Ormesby Road to

30/40mph where the national speed limit currently applies. A major off-site

highways improvement is also proposed to the roundabout to the north of the

site, which would increase the circle diameter of the junction and provide entry

flaring on the Ormesby Road and Jack Chase Way arms to provide 2 lanes at the

yield lines. The undersized central island would also be enlarged.

3.9 Financial contributions will be provided to support community infrastructure. The

Council have provided a list of the required contributions. However, this was

based on the provision of a single 1 bed house as opposed to the 19 proposed by

this application. The resulting adjustments have been made and are presented in

Appendix 3.

APPENDIX 3: FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

3.10 A more detailed description of development and the justification for the design

concept that has been followed is set out in the Design and Access Statement.

Community Consultation

3.11 The community consultation which has been undertaken is set out in the

accompanying Statement of Community Consultation.

3.12 A public consultation event was held on Thursday 11th September 2014, between

2:30pm and 7:30pm at the Grange Hotel and Freehouse, Yarmouth Road,

Ormesby St Margaret, NR29 3QG.

3.13 The preliminary development proposals were set out on display on Exhibition

Boards, including a Site Location Plan and Indicative Masterplan. Representatives

of Pegasus Group were in attendance throughout the exhibition as well as

representatives from the Highways Consultants (Create Consulting) who were

available to explain the proposals and answer any questions.

3.14 Further consultation material was subsequently made available to the residents of

Scratby, following a request from the Parish Council.

3.15 Written responses received (on comments forms made available at the

consultation events) and discussions with attendees at the consultation event

have been considered in the Statement of Community Consultation. A review of


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 7

the feedback received demonstrates that there is general opposition to the

proposals. The key issues raised predominantly relate to the following matters:

Principle of development;

Highways and Access;

Flooding and Drainage;

Infrastructure and Public Services

Residential amenity; and

Landscape and Ecology.

3.16 The comments received provide valuable local knowledge and opinion and have

been taken into account in formulating the application and supporting material.

This valuable input has resulted in several changes to the development proposal

including:

Improvements to the emergency access to provide a loop in accordance

with highways requirements;

Removal of the long stretch of road to the west to reduce vehicle speeds;

Introduction of a road to accommodate a surface water flood path;

Relocation of the drainage lagoon to the lowest point of the site;

Revised layout to provide for greater surveillance;

Greater use of private drives rather than adoptable roads to reduce the

dominance of the highway;

Revision to housetypes to improve street scene;

Introduction of an acoustic bund along the western boundary; and

Introduction of bungalows to respond to local needs and reduce the impact

on adjacent dwellings.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 8

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

The Interim Housing Land Supply Policy

4.1 The Council adopted an Interim Housing Land Supply Policy in July 2014. The

Policy seeks to proactively manage the delivery of appropriate new housing

outside, but adjacent to the existing Urban Areas and Village Development Limits,

during the current policy vacuum, which has occurred since the revocation of

Regional Strategies in January 2013 and since the adopted Local Plan has become

time-expired in 2006, and prior to the adoption of the emerging Great Yarmouth

Core Strategy.

4.2 It does not form part of the development plan, but is used as a material

consideration in the determination of planning applications.

4.3 The Policy applies when the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply utilises sites

identified in the SHLAA. The latest 5 Year Housing Land Supply Position

Statement (12th September 2014) includes such sites and as a result it is this

Interim Policy which applies at present.

4.4 It sets out 14 criteria against which applications will be assessed as follows:

“The scale of the development is appropriate to the size,

character and role of the settlement as indicated in the

settlement hierarchy and the level of housing proposed

in any one settlement is generally in accordance with the

level of housing proposed in emerging Policy CS2”

4.5 Caister-on-Sea has been designated as a Key Service Centre in the emerging

Core Strategy and so would be expected to accommodate sustainable levels of

growth. Paragraph 4.25 of the submitted Core Strategy identifies that there are

limited amounts of unconstrained sites at Caister-on-Sea and so only modest

growth would be anticipated at this settlement. Given these constraints, the

opportunities on unconstrained sites including the application site, should be

maximised.

4.6 As previously identified, the emerging Core Strategy sets a requirement for 1,710

additional homes across Bradwell and Caister-on-Sea (although this may be

increased to 1,890). 1,000 of these are allocated and another 55 developable

dwellings are permitted at Bradwell. In contrast, only 16 developable dwellings

are permitted in Caister-on-Sea, despite the fact that both settlements are

classified as Key Service Centres in the emerging Core Strategy. This would


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 9

suggest that sustainable development at Caister-on-Sea should be supported, in

order that the settlement will continue to function as a settlement of the same

order as Bradwell.

4.7 The application proposal for 194 dwellings is considered appropriate to the

settlement of Caister-on-Sea. This will provide for at least 210 dwellings

(including the 16 currently permitted) in Caister-on-Sea of the 1,710 (or 1,890)

dwellings proposed for Bradwell and Caister-on-Sea.

“The proposed mix of housing sizes, types and tenures

reflect local housing requirements in accordance with

the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment, this

may include self-build schemes and lower density

housing.

At least 10% or 20% affordable housing depending on

the affordable housing sub-market area is proposed

unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated

i.e. the proposal would result in the significant

regeneration of a brownfield site.”

4.8 The application proposal provides for 20% affordable housing in accordance with

that set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (paragraph 9.6) and by

Policy CS4 of the emerging Core Strategy.

4.9 The application provides a proportion of bungalows adjacent to Reynolds Avenue.

This was also requested by the community during the community consultation.

The provision of bungalows combined with the 20% affordable housing provision

has been proposed to respond to local needs. The emerging Core Strategy

recognises that the size mix will be negotiated on a site by site basis having

regard to the viability of individual sites, and furthermore proposed modification

AM99 to the Core Strategy sets out that the variation of size mix should be

considered prior to a reduction in the affordable housing provision. The market

housing mix has been designed to respond to market demands. The application

provides for a size and mix that, reflects the advice of Council officers, the

community consultation, and the emerging Core Strategy and remains viable.

“The townscape and historic character of the area

including designated heritage assets are conserved and

enhanced. The final design should appropriately respond

to and draw inspiration from distinctive local natural and

built characteristics such as scale, form, massing and

materials”

4.10 As previously identified, a Landscape and Visual Assessment has been prepared,

which concludes that the development of this site will not significantly affect the


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 10

landscape character or visual amenity of the area. It also considers the

relationship of the site with designated heritage assets and concludes that the

development will not have any physical affect.

“The proposed density and layout is appropriate and

reflects the character and appearance of the surrounding

area. Where ‘higher’ densities are proposed these will

only be permitted if potential impacts have been

mitigated by a well thought-out design”

4.11 The application provides for a density of 33 dwellings per hectare which is

considered appropriate for a development in this location. The Landscape and

Visual Appraisal also confirms that the development will not significantly affect

the amenity of the area and will provide a scheme that will fit the location and

respond to the surroundings.

