Case Reference: 3282449

Costs Decisions
Inquiry held on 11-14 January 2022
Site visit made on 14 January 2022
by Michael Boniface MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11th February 2022
APPLICATION A
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/W/21/3282449
Land to the North East of Broad Piece, Soham
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by East Cambridgeshire District Council for a partial award of
costs against Persimmon Homes East Midlands.
• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission
for up to 175 dwellings and associated infrastructure.
APPLICATION B
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/W/21/3282449
Land to the North East of Broad Piece, Soham
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Persimmon Homes East Midlands for a partial award of costs
against East Cambridgeshire District Council.
• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission
for up to 175 dwellings and associated infrastructure.
Decisions
1. Application A is refused.
2. Application B is allowed.
Application A - Submissions for East Cambridgeshire District Council
3. The application was made in writing and is not replicated here. In summary, it
is said that the appellant acted unreasonably in challenging the Council’s
housing land supply position. This is because of the very modest deficit
identified by the appellant, set against the Council’s suggested healthy supply.
There was a lack of evidence to support a position that a deliverable five-year
supply was not demonstrable. If a demonstrable five-year supply exists, the
exact figure above five years is irrelevant. It should not have been necessary
to spend time at the Inquiry dealing with housing land supply matters.
Application A - Response by Persimmon Homes East Midlands
4. The response was made in writing and is not replicated here. In summary, it
says that the Council’s application is totally without merit. The assessment of
housing land supply is a matter of evaluative planning judgement where there
will always be a range of reasonable professional views. Evidence was put
forward to contest the relevant sites and a professional witness took part in a
round table session on the topic. Even if a deliverable five-year supply could
be demonstrated, the magnitude of the supply beyond the requisite five years
is an important material consideration. The Council made a number of
concessions during the round table session and that is indicative of the merit in
the appellant’s challenge.
Application B - Submissions for Persimmon Homes East Midlands
5. The Council’s application for costs is without merit and it should not have been
necessary for the appellant to deal with the unreasonable costs application.
Application B - Response by East Cambridgeshire District Council
6. The Council maintains its position that the appellant’s challenge to its housing
land supply position was unreasonable. As such, a costs application was the
correct course of action.
Reasons
7. Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a party
who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
Application A
8. There was a large disparity between the parties as to the correct housing land
supply position in the district for the purposes of the appeal. Although the
appellant’s suggested figure was only modestly below the requisite five-year
supply, it was nonetheless below it.
9. As the Council points out, the question of whether a five-year supply exists is
binary – either there is a five-year supply or there is not. This is important,
because it is one route that can lead to the application of the National Planning
Policy Framework’s (the Framework) presumption in favour of sustainable
development, the so called ‘tilted balance’.
10. As such, there is nothing unreasonable in the appellant challenging the
Council’s position. A professional witness presented sufficient evidence in
relation to the disputed sites to explain why the appellant took a different view
to the Council in each case. Such considerations are largely a matter of
planning judgement. It is not inconceivable, however unlikely the Council
considers it to be, that an Inspector could accept the appellant’s evidence over
that of the Council’s in relation to each disputed site. There is, therefore,
patently merit in pursuing the matter at appeal and nothing unreasonable
about doing so.
11. Furthermore, whilst the question of whether a five-year land supply can be
demonstrated is a binary one for the purposes I have described above, that
does not mean that the amount of supply beyond the five-year requirement is
immaterial, just as the scale of any deficit would also be material in considering
an appeal for residential development. As such, even if all of the ‘category A’1
1 Those sites that, according to the Framework’s definition of ‘deliverable’, should be considered deliverable until
permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that homes will not be delivered within five years…
sites were unchallenged, it would not be unreasonable to challenge the
deliverability of the remaining disputed sites.
12. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been
demonstrated for Application A.
Application B
13. It should have been obvious to the Council that the housing land supply
position in the district had at least the potential to be a highly significant
material consideration in the context of the appeal. That being the case, it
cannot be said that it was unreasonable for the appellant to pursue the matter
or that it was unnecessary to take up Inquiry time. The amount of evidence
provided by the appellant in this case was proportionate, bearing in mind the
limited amount of evidence that the Council itself put to the Inquiry. In light of
these conclusions, it was unreasonable for the Council to seek an award of
costs and to put the appellant to the additional time and expense necessary in
responding to the application.
14. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been
demonstrated and that a partial award of costs is justified in relation to
Application B.
Costs Order
15. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that East
Cambridgeshire District Council shall pay to Persimmon Homes East Midlands,
the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision
limited to those costs incurred in responding the Council’s costs application
(Application A); such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if
not agreed.
