land off lomas lane, balladen, rossendale...1. introduction 1.1 this planning policy compliance...

Land off Lomas Lane, Balladen, RossendalePlanning Policy Compliance StatementDecember 2013

Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Site and Surroundings 3

3. The Proposed Development 4

4. Summary of Pre-Application Discussions 5

5. Planning Policy Considerations 7

‘Saved Policies’ 7 Core Strategy 7 2010 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 10 National Planning Policy Framework 11 The Planning System: General Principles 14 National Planning Practice Guidance 14

6. Principle of Development and Policy Compliance 16

7. Summary and Conclusions 18

Appendix 20

Draft FINAL Author Euan Kellie FRICS MRTPI Issued 23 December 2013

© Euan Kellie Property Solutions Limited. All Rights Reserved. Not to be reproduced without permission. 1 of 20

1. Introduction 1.1 This Planning Policy Compliance Statement (referred to hereafter as the “Statement”) has

been prepared by Euan Kellie Property Solutions (“EKPS”) on behalf of our client Karen and Eric Howard in support of an application for full planning permission for the erection of a single ‘Passivhaus’ dwelling at land located off of Lomas Lane, Rawtenstall.

1.2 The application site is approximately 0.53 acres in size (0.214 hectares) and falls within the administrative boundary of Rossendale Borough Council (“RBC”). It is bound to the west by Lomas Lane; to the north and east the site is surrounded by fields, and Old Hall Farm is located to the south of the site. The applicant’s current property, Barn 1, Old Hall Farm is located to the south east of the site. The site location plan can be found in Appendix 1.

Application Documentation 1.3 The form and scope of the application has been drawn up following pre-application

consultation with RBC officers over the ‘phone, in meetings, and by e-mail. Further details are provided within Chapter 4.

1.4 This Statement should be read alongside all other documents submitted with the planning application, which include:

• Covering Letter prepared by Euan Kellie Property Solutions.

• Application Form.

• Location Plan prepared by Shack Architecture.

• Plans and Drawings prepared by Shack Architecture.

• Design and Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture.

Report Structure 1.5 The remainder of this Statement is set out as follows:

• Chapter 2: Site and Surroundings.

• Chapter 3: The Proposed Development.

• Chapter 4: Summary of Pre-Application Discussions

• Chapter 5: Planning Policy Considerations.

• Chapter 6: Principle of Development and Policy Compliance.

• Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions.

Contact Details 1.6 For further information in respect of this Statement please contact:

Euan Kellie FRICS MRTPI Director Euan Kellie Property Solutions Peter House Oxford Street Manchester, M1 5AN Tel: 0797 187 1286 E-Mail: [email protected]


2. Site and Surroundings 2.1 As outlined in Chapter 1 the application site is approximately 0.53 acres in size (0.214

hectares) and falls within the administrative boundary of RBC. The site location plan can be found in Appendix 1 whilst Figure 2.1 shows the site location and Figure 2.2 shows the site and surrounding context.

2.2 The application site is bound to the west by Lomas Lane along which there is four houses. To the north and east the site is surrounded by fields. Old Hall Farm is located to the south of the site, along with further residential dwellings. The applicant’s current property, Barn 1, Old Hall Farm is located to the south east of the site.

Figure 2.1 (taken from Google Maps) Figure 2.2: Site ‘red edge’ boundary

2.3 To provide a context site photographs are shown below in Figures 2.3 to Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.3: View towards site from Lomas Lane

Figure 2.4: View south along Lomas Lane towards site.

Figure 2.5: View south west towards Lomas Lane

Figure 2.6: View of site from Lomas Lane.


3. The Proposed Development 3.1 The main element of our client’s brief was to provide a contemporary, ecologically-sound

home which would provide four bedrooms, a home studio/ office space, an open plan kitchen/ dining/ living space with a garage large enough to house cars, bicycles, a moped, workshop space, and to be accessible from inside the housing without having to brave the winter weather.

3.2 The scheme has undergone as series of development stages throughout the past six months or so (starting in June 2013) and those various stages are illustrated within the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture. The concept has, however, remained consistent throughout the project and the final scheme presented for planning approval has incorporated comments from the client and Places Matter! Design Review Panel.