“A sequential approach has been taken to steer

development to areas with the lowest probability of

flooding, where this is not consistent with sustainability

objectives (as set out in the Exception test) a Flood Risk

Assessment should be provided incorporating

appropriate mitigation measures, including emergency

and evacuation plans”

4.12 The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and no sequential

test is therefore required. A Flood Risk Assessment has also been prepared which

concludes that the scheme would not significantly increase the risk of flooding

either on site ort in the surrounding area.

“Measures have been taken to avoid reductions in water

quality and ensure that adequate foul water capacity is

available to serve the development”

4.13 Anglian Water have confirmed that adequate foul water capacity is available to

serve the development, as articulated in Appendix B of the Strategic Flood Risk

Assessment.

“Measures have been taken to avoid or reduce adverse

impacts on existing biodiversity and geodiversity assets.

Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable

measures will be required to mitigate any adverse

impacts. Where mitigation is not possible, the Council

will require that full compensatory provision be made”

4.14 A Habitats Regulation Assessment and Ecological Assessment have been prepared

and are submitted along with this application. The latter concludes that the

proposed development can be appropriately mitigated, primarily through the

provision of hedgerows and appropriate clearance of the site.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 11

“The landscape character of the surrounding area is

conserved and enhanced, especially where the proposed

development is in close proximity to an important

landscape area, such as the Broads or the Norfolk Coast

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is advisable that

schemes in close proximity to the Broads also seek pre-

application design advice from the Broads Authority”

4.15 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been prepared which concludes

that in landscape and visual terms, development of the site will not significantly

affect the amenity of the area.

“The proposed development creates a safe and

accessible environment that offers convenient access to

key facilities and public transport”

4.16 The Travel Plan submitted alongside this application identifies the proximity of the

site to services and facilities and concludes that the development would be readily

accessible by future residents by walking, cycling and public transport.

“The strategic and local road network can accommodate

the proposed development without obstructing existing

pedestrian and vehicular movements or negatively

impacting upon public safety

The development, having regard to other committed

developments, would not be constrained by the need for

significant off-site infrastructure which is not planned or

funded”

4.17 The accompanying Transport Assessment identifies that with the provision of an

off-site highways improvement (to the roundabout north of the site), there are no

transport related grounds preventing the development from being acceptable.

“The proposed development fulfils the day-to-day needs

of residents and visitors including the provision of

suitable private and communal open space, provision of

sufficient car parking, planning for cycle storage and

ensuring appropriate waste and recycling facilities are

provided”

4.18 The design of the development is fully considered within the Design and Access

Statement. It responds to the parking, and open space standards of the Council,

and provides garages, gardens and drives to allow cycle storage as well as waste

recycling facilities.

“The proposal is demonstrated to be deliverable and

viable, having regard to necessary contributions towards

infrastructure, service provision and affordable housing,

and the intention to develop is demonstrated by the

applicant. To maximise housing delivery the Council will


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 12

seek to ensure that the development commences within

2 years of planning permission being granted”

4.19 The Great Yarmouth SHLAA identifies that the site is suitable, available and

achievable and therefore deliverable and viable. The latest five year land supply

assessment identifies that completions will be achieved in 2015/16. This can still

be achieved, providing that this application is determined in a timely manner.

However, even allowing for delays, development will certainly be forthcoming

within 2 years of obtaining planning permission. Indeed, a developer has an

option on the site and is committed to developing this site.

4.20 The application proposal therefore accords with the Interim Housing Land Supply

Policy which is a material consideration in favour of the application.

The Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan

4.21 Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act requires

planning applications to be determined in accordance with the relevant policies of

the adopted Development Plan, unless material considerations (including the

NPPF) indicate otherwise. The Interim Housing Land Supply Policy is one such

material consideration which should be afforded significant weight.

4.22 The Development Plan consists of the saved policies of the Great Yarmouth

Borough-Wide Local Plan (adopted 2001). The adopted Local Plan only covers the

period to 2006 and as such its quantitative provisions are time expired.

Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that 12 months following the day of publication

“due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans

according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer

the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the

weight that may be given)”.

4.23 The weight to be afforded to these saved policies is therefore determined by their

consistency with the NPPF. These policies are generally consistent with the NPPF,

with the exception of Policy HOU4, and so are capable of being afforded some

weight in the determination of this application.

Housing Policies

4.24 The application site lies in the Countryside as defined on the Proposals Map of the

Local Plan and is not allocated for residential development in the current

development plan. Policy HOU4 states:


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 13

“Proposals for residential development in excess of 10

dwellings will be required to comply with the following

criteria:

(a) the site should be in or adjacent to an existing

settlement;

(b) the development should not extend into open

countryside unless special justification is given (for

example, where significant environmental or amenity

gains could be achieved to the benefit of the

community);

(c) satisfactory access could be made available and

traffic generated by the proposal would not have a

significant effect on the local highway network That

could not be ameliorated by further Infrastructure

provision or improved public Transport links;

(d) the development would be or has the potential to be

well served by public transport;

(e) there would be no loss of sites of landscape or

wildlife importance;

(f) there would be no loss of best and most versatile

agricultural land or areas of special landscape value;

(g) there would be no harm to the historic environment;

and,

(h) sites should not be subject to coastal (marine)

erosion or be subject to flood or be on land of known

instability.”

4.25 Whilst the Policy sets out a presumption against new residential development

outside of the defined Village Development Limits (subject to specific criteria), the

Policy is time expired.

4.26 Furthermore, the Council are developing a Core Strategy in order to ensure that

sufficient new housing is delivered to meet the reassessed objectively assessed

need for housing. This provides for new development at the Key Service Centres,

which necessarily must be beyond the Village Development Limits, owing to

limited capacity within these limits. Policy HOU4 is therefore contrary to the NPPF

as it artificially prevents the identified development needs being delivered and the

weight to be afforded to this Policy must be reduced. Indeed, the Council have

recognised that the Policy is not fit for purpose for the forthcoming period, having

adopted an Interim Housing Land Supply Policy, which should be afforded weight

in the determination of this application.

4.27 Where policies are out-of-date, as is the case here, paragraph 14 of the NPPF

advises that applications should be considered in the light of a planning balance,


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 14

whereby permission should be granted unless the adverse effects of the

application significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This planning

balance is considered in Section 5.

4.28 Notwithstanding this, the application proposal is consistent with the criteria of

Policy HOU4 in any case. The site is adjacent to the existing Village Development

Limits. It is enclosed by existing roads and therefore does not extend into the

open countryside.