16. The applicant is now invited to submit to East Cambridgeshire District Council,
to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a
view to reaching agreement as to the amount.
Michael Boniface
INSPECTOR


Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 11-14 January 2022
Site visit made on 14 January 2022
by Michael Boniface MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11th February 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/W/21/3282449
Land to the North East of Broad Piece, Soham
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of East
Cambridgeshire District Council.
• The application Ref 19/00717/OUM, dated 16 May 2019, was refused by notice dated
8 March 2021.
• The development proposed is up to 175 dwellings and associated infrastructure.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for up to 175
dwellings and associated infrastructure at Land to the North East of Broad
Piece, Soham in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
19/00717/OUM, dated 16 May 2019, subject to the conditions contained in the
attached Schedule.
Applications for costs
2. At the Inquiry applications for costs were made by East Cambridgeshire District
Council against Persimmon Homes East Midlands and by Persimmon Homes
East Midlands against East Cambridgeshire District Council. These applications
are the subject of separate Decisions.
Preliminary Matters
3. The application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent
consideration except for the access into the site. This is the basis upon which I
have considered the appeal.
4. Before the exchange of evidence, the Council confirmed that it no longer had
concerns about transport and highways; flooding and drainage; or the effect on
the character and appearance of the area. As such, it did not provide evidence
on these topics and opted not to defend its second, third and fourth reasons for
refusal.
5. At the case management conference preceding the Inquiry, the main issue in
this case was identified. However, in addition to addressing this matter, the
appellant provided written evidence dealing with affordable housing;
custom/self-build; design; drainage; and transport. Witnesses were made
available at the Inquiry by the appellant but none of this evidence was
challenged by the Council and it did not seek to cross examine on these topics,
nor did any interested parties opt to ask questions. As such, it was not
necessary to call these witnesses for oral evidence and the unchallenged
written evidence has been taken into account.
6. The Government published its 2021 Housing Delivery Test (HDT) results on
14 January 2022, to be applied from the following day. As these results had
not been known before the Inquiry closed, the parties were given the
opportunity to comment in writing and their responses have been taken into
account.
7. A signed and executed version of the S106 agreement securing planning
obligations was received after the Inquiry, in accordance with an agreed
timetable. I deal with this later in my decision.
Main Issue
8. The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed
residential development, having regard to planning policy.
Reasons
9. The development plan, so far as it is relevant to the appeal proposal, comprises
the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (April 2015) (ECLP) and the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan (July 2021)
(M&WLP). Policy GROWTH 1 of the ECLP expects the delivery of some 11,500
dwellings in East Cambridgeshire during the plan period, with the balance of
the need (some 1,500) being met by neighbouring authorities under the duty
to cooperate.
10. ECLP Policy GROWTH 2 provides the locational strategy for delivering the
expected growth in the district. The majority of development is to be focused
on the market towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport. Development is supported
within defined development envelopes and strictly controlled outside of these
envelopes, having regard to the need to protect the countryside and setting of
towns and villages.
11. Policy GROWTH 4 of the ECLP explains that sites will be allocated for the
delivery of approximately 6,500 dwellings on the edge of towns and villages
and includes a list of allocations for Soham. The supporting text refers to
broad locations on the edge of key settlements as potential sources of housing
supply. These are identified in a key diagram and there is no disagreement
between the parties that the appeal site falls within one such area.
12. Although broad locations are said to be indicative, supply is anticipated from
these areas in the later part of the plan period. Indeed, some 1,800 dwellings
contributing to the supply identified in the ECLP is expected at the broad
locations. Therefore, the supporting text is an important consideration in this
case that assists with interpretation of the policy. It is intended that the
specific site boundaries will be identified through the next Local Plan review but
this is yet to occur and the Council abandoned its last attempt to prepare a
new Local Plan during the latter part of the examination process.
13. It is agreed between the parties that policy GROWTH 1 is out of date since the
plan is now more than five years old and the identified housing requirement
can no longer be relied upon. The Council is now pursuing a Single Issue
Review of the ECLP but this is at a relatively early stage of preparation and the
Council accepts that it should attract very little weight at this time.
14. There was much debate during the Inquiry as to whether policies GROWTH 2
and GROWTH 4 should also be considered out of date for the purposes of this
appeal. Based on the evidence put to me there is little doubt in my mind that
they should. Policy GROWTH 2 is a locational strategy predicated on delivering
the housing requirement contained in out-of-date policy GROWTH 1. This
requirement cannot be relied upon and the amount of housing now needed in
the district within this plan period to 2031 is uncertain, as is the question of
whether the need can be accommodated within existing settlement envelopes
and/or whether sufficient housing allocations exist. The Council’s planning
witness accepted during cross examination that it would be wrong to assume
what the locational strategy should be without knowing the new housing
requirement and I agree.