3.3 The client’s commitment to a greener, more sustainable lifestyle has informed their decision to build a Passivhaus project. The flexibility of the scheme to adapt to current requirements for access and future requirements has also been carefully considered, thereby ensuring the scheme can be defined as a ‘Lifetime Home’. The housing will also be ‘future proofed’ by the provision of ducting for additional electrical services and any openings in structural walls or floors for future provision of lifts and hoists will be formed and built in during construction works.

3.4 The proposed development is shown in Figure 3.1 whilst the site layout plan is shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

3.5 A summary of the pre-application discussions which have taken place is provided within Chapter 4.


4. Summary of Pre-Application Discussions 4.1 Early pre-application consultation is promoted by way of the National Planning Policy

Framework (“NPPF”) in paragraphs 188 to 195 along with RBC’s Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (“SCI”) which was adopted on 15 December 20101.

4.2 Our client has worked closely with RBC Officers prior to the submission of this application, in line with section 9.2 of the aforementioned SCI. In summary:

• An initial email was sent to Stephen Stray, RBC Planning Unit Manager, by EKPS on 7 August 2013. This email outlined our client’s aspirations for the site at Lomas Lane and requested a meeting so that the principle of the proposed development could be discussed, and agreement could be reached on the information that should be submitted to support the planning application.

• Following submission of the letter a meeting took place on Wednesday 28 August 2013 with Stephen Stray. A letter confirming the matters discussed at the meeting was then issued by RBC, received on 3 October 2013 (see Appendix 2). The letter also included a recommendation that the scheme should be presented to the ‘Places Matter!’ panel in order to gain their feedback on the proposed design. The letter confirmed the weight that would be given to comments from the Design Review Panel:

“In relation to the design specifics, SS indicated that the Council would give significant weight to a peer review by the “Places Matter” team, and that early discussion with them was imperative if the proposals were considered to demonstrate that it is of exceptional quality or innovative nature having regard to the criteria set out in [NPPF] paragraph 55.”

“…I am willing to reconsider this view [refusal of the application] if the Places Matter Review is favourable or makes suggestions which are taken on board by the applicant and as a result there is justification that the proposal meets the requirements of [NPPF] paragraph 55.”

• A proposed development was presented to ‘Places Matter!’ on 5 November 2013, and formal feedback was set out within a letter from ‘Places Matter!’ to the scheme Architect, Antony O’Toole of Shack Architecture Limited, dated 18 November 2013 (see Appendix 3). Notable comments included:

“We are very supportive of designing a house that does not only aim to achieve the Passivhaus standards but also considers the clients’ future needs in terms of Lifetime Homes.

We are supportive of an approach which leaves a delicate mark on the landscape and one which seeks to explore the full landscape potential of this attractive site. We are also supportive of your approach of using a strong rectilinear form for the building and its general massing.”

“We are very supportive overall with your approach to this scheme. The placement of the house is appropriate and the context is right.”

• The feedback from ‘Places Matter!’ was subsequently forwarded to Stephen Stray at RBC to confirm that the feedback received from ‘Places Matter!’ was positive (email dated 20 November 2013). An email from Stephen Stray in response, dated 3 December 2013, requested that ‘Places Matter!’ confirm how the proposals relate to paragraph 55 of the NPPF – see Chapter 5 of this Statement for further details.

1 http://www.rossendale.gov.uk/info/855/planning_consultations/296/statement_of_community_involvement


http://www.rossendale.gov.uk/info/855/planning_consultations/296/statement_of_community_involvement

• A further e-mail was received from ‘Places Matter!’ on 6 December 2013, responding to the request from Stephen Stray in respect of paragraph 55 of the NPPF (see Appendix 4). This e-mail was subsequently forwarded to Stephen Stray on 9 December 2013. The Places Matter! e-mail states:

“The panel report is not explicit on the NPPF question because we are a design panel and whilst we have planning expertise and consider planning issues our remit is fundamentally about design.

That said it is implicit in our report that we consider this to be a scheme of great quality and innovation which has the potential to inform a much wider audience around design in a rural setting. The ambition and quality of thinking shown by this team represents the highest standards in architecture. The scheme has the potential to significantly enhance the existing landscape setting whilst showing a sensitivity to its local context.