4.29 Satisfactory access, as assessed within the accompanying Transport Assessment

is proposed. The primary access will be onto Ormesby Road (with a second

emergency access to Yarmouth Road), and is remote from existing dwellings,

such that these access arrangements will not have a significant effect on existing

properties. The single primary access has been assessed in the Transport

Assessment which concludes that this would operate within theoretical capacity

under full development traffic loadings. The application proposal also provides for

off-site highways works to the roundabout to the north of the site that will

mitigate the adverse impacts of development related traffic and will improve the

entry path curvature of this roundabout which should serve to improve the safety

record at this junction. There are public transport routes in close proximity and

the site is well located to serve walking and cycling to Caister-on-Sea, as

identified within the accompanying Travel Plan. Indeed, bus services 1, 1A, 3, 6

and 63 all pass along the boundary of the site and provide services to Caister-on-

Sea, Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, Martham and Hemsby. Furthermore, the Norfolk

Coast Cycle Way (Regional Route 30) passes the site on Ormesby Road and

provides cycle access to Caister-on-Sea.

4.30 The landscape impacts and historic environment impacts are acceptable as

identified within the accompanying Landscape Assessment. An Agricultural

Considerations report has been prepared which indicates that there is a wealth of

the best and most versatile agricultural land in the area. The application would

result in a loss of some of this land, but this is not significant and there are no

alternative sites, and so the loss is acceptable in terms of the NPPF (paragraph

112). The development will not result in coastal erosion.

4.31 Policy HOU7 relates to the requirements for developments within settlement

boundaries. Notwithstanding the fact that the application site lies outside of the


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 15

Village Development Limit of Caister-on-Sea, the application proposal accords to

the criteria contained in the Policy. It states:

“New residential development may be permitted within

the settlement boundaries identified on the proposals

map in the parishes of Bradwell, Caister, Hemsby,

Ormesby St Margaret, and Martham as well as in the

urban areas of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston. In all

cases the following criteria should be met:

(a) The proposal would not be significantly

detrimental to the form, character and setting of

the settlement;

(b) All public utilities are available including foul or

surface water disposal and there are no existing

capacity constraints which could preclude

development or in the case of surface water

drainage, disposal can be acceptably achieved to a

watercourse or by means of soakaways;

(c) Suitable access arrangements can be made;

(d) An adequate range of public transport, community,

education, open space/play space and social

facilities are available in the settlement, or where

such facilities are lacking or inadequate, but are

necessarily required to be provided or improved as

a direct consequence of the development,

provision or improvement will be at a level directly

related to the proposal at the developer’s expense;

(e) The proposal would not be significantly detrimental to the

residential amenities of adjoining occupiers or users of land.

4.32 The application proposal does not significantly detract from the form, character

and setting of the settlement as identified in the accompanying Landscape

Assessment. Indeed, it provides a definite buffer to prevent the future

coalescence of Caister-on-Sea with villages to the north. Furthermore, in

response to consultations with the Council, the open space provided on-site has

been redesigned to distribute this throughout the site including open space to the

south, in order to enhance access to and surveillance of the open space and to

break up the housing pattern.

4.33 Work is ongoing to assess how to best connect to the existing public utilities.

Additional information will be provided on this matter following submission.

4.34 Suitable access arrangements are proposed as identified in the accompanying

Transport Assessment and appropriate financial contributions to community

facilities will be negotiated with the Council.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 16

4.35 The layout of the site has been developed to respect the residential amenity of

adjoining occupiers, including the provision of bungalows along the southern

boundary which will limit the impact on the residents of Reynolds Avenue. It

provides for public open space including natural play space and trails to provide

an informal play space.

4.36 Policies HOU13 and HOU14 of the Local Plan have not been saved and as such

there is no currently adopted policy on the provision of affordable housing.

Nevertheless, Great Yarmouth Borough Council officers have informed that there

is a requirement for 20% provision in conformity with the latest Strategic Housing

Market Assessment. The Proposed Development conforms to this requirement.

4.37 Policy HOU16 relates to the layout and design, and Policy HOU17 relates to the

density of development proposals. The application proposal has been developed

in this context as set out in the Design and Access Statement.

4.38 The provision of public open space meets that required by Policy REC8 and all

dwellings have gardens. This green infrastructure is further complemented by the

lagoon and surrounding open space.

4.39 The development achieves a net density of 33 dwellings per hectare which is

considered appropriate for a scheme in this location.

Transport and Communications Policies

4.40 Policy TCM13 relates to highway safety and the operation of the highway network

and states:

“Development will not be permitted where it would

endanger highway safety or the satisfactory functioning

of the local highway network. In appropriate cases a

traffic impact assessment will be required to

demonstrate that development proposals can be

satisfactorily accommodated within the highway network

taking into account any improvements proposed.”

4.41 A Transport Assessment has been prepared by Create Consulting to assess the

highways impact of the application proposal. This concludes that there are no

transport related grounds preventing the development from being acceptable to

the Highway Authority. Additionally the Great Yarmouth SHLAA (2014) identifies

that:

“In terms of highways and access, Norfolk County

Council indicate that the site would be acceptable for


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 17

estate scale, high density residential development. There

are two points of access that could be adequately formed

of the public highway and the highway network would be

adequate to serve the development. In addition the site

is well related to public transport and local services as it

is adjacent to Caister.”

4.42 Policy TCM17 requires that all new operational development meets the Council’s

parking standards. The application provides 456 parking spaces and an additional

17 visitor parking spaces which exceeds the adopted parking standards.

4.43 Policy TCM23 requires that all new road layouts serving large-scale residential

development areas will be expected to make provision for public transport routes.

As previously identified in paragraph 4.9, the site is well served by existing public

transport provision and is furthermore accessible by cycling and walking to

Caister-on-Sea.

Education and Community Services Policies

4.44 Policy EDC1 states:

“Where proposals for development create a direct need

for additional education provision which cannot be met

by existing facilities determined by the local education

authority and which would create the need for

extensions and/or alterations to existing schools or the

provision of new schools the council will seek a

contribution proportionately towards the cost of the

improvement, or the new school.”

4.45 The application will make a contribution to educational provision, as required. The

draft Heads of Terms are currently being discussed with Council officers. The

appropriate contribution towards Education and Community Services will be

provided in accordance with the position that will be agreed in the final Heads of

Terms.

Infrastructure Provision and Public Utility Services Policies

4.46 Policies INF8, INF10, and INF11 relates to the management of surface water and

groundwater and its quality. A Flood Risk Assessment containing a Foul and

Surface Water Drainage Strategy has been prepared, which concludes that the

scheme can be constructed and operated safely without significantly increasing

the risk of flooding to the surrounding area. The assessment identifies solutions

to manage surface and groundwater in accordance with policy.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 18

4.47 Policy INF12 requires that development proposals are properly serviced with

regard to utilities. Work is ongoing to assess how to best connect to the existing

public utilities. Additional information will be provided on this matter following

submission.

Natural Environment Policies

4.48 The application site is identified on the Proposals Map as being ‘Landscape

important to the Coastal Scene’. Policy NNV3 states:

“In the areas shown on the proposals map as ‘landscape

important to the coastal scene’ the council will only

permit development that would not significantly detract

from the essential open character of the areas.”