15. What is known, is that the balance of the need identified at the plan making
stage will no longer be accommodated by adjoining authorities. In addition to
that balance of 1,500 homes that the plan does not seek to deliver, there has
been a significant shortfall against the ECLP housing requirement to date,
meaning that the plan cannot be said to have been effective in delivering the
anticipated housing need to date.
16. Whilst there is no dispute that for the purposes of calculating housing land
supply, the standard method should now be used and that this seeks to
address past shortfalls, that does not make the hefty shortfalls against the
ECLP requirement immaterial. It is, in my view, an important indication that
the ECLP has not been effective in meeting housing needs since the beginning
of the plan period and casts further doubt as to whether the Council’s locational
strategy can be relied upon to significantly boost housing delivery in line with
the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The latest HDT
results, whilst showing an improved position in the district, still indicate that
sufficient housing has not been delivered over the past three years, as has
been the case in this district against previous HDT results published by the
Government.
17. Continued strict application of policy GROWTH 2 would be likely to worsen this
situation. Whilst the general objectives of the policy to manage patterns of
growth and protect the setting of towns and villages are good ones that are
consistent with the Framework, the policy can no longer be considered up to
date because it can no longer be said that sufficient housing can and will be
accommodated within the defined settlement envelopes. This is particularly so
when the plan itself anticipated that development outside of the envelopes
would at some point be needed within the plan period, at the broad locations
identified. This must reduce the amount of weight that is placed on conflict
with the policy.
18. Similarly, policy GROWTH 4 only makes allocations with the objective of
delivering against the out-of-date housing requirement. The past shortfalls in
delivery against the plan requirement are indicative that the allocations are not
meeting housing needs and may be insufficient. Even if the Council can
currently demonstrate a deliverable housing land supply in the region it
suggests against its Local Housing Need, that does not make the long-term
strategy of the ECLP any more reliable when it comes to housing delivery.
19. The parties agree that there are a large number of policies relevant to this
appeal but there is great disparity about which policies are most important for
determining the application, or the appeal in this case. There is, in my view,
an important distinction between a policy being relevant and a policy being
‘most important’ in the context of the Framework.
20. In this case, there are a number of general policies in the development plan
that are applicable to proposals involving housing and that should be taken into
account. However, the real question in this case is whether the proposed
housing development is acceptable in principle. That is a question that can
only be answered by reference to the policies discussed above, albeit within the
context of considering the development plan as a whole, with its many other
relevant policies. For this particular proposal, policies GROWTH 1, GROWTH 2
and GROWTH 4 are the most important for determining the case in that they
together set out the amount and locational strategy for the delivery of housing,
including restricting development outside settlement envelopes. They are all
out of date for the reasons I have set out and so the Framework’s presumption
in favour of sustainable development applies.
21. I recognise that previous Inspectors have concluded differently, finding that
policies GROWTH 2 and GROWTH 4 are not out of date. I have no doubt that
this was the case at the time they considered them and in the context of the
cases they were dealing with, which were not at a market town. However, the
decisions highlighted by the parties were now some time ago and I must
consider circumstances as I find them now1. I do not know what evidence was
presented to the Inspectors in those cases but it can be expected that the
pertinent issues were tested to a greater degree through this Inquiry than
would have been the case as part of the hearings procedure followed there. In
this case, I have been presented with evidence from the appellant seeking to
persuade me to take a different view, including detail of the very small number
of houses granted planning permission as exceptions to Policy GROWTH 2 in
recent years. Based on the evidence that I have seen and having considered
this appeal proposal on its own merits, a different conclusion is now warranted.
22. The only policy with which the Council suggests a conflict is GROWTH 2 and the
appellant accepts that to be the case. There can be no other conclusion, given
that the appeal site is located outside of the development envelope and the
proposed housing scheme does not fall within the defined list of exceptions. I
will come on to consider this policy conflict in the round, later in this decision.
Other Matters
Housing land supply
23. Much time was taken up at the Inquiry discussing the potential contribution of
individual sites to the Council’s housing land supply but given the small deficit
identified by the appellant against the requisite five-year requirement it is not
necessary for me to consider more than a couple of matters in my decision.