We are entirely supportive of the design we have seen to date and would very much support this resulting in a successful planning application.”

4.3 Chapter 5 will now outline the local and national planning policy considerations that should be taken into account when determining this planning application.


5. Planning Policy Considerations 5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that the

determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the ‘Development Plan’ unless ‘material considerations’ indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan comprises the Rossendale Local Plan Part 1 which consists of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document: The Way Forward (2011 – 2026) (“the Core Strategy”), adopted on 8 November 2011 as well as the saved policies of the Local Plan.

5.3 RBC are currently in the process of preparing Part 2 of their Local Plan which will comprise the Site Allocations and Development Management DPD. This is not expected to be completed for another three years (the current target date for adoption is January 2017)2.

‘Saved Policies’ 5.4 In December 2010 RBC published the document, ‘Continuation of Local Plan: Saved Policies

through the Core Strategy DPD’. The relevant policy in this instance is Policy DS.1, ‘The Urban Boundary’. This saved policy states:

“The council will seek to locate most new development within a defined boundary - the urban boundary - and will resist development beyond it unless it complies with policies DS.3 and DS.5. The urban boundary is indicated on the proposals map”

5.5 It is understood Policy DS.1 remains relevant following the adoption of the Core Strategy by way of Policy 1: General Development Locations and Principles.

5.6 As illustrated by Figure 5.1 the site – marked with a blue circle - is adjacent to (but outside) the Urban Boundary.

Figure 5.1

Core Strategy 5.7 The Core Strategy is the most important document in the Development Plan because it sets

an overall strategy and vision, establishing the broad aims and objectives for the use of land in Rossendale.

2 https://www.rossendale.gov.uk/info/856/local_development_framework/297/timetable_for_preparing_ planning_policy_documents_local_development_scheme


https://www.rossendale.gov.uk/info/856/local_development_framework/297/timetable_for_preparing_

5.8 As outlined earlier the Council’s Core Strategy was adopted on 8 November 2011 with its Development Management Policies being applied to planning applications received from 9 November 2011 onwards. This Statement will now outline the relevant Core Strategy policies.

Policy 1: General Development Locations and Principles 5.9 Policy 1 states that development within Rossendale:

“should take place within the defined urban boundary (Local Plan Saved Policy DS1), unless it has to be located in the countryside, and should be of a size and nature appropriate to the size and role of the settlement.” (our emphasis)

5.10 Policy 1 therefore requires that development should be located within the defined urban boundary unless it has to be located in the Countryside. However, the use of the word “should” (rather than “must”) indicates that Policy 1 does not preclude development outside of the urban boundary, although it is accepted that RBC’s objective is to direct development to be located within it. This is further demonstrated as the policy goes on to state, in relation to proposals for development in Green Belt and Countryside locations:

“proposals outside the urban boundary will be determined in accordance with the relevant national and local planning guidance” (our emphasis)

5.11 It is therefore clear that Policy 1 allows for development within a Countryside location, having regard to relevant national and local planning guidance. Consideration of the remaining policies within the Core Strategy and relevant national planning policies (as required by this policy) is set out below.

Policy 2: Meeting Rossendale’s Housing Requirement 5.12 The Policy sets out how the Council will meet their housing requirements over the period

2011-2026. Paragraph 7 is of note:

“7. Prioritising the development of previously developed land. However, development of un-allocated greenfield land will be permitted where:

i. It is for 100% affordable and/or supported housing schemes; or

ii. It forms a minor part (up to 15% of the overall site size) of a larger mixed use scheme or a major housing proposal (10+ dwellings) on previously developed land or

iii. It delivers a significant social, economic, or environmental benefit, or

iv. The application is for a barn conversion and it can be demonstrated that the site has been marketed for economic uses for 12 months, to the satisfaction of the Council, and is not viable for these purposes.” (our emphasis)

5.13 Notwithstanding the objective of Policy 1 to locate development within the Urban Boundary, Policy 2 states that development of un-allocated Greenfield land is acceptable where it delivers significant social, economic or environmental benefit.

5.14 As set out within Chapter 3 of this Statement, along with the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture, the proposed development will be of the highest environmental specification and of exceptional design quality. Such a development will encourage and set the standard for new developments within rural locations and will therefore deliver social and environmental benefits by raising design standards and aspirations within Rossendale.