4.49 A Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been prepared, which concludes that the

development of this site will not significantly affect the landscape character or

visual amenity of the area if the recommended landscape strategy is included in

the development. Additionally, the Council’s Background Evidence Paper 9

identifies that the sensitive landscape issues could be overcome through good

practice urban design.

4.50 The application site is also identified as ‘Landscape important to the setting of

settlements’ on the Proposals Map. Policy NNV5 states:

“In the areas around settlements shown on the

proposals map as ‘landscape important to the setting of

settlements’ the council will permit development

provided a developer can demonstrate essential need or

that the development would not impinge on the physical

separation between settlements particularly between

Great Yarmouth and Caister and Gorleston and Hopton

which are major gateways to the town, or give rise to

any other significant adverse impact.”

4.51 The need for this development is set out within Section 5 of this Planning

Statement. Furthermore, the issue of coalescence has been addressed through

the recommended design identified in the Landscape and Visual Appraisal through

the provision of a strong landscape buffer to the west of the site between Caister-

on-Sea and Ormesby St Margaret. The opportunities to limit coalescence are

recognised in paragraph 4.43 of the Council’s Background Evidence Paper 9.

4.52 Policy NNV6 provides further detail on development within areas of important

landscape character. This is addressed through the design and layout identified in

the Landscape and Visual Appraisal and the Design and Access Statement.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 19

4.53 Policy NNV10 states:

“In connection with new development the Borough

Council will, where appropriate, expect the retention,

restoration and creation of landscape features and

wildlife habitats.”

4.54 The application proposal recognises the value of the existing the landscape.

Comprehensive assessments of the landscape and of the arboriculture of the site

have been undertaken and the proposal developed in accordance with the

recommendations of these assessments. As a result, the application proposal

provides for additional hedgerow planting and for areas of open space.

4.55 The application site is classified as Grade 1 Agricultural Land. Policy NNV16

states:

“Proposals for the development of land regarded as the

best and most versatile land, i.e. land classified as grade

1, 2 or 3a by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food, will not be permitted unless it can be

demonstrated that there is no other suitable site for the

purpose and, that, in so far as is possible land of the

lowest classification has been used.”

4.56 An Agricultural Considerations report accompanies this application which

concludes that there are unlikely to be alternative poorer quality sites available to

meet the identified needs.

Built Environment Policies

4.57 Policy BNV1 states:

“Development on the site of or in the vicinity of a

scheduled ancient monument, or an unscheduled ancient

monument of known national importance will only be

permitted if the development would not adversely affect

the monument or its setting.”

4.58 The Landscape and Visual Appraisal addresses the relationship with the scheduled

monuments and concludes that the application proposal would not adversely

affect scheduled monuments or their settings.

4.59 Policy BNV13 relates to the urban and rural character. This is addressed through

the Landscape and Visual Appraisal which concludes that the urbanisation of this

site is not out of context considering the adjoining built forms.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 20

4.60 Policy BNV15 relates to design in order to minimise crime. The Design and Access

Statement identifies that the site provides positive frontage to the proposed areas

of open space and that additional windows have been incorporated to increase

surveillance. There are also areas of public open space within the site and

pedestrian routes both through the public open space and along the roadways.

This similarly provides for greater natural surveillance.

Sport and Recreation Policies

4.61 Policy REC8 requires the provision of recreational/amenity space and/or children’s

playspace proportionate to the scale of the development. The proposal includes

0.8936ha of open space required by Policy REC8. This open space will include

natural play space and trails and will be complemented by additional open space

surrounding the lagoon.

Emerging Great Yarmouth Core Strategy

4.62 Paragraph 216 of the NPPF identifies the weight that can be afforded to emerging

planning policies. The weight is dependent upon the state of advancement of the

plan; the extent of unresolved objections; and the consistency with the NPPF.

4.63 The emerging Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State for

independent examination in April 2014. Hearings to the Core Strategy were held

at the end of November 2014. During the hearings a number of modifications

were proposed and the Inspector asked for clarification on these on the 2nd

December 2014. The Council responded to the Inspector and the Inspector has

confirmed that these should now be consulted upon. This consultation is

scheduled for 11th May to 23rd June 2015. Once this consultation is complete and

responses have been processed, the Inspector will be in a position to issue his

final report. As a result, the Core Strategy (including the proposed modifications)

can be seen to be significantly advanced.

4.64 There are unresolved objections, although many of these will have been

addressed by the proposed modifications. The extent of outstanding objections is

discussed in reference to individual policies (where relevant).

4.65 The Council have developed the Core Strategy in the context of the NPPF and

clearly consider that the two are consistent.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 21

4.66 Policy CS1 of the emerging Core Strategy provides the overarching policy

covering sustainable development. There were no objections raised through the

hearing statements to Matter 2 of the examination and as such this policy can be

afforded significant weight. Policy CS1 requires:

“To ensure the creation of sustainable communities the

Council will look favourably towards new development

and investment that successfully contributes towards the

delivery of:

a) Sustainable growth, ensuring that new development is

of a scale and location that complements the character

and supports the function of individual settlements

b) Mixed adaptable neighbourhoods, that provide choices

and effectively meet the needs and aspirations of the

local community

c) Environmentally friendly neighbourhoods, that are

located and designed to help address and where possible

mitigate the effects of climate change and minimise the

risk of flooding

d) A thriving local economy, flourishing local centres,

sustainable tourism and an active port

e) Safe, accessible places that promote healthy lifestyles

and provide easy access for all to jobs, shops and

community facilities by walking, cycling and public

transport

f) Distinctive places, that embrace innovative high

quality urban design where it responds to positive local

characteristics and protects the borough’s biodiversity,

unique landscapes, built character and historic

environment”

4.67 The application proposal accords with this by providing for a scale of development

that is consistent with Policy CS3 at a Key Service Centre. It provides for

adaptable homes in the form of bungalows and a range of house types and sizes,

in close proximity and well-connected to the settlement of Caister-on-Sea and is

sensitively designed. The design of the scheme is detailed in the accompanying

Design and Access Statement, and provides for neighbourhood areas within the

site which provide legibility and interest.

4.68 Policy CS2 identifies Caister-on-Sea as a Key Service Centre along with Bradwell.

The Policy proposes that these settlements will accommodate 30% of all new

development across the plan period. There were no objections to this identified in

the hearing statements to Matter 2 of the examination and as such the status of

Caister-on-Sea and the requirement for Key Service Centres to accommodate

30% of development should be afforded significant weight.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 22

4.69 Policy CS3 of the submission draft proposes an additional 5,700 homes across the

plan period from 2014 to 2029 (or 380 dwellings per annum). However, this is

below the identified objectively assessed need for 420 dwellings per annum.

Indeed, there are significant outstanding objections to the proposed 380

dwellings per annum. It is however understood that the Council has subsequently

proposed a modification to the submitted Plan to increase the housing

requirement in Policy CS3 to 420 dwellings per annum (or 6,300 dwellings across

the plan period) in order to meet the objectively assessed housing needs. It is

also understood that this will be achieved through a stepped approach to delivery

with only 300 dwellings per annum required from 2014-2019 and significantly

more thereafter. This is a matter that will be subject to public consultation.