24. I do not accept the appellants argument that a windfall allowance should only
be made at years four and five of the Council’s supply. The evidence available
to the Inquiry clearly demonstrates a healthy past provision of windfall sites in
the district, far exceeding the 50dpa that the Council seeks to include at years
1 APP/V0510/W/20/3245551, APP/V0510/W/18/3213834 and APP/V0510/W/19/3227487
three, four and five2. No provision is made for years one and two so as to
avoid double counting, given that any schemes likely to deliver in those years
would likely already have planning permission and be included in the supply on
that basis. The evidence suggests that further sites could well be identified and
begin to deliver by year 3 and does not indicate any likelihood of the number of
windfall sites diminishing. As such, it seems to me that the windfall allowance
suggested by the Council is a realistic, reasonable and robust one.
25. One of the sites in dispute between the parties is at Stanford Park, Burwell
(Ref. 50028) and involves a scheme for up to 91 mobile homes. The Council
expects that 64 of these will be delivered in the five-year period. The
development has detailed planning permission and so, in accordance with the
Framework, should be considered deliverable unless there is clear evidence
that homes will not be delivered within five years. In this case, there has been
clear progress on site in implementing the planning permission with works to
construct an internal road. There is also up to date evidence from the
developer which the Council has had regard to in concluding on the likely
supply from this site. Although the developer has identified some supply issues
resulting from the pandemic and acknowledges that mobile homes are
generally slower to sell than traditional housing, this is allowed for in the
Council’s modest trajectory. Having commenced development, there is more
than a realistic prospect that 64 units can be delivered in the five-year period
and there is no clear evidence before me to indicate otherwise.
26. My conclusion in relation to these two matters means that 114 units should be
added to the supply suggested by the appellant. Consequently, the Council can
demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply, whichever of the
calculations put to me are applied, noting that there was some disagreement
on the correct inputs. For the purposes of this appeal, it is not necessary for
me to determine the exact housing land supply figure beyond the requisite five
years.
Other considerations
27. Many local people raised concerns about the potential impact of the
development on local highways. This is a topic addressed extensively in
written evidence, including in a comprehensive Transport Assessment. It has
been demonstrated that the scheme can be accommodated without material
harm to highway safety or capacity, with a range of highway improvements
and mitigation proposed as part of the development. As part of the works, a
section of Broad Piece would be widened within the highway boundary. This
would result in the loss of a small strip of land currently used by some
residents for parking but would not materially impact on highway safety.
Residents would continue to have sufficient space to pull clear of the
carriageway and greater opportunities for on-street parking are also likely to be
available after road widening. No conflict with policies COM 7 or COM 8 of the
ECLP would result in so far as they seek to avoid highway safety and capacity
issues.
28. I have had careful regard to concerns about flooding and drainage. The
submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the scheme can be
accommodated without increasing flood risk to surrounding properties. I
acknowledge the reservations of some interested parties and the past issues
2 Five Year Land Supply Report
that have been experienced, but that does not mean that a suitable scheme
cannot be achieved. Indeed, appropriate drainage provision that controls
surface water run-off may assist in improving the current situation. The
scheme is currently in outline with much of the detail yet to be designed. What
is clear, having regard to the evidence submitted and the comments from the
Lead Local Flood Authority, is that a suitable drainage scheme can be achieved
and the subsequent detail can be secured by planning condition. The scheme
would accord with policy ENV 8 of the ECLP.
29. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers the likely landscape and
visual effects of the scheme and concludes that no significant harm would
result. Although there would be an inherent loss of agricultural land and
countryside, the site is very well contained by existing built form and I concur
that the effects on the character and appearance of the area would be very
small indeed. There would be no conflict with ECLP policy ENV 1.
30. The site would be close to a sewage treatment works, though the indicative
masterplan indicates that houses could be sited away from this area, with
intervening open space. An Odour Assessment determines that suitable living
conditions would be achieved for future residents. There would be no conflict
with Policy 16 of the M&WLP or ENV 9 of the ECLP.
31. Generally, as a ploughed field, there would be limited impact on biodiversity
resulting from the scheme and it has been demonstrated that an overall
biodiversity net gain would result from the measures to be incorporated into
the scheme. The submitted wildlife surveys identify the presence of a bat in
the garage building to be demolished for access to the site but improvements
to hedgerows and new greens spaces would be likely to provide some
mitigation for this loss of habitat. A protected species licence will need to be
obtained from Natural England before any disturbance takes place.
32. Some noise and disturbance would be likely to result from the development,
affecting neighbouring occupants. However, this would be a relatively short-
term impact during construction. Once complete, the residential development
would be compatible with the surrounding, predominantly residential land uses.
Given the outline nature of the scheme the ultimate layout of the proposed
houses is not yet known but it is clear from the indictive details provided that a
suitable scheme could be achieved that would not unacceptably impact on
neighbours living conditions.