4.70 The housing requirement of 380dpa should be afforded limited weight as it is

subject to significant outstanding objections. The housing requirement of 420dpa

is not available in a published document and so should also be afforded limited

weight. However, once the proposed modifications are published on the 11th May

2015 this may be afforded considerable weight1.

4.71 The submission draft identifies a requirement for 30% of dwellings to be within

the Key Service Centres which equates to a requirement for 1,710 dwellings.

However, the potential proposed change results in (30% of 6,300 dwellings)

1,890 dwellings being required within Bradwell and Caister-on-Sea by 2029.

4.72 Policy CS3 then allocates a site at Bradwell for 1,000 homes, all of which are

intended to be delivered within the plan period. Appendix B of the 5 Year Housing

Land Supply Position Statement (12th September 2014) identifies a further 55

dwellings in Bradwell and 16 dwellings in Caister-on-Sea which are permitted and

considered developable in the plan period. Assuming that the proposed allocation

at Bradwell site can be delivered in its entirety within the plan period, this leaves

a remainder of between 6392 and 8193 homes to be identified elsewhere in

Bradwell and Caister-on-Sea4.

1 The total housing requirement of 420dpa has been identified by the examining

Inspector based on evidence and responds to outstanding objections. It should therefore

be afforded considerable weight. However, the proposed phasing has yet to be subject to

consultation and so should be afforded limited weight. 2 1,710 (emerging requirement) – 1,000 (proposed allocation at Bradwell) – 55

(permitted developable sites at Bradwell) – 16 (permitted developable sites at Caister-

on-Sea) = 639


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 23

4.73 Policy CS3 also requires an appropriate size mix of dwellings drawing on that set

out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA); that dwellings are

accessible and that the density of development is appropriate.

4.74 The size mix of affordable housing has been informed by and agreed with Council

officers. The size mix of the market housing responds to the local housing

market. The application proposal incorporates the provision of 13 bungalows to

contribute to addressing the specific needs of households including the elderly

and thereby provides for accessible accommodation. The scheme has been

designed with a density of 33dph in order to make the most effective use of land

in accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF. This density is considered

appropriate for this site.

4.75 The emerging Core Strategy also proposes Policy CS4 which sets out the

requirement for affordable homes. The application site is identified as lying in

Affordable Housing Sub-Market Area 1, for which Policy CS4 seeks 20%

affordable housing. This equates to 39 affordable homes, as proposed within this

Application.

4.76 Policy CS9 provides for high quality and distinctive places as follows:

“High quality, distinctive places are an essential part in

attracting and retaining residents, businesses, visitors

and developers. As such, the Council will ensure that all

new developments within the borough:

a) Respond to, and draw inspiration from the

surrounding area’s distinctive natural, built and

historic characteristics, such as scale, form, massing

and materials, to ensure that the full potential of the

development site is realised; making efficient use of

land and reinforcing the local identity

b) Consider incorporating key features, such as

landmark buildings, green infrastructure and public

art, which relate to the historical, ecological or

geological interest of a site and further enhance local

character

3 1,890 (emerging requirement) – 1,000 (proposed allocation at Bradwell) – 55

(permitted developable sites at Bradwell) – 16 (permitted developable sites at Caister-

on-Sea) = 819 4 1.1 Even against the requirement identified in the submission draft of the Core

Strategy for 380 homes (or 5,700 over the plan period), would require 1,710 of these in

Bradwell and Caister-on-Sea, leaving a remainder of 639 homes to be identified.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 24

c) Promote positive relationships between existing and

proposed buildings, streets and well lit spaces, thus

creating safe, attractive, functional places with active

frontages that limit the opportunities for crime

d) Provide safe access and convenient routes for

pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and

disabled people, maintaining high levels of

permeability and legibility

e) Provide vehicular access and parking suitable for the

use and location of the development, reflecting the

Council’s adopted parking standards

f) Seek to protect the amenity of existing and future

residents, or people working in, or nearby, a

proposed development, from factors such as noise,

light and air pollution and ensure that new

development does not unduly impact upon public

safety

g) Conserve and enhance biodiversity, landscape

features and townscape quality

h) Minimise greenhouse gas emissions and the risk of

flooding, through the use of renewable and low

carbon energy and efficient site layouts and building

designs, in accordance with Policy CS12

i) Fulfil the day-to-day social, technological and

economic needs of residents, visitors and businesses

by ensuring the provision of capacity for high speed

digital connectivity, suitable private and communal

open space, cycle storage and appropriate waste and

recycling facilities.”

4.77 These largely repeat policies of the adopted Borough Wide Local Plan which have

been addressed previously. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal considers the

current landscape and historic assets and the application has been developed to

take account of these. Neighbourhood Areas and open space are provided as part

of the proposal as detailed in the Design and Access Statement. Natural

surveillance is incorporated into the design to limit the opportunities for crime.

The site provides opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users

as identified in the Travel Plan. The Transport Assessment concludes that there


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 25

are no transport related grounds preventing the development from being

acceptable to the Highway Authority and this is corroborated by the SHLAA.

Parking places and garages are provided as part of the application. An

Environmental Noise Assessment has been prepared which indicates that with the

provision of a bund, noise levels will be acceptable. An Ecological Assessment has

also been prepared which identifies that the impacts of the development on

biodiversity could be mitigated. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal also

concludes that the development will not significantly affect the amenity of the

area and will provide a scheme that will fit the location and respond to the

surroundings.

4.78 Policy CS11 relates to the natural environment and requires that the separate

identities and characters of settlements are maintained. The application site lies

to the north of Caister-on-Sea and concern has been raised with regard to the

potential coalescence with Ormesby St Margaret. However, the proposal provides

a landscape buffer to the north west of the site which will reinforce the separate

identity of Caister-on-Sea and prevent coalescence. This buffer is proposed to

incorporate native planting to shield the gap visually, provide visual interest and

soften the approach to the settlement and create a biodiversity habitat.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

4.79 The NPPF was published and came into immediate effect on 27 March 2012 and

sets out a "presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for

every plan and decision".

4.80 Paragraph 7 identifies three dimensions to sustainable development which include

economic, social and environmental roles. Paragraph 8 identifies that these roles

are mutually dependent and that economic growth can secure higher social and

environmental standards, and that well-designed buildings and places can

improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable

development, the NPPF recognises that economic, social and environmental gains

should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

4.81 Paragraph 14 sets out that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of

sustainable development which should be seen as a ‘golden thread’ running

through both plan-making and decision-taking. Paragraph 14 continues to state

that for decision-taking this means (unless material considerations indicate

otherwise):


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 26

“Approving development proposals that accord with the

development plan without delay; and

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant

policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

Any adverse impacts of doing so would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,

when assessed against the policies in this Framework

taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in this Framework indicate

development should be restricted5”.

4.82 Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) sets out the need to

significantly boost the supply of housing. In order to achieve this paragraph 47

states that Local Planning Authorities should use their evidence base to ensure

that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and

affordable housing in the housing market area and:

“Identify and update annually a supply of specific

deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of

housing against their housing requirements with an

additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the

plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the

market for land. Where there has been a record of

persistent under delivery of housing, local planning

authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved

forward from later in the plan period) to provide a

realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to

ensure choice and competition in the market for land.”

4.83 Paragraph 49 goes onto state:

“Housing applications should be considered in the

context of the presumption in favour of sustainable

development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing

should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning

authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of

deliverable housing sites.”

4.84 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that in order to deliver a wide choice of high

quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable,

inclusive and mixed communities, Local Planning Authorities should:

5 NPPF footnote 10 – “For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the

Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special

Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a national Park (or the Broads

Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal

erosion”.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 27

“Plan for a mix of housing based on current and future

demographic trends, market trends and the needs of

different groups in the community;

Identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that

is required in particular locations, reflecting local

demand; and

Where they have identified that affordable housing is

needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless

off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly

equivalent value can be robustly justified and the agreed

approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed

and balanced communities. Such policies should be

sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market

conditions over time”.

4.85 Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport) recognises that transport policies

have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development. Paragraph

29 advises that whilst the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of

sustainable transport modes the Government recognises that different policies

and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to

maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.

4.86 Section 7 (Requiring good design) provides guidance on design highlighting that

the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built

environment. Whilst highlighting that good design is a key aspect of sustainable

development (paragraph 56) paragraph 60 recognises that:

“Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to

impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they

should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative

through unsubstantiated requirements to confirm to

certain development forms or styles. It is, however,

proper to seek to promote or reinforce local

distinctiveness.”

4.87 Paragraphs 59 and 60 advise that design policies should avoid unnecessary

prescription and should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular

tastes, or stifle innovation, originality or initiative.

4.88 Full details of the design rationale are provided in the Design and Access

Statement.

4.89 Annex 1 of the NPPF deals with implementation stating that following 12 months

after the date of publication decision makers may continue to give full weight to

relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict

with this Framework. In other cases, such as in Great Yarmouth, due weight


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 28

should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of

consistency with the framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies

in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

4.90 On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

launched the PPG web-based resource.

4.91 The PPG replaces a number of older guidance notes and complements the NPPF.

The new guidance is not intended to provide further policy but instead it seeks to

clarify issues relevant to the planning regime.

4.92 Together, the NPPF and the PPG set out the Government’s national planning

policies and guidance for new development. They aim to help create the homes

and jobs the country needs, while protecting and enhancing the natural and

historic environment.

4.93 The PPG reaffirms the primacy of the Development Plan and also confirms that

the NPPF represents up-to-date Government planning policy which must be taken

into account where it is relevant to a planning application or appeal.

4.94 The PPG provides a range of guidance on matters which relate to the preparation

of development plans and the determination of planning applications. The PPG is

drafted so as to reinforce the principles and objectives of the NPPF, including

those aspects which are of most relevance to this application summarised

previously.

4.95 In respect of design the PPG recognises that:-

“Good quality design is an integral part of sustainable

development. The National Planning Policy Framework

recognises that design quality matters and that planning

should drive up standards across all forms of

development. As a core planning principle, plan-makers

and decision takers should always seek to ensure high

quality design.

Achieving good design is about creating places,

buildings, or spaces that work well for everyone, look

good, last well, and will adapt to the needs of future

generations.

Good design responds in a practical and creative way to

both the function and identity of a place. It puts land,

water, drainage, energy, community, economic,


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 29

infrastructure and other such resources to the best

possible use – over the long as well as the short term”.

4.96 The Design and Access Statement submitted in support of this planning

application demonstrates the approach to design.

Other Material Planning Considerations

Background Evidence Paper 9: Beacon Park Extension Key Site (March 2014)

4.97 The Background Evidence Report assesses the options for sustainable urban

extensions in the Borough. It considers the application site as one such option

(ref: OMA02). In regard to this site it concludes that it is relatively unconstrained

and developable, and that sensitive landscape and coalescence issues could be

overcome with sensitive design. Indeed, the report does not identify any

constraints which could not be addressed through appropriate mitigation.

However, it concludes that the site is too small to be a strategic allocation and

instead considers that it could be released through a subsequent Site Allocations

DPD.

Great Yarmouth SHLAA 2014

4.98 The SHLAA considers all potential development sites in the Borough. Only one

developable site with a capacity of 130 dwellings (BR06a) is identified within the

current Urban Area of Bradwell or the Village Development Limit of Caister-on-

Sea, as compared to the outstanding requirement for 639 dwellings. There is

therefore, a requirement for residential development beyond the current Urban

Area and Village Development Limits.

4.99 The SHLAA considers the application site (ref: OMA02) to be suitable, available

and achievable.

5 Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement (12th September 2014)

4.100 The latest housing land supply assessment includes the application site in the

deliverable supply. In this context, the site must again be considered to be

suitable, available and achievable. For the site to be considered suitable it must

be considered to be in conformity with the development plan, emerging planning

policy and/or national policy (PPG: Reference ID: 3-019-20140306) and there

must therefore be a presumption that appropriate applications on this site would

be determined favourably.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 30

4.101 Furthermore, the inclusion of this SHLAA site within the deliverable supply

triggers the application of the Interim Housing Land Supply Policy as a material

consideration. The housing land supply position is set out in Section 5.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 31

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 The following section considers the principle of development, in view of the

application proposals and the relevant national and local planning policy

framework.

5.2 The Council seek to manage development adjacent to existing Village

Development Limits (including Caister-on-Sea) through the Interim Housing Land

Supply Policy. This Policy has been developed to manage housing delivery in the

current policy vacuum, and whilst not part of the development plan, forms the

Council’s Policy to achieve sustainable development. The proposed development

is consistent with this Policy which provides a significant material consideration in

support of the grant of permission.

5.3 The site currently lies in the countryside as defined by the time-expired Great

Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan and as such, the proposal should be assessed

in the context of Policy HOU4. The application proposal is consistent with the

criteria of this Policy and so should be determined favourably.

5.4 The Local Plan was, however, adopted before 2004 and so full weight cannot be

given to this policy in accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF. Furthermore,

whilst the principle of the policy may be consistent with the NPPF (and so due

weight may be afforded, in accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF), the

Village Development Limits upon which this policy relies were formulated to meet

the development needs up to 2006.

5.5 Indeed, the emerging Great Yarmouth Core Strategy identifies a need for an

additional 1,710 dwellings in Bradwell and Caister-on-Sea from 2014 (although

this may be increased to 1,890), of which 639 still need to be identified (or 819 if

the requirement is increased). This level of development could not be provided

within existing Urban Areas and Village Development Limits6 and so they are de

facto out-of-date. As a result the final bullet point of paragraph 14 of the NPPF is

engaged, which requires that the application should be approved unless any

adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits (given that it is not subject to specific policies of the NPPF

which indicate that development should be restricted).