33. Concerns that local facilities and infrastructure cannot accommodate the future
residents of the proposed scheme are noted but I am mindful of the detailed
evidence provided by the Council and other service providers in this regard.
Subject to appropriate developer contributions, there is no evidence before me
that any services or facilities would exceed their capacity. On the other hand,
the additional population of the development would be likely to support local
businesses and facilities through increased expenditure.
34. As set out above, the appellant submitted evidence on a range of topics and
demonstrated that the proposal would contribute towards the local need for
affordable housing and custom/self-build housing. It was also clear that the
scheme was capable of delivering a high-quality design that would contribute
positively to the character and appearance of the area. Other benefits were
identified, including economic benefits during construction. Together, these
matters weigh significantly in favour of the proposal, as does the delivery of
additional market housing in the context of the Framework’s objective to
significantly boost supply. The scheme, subject to reserved matters approval,
could provide a suitable housing mix and density, as well as delivering
affordable housing in accordance with policies HOU 1, HOU 2, HOU 3.
Conditions
35. The parties agreed a list of conditions considered necessary in the event that
planning permission is granted. These have been attached without significant
alteration but have been amended to improve their precision and otherwise
ensure compliance with the appropriate tests. The conditions and the reason
for imposing them are contained in the attached Schedule.
36. Condition 27 requires that works the subject of another planning permission
are completed prior to any dwelling approved as part of the appeal scheme
being occupied. The scheme involves the surfacing of a short section of
footpath to the north of the site. Having discussed the suitability of such a
condition during the condition’s session, it was clarified that the works are to
be carried out by the appellant and are deliverable in line with the trigger
incorporated into the condition. Therefore, I am satisfied that the condition is
reasonable and would ensure that suitable pedestrian access is provided to the
north of the site, where a school is currently located.
Planning Obligations
37. A S106 agreement would secure a range of planning obligations to make the
development acceptable in planning terms and mitigate the impact of the
development on local infrastructure. The obligations include financial
contributions towards local education provision, libraries, wheeled bins,
necessary highway improvements and a contribution towards mitigating the
impacts of the development on Soham Common. It would also secure a policy
compliant provision of self and custom build housing, and the provision of a
sustainable urban drainage system with future maintenance arrangements.
38. The Council provided a CIL Compliance Statement demonstrating how these
obligations meet the tests contained in Regulation 122 of the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The appellant accepts that these
obligations are necessary and otherwise in accordance with the tests. I agree
with this conclusion and have taken the obligations into account.
39. I also agree that 30% affordable housing is a necessary and CIL compliant
obligation having regard to ECLP policy HOU 3 and have taken this into
account. The appellant refers to an enhanced affordable housing offer equating
to 36% provision. Whilst additional provision is undoubtedly a good thing,
particularly given the need in the district, the additional provision is not
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and cannot
constitute a reason for granting planning permission. As such, I have not
attached additional weight in favour of the proposal for provision beyond the
policy requirement.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
40. I have found a conflict with a single policy of the development plan, in that the
appeal site falls outside of the development envelope for Soham defined by
policy GROWTH 2. That is a policy which I have determined to be out of date
and for the reasons set out, reduces the weight that I attach to the conflict.
41. It is very apparent that the scheme otherwise accords with the development
plan. GROWTH 2 seeks to direct housing development to Soham, one of three
market towns that are a focus for development. Furthermore, the appeal site
falls within a broad location specifically identified and expected to deliver a
significant quantum of development during the later part of the plan period.
The Council does not dispute that Soham is a sustainable location for
development and made no argument that the development would cause
unacceptable harm to the setting of the town, a stated purpose of policy
GROWTH 2.
42. Even if the Council can currently demonstrate a housing land supply in the
region it suggests (more than 6.5 years), there has been significant under
delivery against the development plan requirement to date and there can be no
certainty that the strategy contained in the ECLP will deliver sufficient housing
in the long-term of the plan period. In fact, the evidence before me suggests
that it will not. There has been a persistent failure to meet housing
requirements in the area based upon published HDT results and it seems likely
that the strict application of out-of-date policies is a relevant factor.
43. Despite a conflict with one important but out of date policy, I have found
overwhelming compliance with other relevant policies of the development plan.
Overall, I find that the appeal proposal would be in accordance with the
development plan taken as a whole and material considerations indicate firmly
in favour of the proposal. There would be very few adverse impacts arising
from the development but so far as harm would result, for example from the
loss of agricultural land or changes to the character of this previously
undeveloped countryside, it is far outweighed by the significant benefits of the
scheme.
44. The Council itself accepts that planning permission should be granted if the
tilted balance applies, as I have determined to be the case.
45. In light of the above, the appeal is allowed.
Michael Boniface
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Jack Smyth of Counsel
He called:
Richard Kay BA (Hons) Strategic Planning Manager
DipTP MA
Barbara Greengrass BSc Planning Team Leader
(Hons) MSc MRTPI
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Charlie Banner QC
He called:
Cameron Austin-Fell Planning Director, RPS Consulting Services Ltd
BA (Hons) MSC MRTPI
Paul Hill BA (Hons) Senior Director, RPS Planning and Development
MRTPI
James Stacey BA (Hons) Senior Director, Tetlow King Planning
DipTP MRTPI
Andy Moger BA (Hons) Tetlow King Planning
MA MRTPI
Jonathan Reynolds BA Technical Director, SLR Consulting Ltd
(Hons) DipTP MA MRTPI
Simon Parfitt MSc BA Director, David Tucker Associates
MCILT
Rob Hill BSc MCIHT Director, Infrastructure Design Ltd
GMICE
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Councillor Warner Soham Town Council
Mike Rose Local resident
Judit Carballo Cambridgeshire County Council
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY
1 Appellant’s opening submissions
2 Council’s opening submissions
3 Speaking notes of Cllr Warner and Mr Rose, with attachments
4 Transport response to Mr Rose from the appellant
5 Drainage response to interested parties from the appellant
6 Draft conditions
7 CIL Compliance Statement
8 Court judgement – Dignity Funerals v Breckland District Council…
9 Updated 5YHLS Position Statement
10 Written costs application from Council
11 Revised affordable housing figures from appellant
12 Updated CIL Compliance Statement
13 Final draft of S106 agreement
14 Revised conditions, clean version and tracked changes version
15 Note on condition 26 from the appellant
16 Appellant’s costs response and application against the Council
17 Site visit meeting place
18 Closing submission of the Council
19 Closing submissions of the appellant
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY
1 Council’s submission on 2021 HDT results
2 Appellant’s submission on 2021 HDT results
3 Completed S106 agreement
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) Save for the details of vehicular access into the site from Broad Piece,
details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale
(hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority before any
development takes place and the development shall be carried out as
approved.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, as amended.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than 2 years from the date of this
permission.
Reason: In accordance with the timescale agreed between the parties to
ensure prompt delivery, and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, as amended.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: SSS/LP/001 Rev B, 18409-02 Rev E,
18409-08 Rev O, 18409-08-1 Rev O, 18409-08-2 Rev O, 18409-08-3
Rev O and 18409-12-2 Rev B.
Reason: In the interests of certainty and to define the terms of the
permission.
5) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until
a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall provide for
but not be limited to:
(i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
(ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials;
(iii) Storage of plant and materials and site facilities;
(iv) A dust management plan:
(v) Measures to control the emission of noise;
(vi) Wheel washing facilities;
(vii) Surface, storm and waste water management and disposal including
any pollution to surface and ground water bodies; and
(viii) Lighting during construction phase.
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to
throughout the construction period for the development.
Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in
accordance with policy ENV 2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
6) No above ground construction shall take place until a Foul Water Strategy
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the works have been
carried out to serve that dwelling, in accordance with the Foul Water
Strategy so approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the environment and prevent flooding in accordance
with policies ENV 2 and ENV 8 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
7) No above ground works shall commence until a Surface Water Drainage
Scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the
approved details before development is completed. The scheme shall be
based upon the principles within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment
prepared by Amazi Consulting Ltd (ref: AMA743 Rev A) dated 23 April
2019 and the Drainage Feasibility Layout prepared by Infrastructure
Design Limited (ref: 971-00-01 Rev B) dated December 2019 and shall
include:
(i) Full calculations detailing the existing surface water runoff rates for
the QBAR, 3.3% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 30) and
1% AEP (1 in 100) storm events;
(ii) Full results of the proposed drainage system modelling in the above-
referenced storm events (as well as 1% AEP plus climate change),
inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and
disposal elements and including an allowance for urban creep,
together with an assessment of system performance;
(iii) Detailed drawings of the entire proposed surface water drainage
system, including levels, gradients, dimensions and pipe reference
numbers;
(iv) Full details of the proposed attenuation and flow control measures;
(v) Details of overland flood flow routes in the event of system
exceedance, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately
managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants;
(vi) Full details of the maintenance/adoption of the surface water
drainage system;
(vii) Measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater
and/or surface water;
(viii) Full details of measures taken to reduce the existing surface water
flood risk to adjacent areas from the site.
The drainage scheme must adhere to the hierarchy of drainage options
as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning
Practice Guidance.