6 Indeed, the SHLAA only identifies capacity for 130 dwellings within the current

settlement boundaries.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 32

5.6 The latest assessment of housing land supply includes the application site in the

deliverable supply although the site does not have planning permission. In order

for this site to be included in the deliverable supply, the Council must consider

development at this location to be suitable and consistent with the development

plan, emerging planning policy and/or national policy in accordance with the PPG.

In this context, the site must be considered to be appropriate for development

and any application should be considered favourably.

5.7 The report identifies that with the inclusion of this and other SHLAA sites in the

deliverable supply there is a housing land supply of 7.04 years. However, if such

sites were excluded there would be only a 2.21 year land supply.

5.8 As previously identified, the inclusion of the site within the deliverable supply

requires that the development of this site is consistent with policy and so the

application should be considered favourably. However, even if the site were not

considered to be suitable, being outside the Village Development Limits, this

would apply to all the SHLAA sites within the deliverable supply with the effect

that the land supply would be reduced to 2.21 years, and so paragraph 49 of the

NPPF is engaged. Once again, the result of this is that relevant policies for the

supply of housing are considered out-of-date, in which case the application should

be approved unless any adverse impacts of the proposed development

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

5.9 Further examination of the housing land supply identifies that the 7.04 years

identified by the Council is based upon a housing requirement of 380 dwellings

per annum. However, the Inspector has concluded that the objectively assessed

need is 420 dwellings per annum, and it is this that should be used to assess land

supply prior to adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore, in the current context,

the land supply is lower than that identified by the Council, with a supply of 6.37

years including SHLAA sites or 2.00 years excluding them.

5.10 It is understood that the Council will propose a housing requirement of only 300

dwellings per annum from 2014-19. This does not represent the objectively

assessed need and so should be afforded only limited weight. Nevertheless, even

against this constrained figure the same conclusion is reached in that if the

SHLAA sites are included in the deliverable supply a sufficient 8.93 year land

supply exists but if they are removed only a 2.81 year land supply exists. In all


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 33

cases, the Council is dependent upon SHLAA sites including the application site to

demonstrate a five year supply of housing.

5.11 In such circumstances, with an application that is consistent with the adopted

(although out-of-date) development plan, a sustainable site and an insufficient

housing land supply, applications should be considered favourably unless the

adverse impacts of development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits.

5.12 The adverse impacts of the application proposal comprise only of the loss of the

best and most versatile agricultural land. However, the site is small; contains only

small fields; has been severed by roads; and lies on the urban edge and so limits

the potential for spraying. It is therefore considered to be of limited economic

potential and the loss of this agricultural land is not considered significant, and as

such the development is consistent with the NPPF. Even if it were demonstrated

to represent a significant development of agricultural land, the opportunities for

alternative and poorer quality sites to meet the identified housing needs would

need to be considered in accordance with paragraph 112 of the NPPF. As

evidenced within the SHLAA there is very limited capacity and development

beyond the Village Development Limits will be required. The Agricultural

Considerations report concludes that there is unlikely to be poorer quality

agricultural land available to provide for the development needs outside of the

Village Development Limits. In this context, the NPPF recognises that losses of

the best and most versatile agricultural land may be necessary where there is no

poorer quality land available. Such is the case at the Application Site.

5.13 However, even if this is considered to represent a significant adverse impact of

the Proposed Development, it would be outweighed by the benefits of providing

for the objectively assessed housing needs; facilitating the settlement strategy of

the emerging Core Strategy; providing a policy compliant level of affordable

housing; and contributing to the deliverable supply of housing in a sustainable

location with sympathetic design.

5.14 In summary, the application proposal is consistent with the time-expired and out-

of-date saved policies of the Local Plan, the emerging policies of the Core

Strategy and the Interim Housing Land Supply Policy and so should be

determined favourably. There are also material considerations which would


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 34

support the application of a planning balance, which again would support a

favourable determination of this planning application.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 35

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared in support of a Full Planning

Application comprising 194 dwellings with associated infrastructure.

6.2 The proposal is consistent with Policy HOU4 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide

Local Plan and so should be determined favourably. However, the housing policies

of this plan are time expired and do not cater for the currently identified housing

needs. They are therefore out-of-date. Nevertheless, the starting point for the

determination of this application is that it accords with the development plan.

6.3 Additionally, the Council are reliant on SHLAA sites to demonstrate a five year

housing land supply. However, if the Council relies on SHLAA sites it must either

consider these sites favourably, including the Application Site, or accept that a

five year land supply does not exist. Indeed, without these sites the housing land

supply is only 2.00 years.

6.4 In such circumstances, where the Council is reliant on SHLAA sites to

demonstrate a five year land supply of housing, the Interim Housing Land Supply

Policy has been adopted to manage development adjacent to settlements. The

application proposal accords with this policy.

6.5 Where relevant policies are out of date (as is the case here) or where an

insufficient land supply exists (as is the case here), the Application should be

considered favourably, in the context of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. This

paragraph requires that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts

of development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.6 The application site has been identified as being suitable, available and achievable

in several recent Council documents (including the SHLAA, the five year housing

land supply assessment and Background Evidence Paper 9). It must therefore be

considered to be consistent with the development plan, emerging planning policy

and/or national policy. It provides a deliverable scheme consistent with the

spatial strategy and policies of the Interim Housing Land Supply Policy and the

emerging Core Strategy.

6.7 In light of the above it is considered that the scheme represents sustainable

development in the context of the saved policies of the Local Plan and in the

context of the NPPF and that the benefits of the proposals (i.e. through housing

delivery) outweigh the adverse impacts relating to the loss of the best and most


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989 Page | 36

versatile agricultural land and that there is a presumption in favour of granting

planning permission.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989

APPENDIX 1

Response to Screening Request

1

Strategic Planning, Housing and Regeneration Development

Town Hall, Hall Plain

Great Yarmouth

Norfolk, NR30 2QF

Customer Contact Centre Tel: (01493) 856100 Fax: (01493) 846110

Dear Mr Chamberlayne

Ref: Land at Pointers East, Caister on Sea Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011: Regulation 5 Request for a Screening Opinion