Reason: To prevent the risk of flooding, to improve and protect water
quality, and improve habitat and amenity in accordance with the
policies ENV 2 and ENV 8 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
8) Details of long-term maintenance arrangements for the surface water
drainage system (including all SuDS features) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first
occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. The submitted
details should identify run-off sub-catchments, SuDS components, control
structures, flow routes and outfalls. In addition, the plan must clarify the
access that is required to each surface water management component for
maintenance purposes. Thereafter, maintenance shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved maintenance plan.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory maintenance of drainage systems that
are not publicly adopted and to prevent the increased risk of flooding,
protect water quality and improve habitat in accordance with policies
ENV 2 and ENV 8 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
9) As part of the first reserved matters application, an Energy and
Sustainability Strategy for the development, including details of any on
site renewable energy technology and energy efficiency measures, shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
strategy.
Reason: To ensure a sustainable development in accordance with policy
ENV 4 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
10) No development shall take place until a Phase 2 Intrusive Site
Investigation and Risk Assessment of the nature and extent of any
contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site, has
been undertaken. The investigation and risk assessment must be
undertaken by competent persons, and a written report of the findings
must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The report of the findings must include:
(i) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) An assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property
(existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,
woodland and service lines and pipes; adjoining land; groundwaters
and surface waters; ecological systems; archaeological sites and
ancient monuments;
(iii) An appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred
option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment
Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination,
CLR 11'. Any remediation works proposed shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and timeframe as agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise the risks from land contamination to the users of
the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters,
property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can
be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours
and other offsite receptors, in accordance with policy ENV 9 of the East
Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
11) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out
the approved development that was not previously identified it must be
reported to the Local Planning Authority within 48 hours. No further
works shall take place within the area concerned until an investigation
and risk assessment has been undertaken and submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where remediation is
necessary, a remediation scheme must be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The necessary remediation works
shall be undertaken and following completion of measures identified in
the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise the risks from land contamination to the users of
the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters,
property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can
be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours
and other offsite receptors, in accordance with policy ENV 9 of the East
Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
12) No development shall take place within the area indicated until the
applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the
implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance
with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall
take place on land within the WSI area other than in accordance with the
approved WSI which shall include:
(i) The statement of significance and research objectives;
(ii) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;
(iii) The nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to
undertake the agreed works.
(iv) The programme for post-excavation assessment and subsequent
analysis, reporting, publication and dissemination, and deposition of
the resulting archive.
Reason: To ensure that any archaeological remains are suitably recorded
in accordance with policy ENV 14 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
13) Construction times and deliveries, with the exception of fit-out, shall be
limited to the following hours: 07:30 – 18:00 each day Monday – Friday;
07:30 – 13:00 on Saturdays; and none on Sundays, Public Holidays or
Bank Holidays.
Reason: To protect neighbours living conditions in accordance with policy
ENV 2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
14) As part of the first reserved matters application, a Landscape and Ecology
Management Plan, setting out details of mitigation, habitat creation and
long term management to achieve the target conditions for created
habitats, in line with the Biodiversity Impact Assessment calculator (as
set out in Appendix 2 to the Natural Environment Statement Rev B – Jan
2021), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance
with the agreed Management Plan and maintained in perpetuity
thereafter.
Reason: To protect and enhance species in accordance with policies
ENV 1, ENV 2 and ENV 7 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan and the
Natural Environment SPD.
15) The recommendations made within Section 5 of the Ecological Impact
Assessment (May 2019), shall be adhered to at all times throughout the
construction and operational phase of the development.
Reason: To protect and enhance species in accordance with policies
ENV 1, ENV 2 and ENV 7 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan and the
Natural Environment SPD.
16) Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, the provision and implementation
of a Travel Plan shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. The Plan shall include the provision of cycle discount vouchers
and/or bus taster tickets and shall be provided to new occupiers of the
development. The Plan is to be monitored annually, with all measures
reviewed to ensure targets are met.
Reason: To encourage sustainable modes of transport in accordance with
Policy COM 7 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
17) Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the road(s), footway(s) and
cycleway(s) required to access that dwelling shall be constructed to at
least binder course surfacing level from the dwelling to the adjoining
County road in accordance with details which shall have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with
policies COM 7 and COM 8 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
18) Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, the new access junction shall
have been constructed in accordance with approved plan 18409-02-
Rev E. The junction shall thereafter be retained in that form.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with
policies COM 7 and COM 8 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
19) Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, the visibility splays shall be
provided each side of the vehicular access in full accordance with the
details indicated on the submitted plan 18409-02- Rev E. The splays
shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6m
above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with
policies COM 7 and COM 8 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
20) Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, details of the proposed
arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed
streets within the development shall have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The streets shall
thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management
and maintenance details.
Reason: To ensure that estate roads are managed and maintained to a
suitable and safe standard in accordance with policy COM 7 of the East
Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
21) In the event that any piling is required, a report/method statement
detailing the type of piling and mitigation measures to be taken to protect
local residents from noise and/or vibration shall have first been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Noise and
vibration control on the development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard neighbours living conditions in accordance with
policy ENV 2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
22) As part of any reserved matters application, details of the number, type
and location of electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) to be installed,
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The EVCP shall be installed as approved prior to occupation of
the dwelling to which it relates and retained thereafter.
Reason: To encourage and facilitate sustainable modes of transport in
accordance with Policy COM 7 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
23) No development shall take place until a detailed Arboricultural Method
Statement (AMS) compliant with BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to
design, demolition and construction’ has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS shall include
justification and mitigation for any tree removal proposed and details of
how trees will be protected at all stages of the development.
Recommendations for tree surgery works and details of any tree surgery
works necessary to implement the permission are required, as is the
method and location of tree protection measures, the phasing of
protection methods where demolition or construction activities are
essential within root protection areas and design solutions for all
problems encountered that could adversely impact trees (e.g. hand
digging or thrust-boring trenches, porous hard surfaces, use of
geotextiles, location of site compounds, office, parking, site access,
storage etc.). All works shall be carried out in accordance with the
agreed AMS.
Reason: To ensure that the trees on site are adequately protected so as
to maintain the character and appearance of the area in accordance with
policies ENV 1 and ENV 2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
24) As part of the first reserved matters application, a Noise Mitigation
Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall:
(i) Identify noise levels from adjoining features such as the adjoining
potato store, rail and public highways;
(ii) Demonstrate how the proposed layout and dwellings have been
designed so as to ensure that non-noise sensitive frontages or rooms
face noise creating areas or sources so as to achieve acceptable
internal noise levels with windows open;
(iii) Demonstrate that private amenity space meets acceptable noise
levels.
The Noise Mitigation Scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure acceptable living conditions in accordance with policy
ENV 2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
25) Prior to the approval of reserved matters, details of a Design Code shall
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Design Code shall demonstrate how the objectives of the
Design and Access Statement and illustrative masterplan will be met. Any
reserved matters application shall demonstrate compliance with the
approved Design Code. The Design Code shall include the following:
(i) principles for built-form strategies to include density and massing,
street grain and permeability, street enclosure and active frontages,
type and form of buildings including relationship to plots and vistas;
(ii) a strategy for a hierarchy of streets and spaces;
(iii) design principles for the public realm, areas of public open space
including planted areas, and area for play, including principles for
biodiversity enhancements and conservation of flora and fauna
interests;
(iv) design principles for hard and soft landscaping including the inclusion
of trees and hedgerows;
(v) design principles for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS);
(vi) principles for determining quality, colour and texture of external
materials and facing finishes for roofing and walls of buildings and
structures including sustainable design and construction of the
buildings;
(vii) principles for accessibility to buildings and public spaces for those
with impaired mobility;
(viii) design principles for structures including street lighting, boundary
treatments including walling, street furniture, signage, public art, and
play equipment;
(ix) principles for the alignment, width, and surface materials (quality,
colour and texture) proposed for all footways, cycleways, highways
and other vehicular accesses within the site and including site access
proposals;
(x) principles for on-street and off-street residential vehicular parking,
including principles to discourage casual parking and to encourage
parking in designated spaces;
(xi) principles for cycle parking and storage; and
(xii) the principles for integrating strategic utility requirements,
landscaping and highway design.
Reason: To ensure high quality design in accordance with Policy ENV 2 of
the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan and the Design Guide SPD.
26) The development hereby approved shall include 20% of the dwellings
built to Lifetime Homes standard (or equivalent).
Reason: To ensure dwellings are suitable or easily adaptable for
occupation by the elderly or people with disabilities in accordance with
Policy HOU 1 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
27) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling in the development hereby
approved, the footway improvement works as detailed in planning
permission reference 19/01729/FUL (or any equivalent subsequent
planning permission for the same works) shall have been completed in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access to nearby
facilities in accordance with Policy COM 7 of the East Cambridgeshire
Local Plan.
28) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the offsite
highway works to be carried out within the public highway and as
detailed in drawing nos. 18409-08 Rev O, 18409-08-1 Rev O, 18409-08-
2 Rev O, 18409-08-3 Rev O and 18409-12-2B shall have been completed
in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy
COM 7 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.