I write further to your letter of 20th November 2014 in which a ‘Screening Opinion’ has been requested from the Borough Council in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011. A development requiring Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is one which is either a Schedule 1 development or a Schedule 2 development likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as size, nature or location. From the information submitted by you, on behalf of the applicant, it is understood that the proposed development would include the construction of up to 200 residential dwellings along with car parking, landscaping, and 2 points of access from Yarmouth and Ormesby Road. The application site would cover an area of 7.91 hectares of agricultural and grass land immediately north of existing housing development west of Ormesby Road within Caister-on-Sea. The proposal site would incorporate three fields, which are all rectangular in shape. The site is bordered by the Caister by-pass on its western boundary and by Ormesby Road on the east. The site is bisected by Yarmouth road on a north to south-east trajectory. In the context of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, the development would appear to fall within Schedule 2, Section 10(b) Urban Development Projects, as confirmed by your letter. Whilst the site is within 5km of Breydon Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, Broadland SPA and Ramsar site, The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA and Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC, the site itself is not located within a sensitive area within the context of the EIA Regulations. It does however meet at least one of the criteria/thresholds set out under Column 2 of Section 10(b) of Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, on the basis that the total area of development would exceed 0.5 hectares. Under these circumstances the selection criteria under Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations needs to be taken into account to assess whether the proposal is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

Mr S Chamberlayne Pegasus House Querns Business Centre Whitworth Road Cirencester Glos GL7 1RT

Email: [email protected] DX: 41119 Great Yarmouth 1

Service Manager: David Glason

Please ask for: Kim Balls

Direct Line: (01493) 846475 Email:[email protected]

Our ref: TP/251/KB

10 February 2015

mailto:[email protected]

2

Under Schedule 3, matters to be considered include; the characteristics of the development (1); the location of the development (2); and, the characteristics of the potential impact (3). 1. Characteristics of the development The site is approximately 8 hectares in size and has the potential to include up to 200 new dwellings. This is considered to have a locally significant effect due to the urbanisation of the immediate area, however over the breadth of the wider landscape and need to develop upwards of 7,000 new dwellings by 2031 in accordance with the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy, the development in isolation is not considered to be adversely significant to the environment. The proposed development of a further 800 dwellings has also been mooted by the applicant on a site to the west of the Caister by-pass. This has the potential to have significant cumulative effects with the proposed development at Pointers East. However, no formal plans have been submitted to date therefore the cumulative impact is not yet determinable. The consummation of natural resources or producing waste are unavoidable characteristics of this type of development and there is nothing to suggest that this would be any more significant than other development projects at this type of scale or complexity. Moreover, large scale development may provide the necessary viability to support waste reduction or energy efficiency measures within the overall scheme. The effects of dust, noise and general disturbances i.e. reversing alarms emanating from lorries during construction, has the potential to affect existing householders on the boundaries of the site. The southern boundary and south-eastern corner of the site are shared by homeowners off Reynolds Close and to the rear of Meadowcroft. The remaining boundaries are undeveloped. The impact on identified homeowners has the ability to be mitigated effectively through planning conditions which restrict operation hours. In any case, the likely effects would be temporary, for the duration of the construction phase. 2. Location of development The EIA guidance states that the more environmentally sensitive the location of development, the more likely it is that that effects will be significant and require assessment. The site is not located in a sensitive area in the context of the EIA regulations, however other effects related to recreational or visitor based pressure upon Natura 2000 sites, such as the Little Terns colony at the Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA should be investigated further. It is noted that a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening assessment has been undertaken on behalf of the applicant. This concluded that there is unlikely to be any significant effects on the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Ramsar site, nor the Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar site. The screening assessment raised the possibility of indirect effects emanating from increased recreation pressure upon the Winterton-Horsey Dunes SPA, however the subsequent Appropriate Assessment did not identify any impacts that would adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. This was principally due to the close availability of alternative destinations for dog walkers and general recreation use. The Screening Assessment concluded that the proposal may also have an indirect effect upon the Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA considering its close proximity to the site and general sensitivity of the Little Terns colony on the SPA. The subsequent Appropriate Assessment concluded that; if sufficient access to green space was provided as part of the development to alleviate a proportion of dog walking visits; and, the employed protection methods at North Denes and Winterton SPA are continued, then it is unlikely that the proposed development would significantly adversely affect the integrity of the European Site.

3

The site is currently in use as agricultural land therefore development would have a permanent urbanising effect on the landscape and loss of soil resources would follow. Whilst the agricultural land is regarded as high quality, the scale of the loss would not be significant. Similarly, whilst the development would lead to a change in the character of the local landscape, it is does not affect any statutorily protected areas such as the Broads or the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Notwithstanding this, a landscape visual impact assessment should accompany any future planning application to identify and mitigate the effects of the development on the local landscape. 3. Characteristics of the potential impact In considering the proposal in combination with the characteristics of the development and its potential impact, the screening opinion has had regard to the indicative screening thresholds in the DCLG guidance. It is agreed that whilst the site area is larger than 5 hectares, it is unlikely to have a significant urbanising effect on the local area due to the existing developed nature of the land to the south and east at Caister-on-Sea. However, it is observed that the open, undeveloped gap between Caister-on-Sea and Ormesby St Margaret could be significantly reduced by the development in the form of coalescence along Yarmouth Road. Whilst this is not considered to constitute ‘significant effects’ because it is of no more than local importance, the applicant should consider how to maintain a form of separation between Caister-on-Sea and Ormesby St Margaret along Yarmouth Road through the overall design as part of the planning application. In addition, it is agreed that the proposal is not unusually complex and does not pose any potentially hazardous environmental effects which would give rise to ‘significant effects’. Therefore the proposal does not constitute EIA development, however any planning application should be accompanied by sufficient biodiversity and landscape assessments which translate how the overall design will respond to pressures on the Natura 2000 sites and settlement gap between Caister-on-Sea and Ormesby. In addition the applicant should ensure an early dialogue with the relevant highways authority to ensure the scope of travel assessment/travel plans are agreed as early as possible.

If you wish to discuss this matter in any more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me, Yours sincerely

Kim M Balls (Mr)

Senior Planner (Policy)


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989

APPENDIX 2

Affordable Housing Statement

7.1 The applicant is willing to offer a policy compliant number of affordable housing

dwellings on the site.

7.2 Having regard to Great Yarmouth Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

(HDH Planning & Development, November 2013) which identifies a requirement

for 20% affordable housing delivery, the Proposed Development of 194 dwellings

would be expected to provide 39 affordable homes.

7.3 The precise number will need to be dependent upon the overall S106 package

agreed with the Council, but it is anticipated that 39 affordable houses will be

delivered, as set out within the detail of the layout proposals.

7.4 The precise mix of affordable housing sizes and tenures is to be agreed and

secured through the detailed S106 package. The applicant acknowledges the

tenure mix required by the SHMA and will open discussions with the Council on

this basis.


May 2015 | NAT | CIR.P.0989

APPENDIX 3

Financial Contributions

8.1 The Council have requested the following financial contributions:

£454,116 for education to contribute to new classrooms to increase

capacity of the Caister Infant School and Caister Junior School

£3,568 to provide 4 fire hydrants

£11,640 towards Caister Library

8.2 The educational contribution has been calculated on the basis of a single 1 bed

house. However, the application provides 19 such houses and the contribution

should be adjusted accordingly. We calculate this to be £384,252.

8.3 These contributions will be provided in accordance with the heads of terms which

have yet to be agreed.

planning statement - borough of great yarmouth€¦ · 1.1 this planning statement has been...

Documents