Policy 3: Distribution of Additional Housing

5.15 The Policy states that the scale and distribution of the housing requirement of 3,700 within Rossendale will be as follows:

“1. The largest number of additional houses will be built in the Rawtenstall area (Hareholme, Longholme and Cribden wards), equating to approximately 30% of the overall requirement.”

5.16 This commitment is illustrated by Figure 5.2, taken from the Core Strategy.

Figure 5.2

5.17 It is understood that the application site3 falls within the Longholme ward and, therefore, could make a positive contribution to Policy 3 and the distribution of additional housing within Rossendale, notwithstanding that the site is located outside of the Urban Boundary.

5.18 It is worth noting that the site is considered suitable for housing as it is located immediately adjacent to the Urban Boundary and as such is surrounded by existing residential development on two sides. It therefore cannot be considered to be located in a truly isolated location having regard to the desire for new development to be located in a sustainable location.

5.19 This is evidenced by the fact that Rawtenstall Town Centre is located less than 2km away from the site, and provides the following facilities and amenities: banks; bakery; greengrocers; post office; pub; Asda supermarket; Pharmacy; and, Police Station.

5.20 In addition, the site was also identified as having the potential to deliver 40 dwellings as part of RBC’s 2010 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (see overleaf and Appendix 5).

Policy 19: Climate Change and Low and Zero Carbon Sources of Energy 5.21 Section One of Policy 19 states that “all types of renewable and low carbon energy generation

proposals (e.g. solar photovoltaic, hydro electric, biomass, solar thermal, ground source heat etc) will be given positive consideration provided that they can demonstrate that:

• They do not have a significant visual, noise, odour or other impact on local residents and sensitive users.

• They do not adversely impact key land resources, areas of ecological, geological or geomorphological value, cultural heritage or biodiversity assets.

• They do not have a significant impact (either alone or cumulatively) on the character and value of the natural or urban landscape.

3 Postcode BB4 6HY


• Their contribution to carbon emissions reduction and other community benefits outweigh other considerations.” (our emphasis)

5.22 Section Two of Policy 19 goes on to outline how the Council will promote mitigation of climate change.

5.23 As outlined in the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture our client’s proposals will wholly accord with these provisions, due to their commitment to a greener, more sustainable lifestyle – hence their decision to build a Passivhaus project which incorporates renewable energy technologies and aims to deliver a ‘Lifetime Home’.

Policy 21: Supporting the Rural Economy and its Communities 5.24 According to Policy 21 development will be restricted to existing rural settlement boundaries

and within identified major development sites. Outside of these areas, proposals should demonstrate the social and / or economic needs / benefits for the local rural community and strict consideration will be given to the impact of rural development on the countryside (including the natural environment) and / or Green Belt.

5.25 Whilst the site is located outside of the Urban Boundary it is not within a totally isolated area, and the site is surrounded on two sides by existing housing development. In line with this, the impact of the development on the countryside is considered to be minimal in this instance.

Policy 23: Promoting High Quality Design and Spaces 5.26 Policy 23 states that the Council will ensure that Rossendale’s places and buildings are

attractive, safe and easy to use. It sets out that the Council will ensure developments:

• Are of the highest standard of design that respect and response to local context, distinctiveness and character.

• Use locally sources sustainable, high quality and innovative materials appropriate for the development and its surroundings including recycled materials wherever feasible.

• Be flexible to respond to future social, technological and economic needs.

• Contribute to a reduction in energy consumption and CO2 emissions and facilitate adaptation to climate change through efficient layouts and designs which accord with or exceed current national standards (such as Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM and Building Regulations).

5.27 The proposed development is considered to be of an exceptionally high design standard, and has been designed to respect and respond to the site context and character – a position acknowledged by the Places Matter! Design Review Panel in their correspondence dated 18 November 2013 and 6 December 2013. Further justification can be found in the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture.

2010 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 5.28 As outlined earlier in this Statement the site has also been considered in RBC’s 2010

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Site ID 1124). The relevant extract can be found in Appendix 5.

5.29 The Assessment places the site within ‘Category 2’ and indicates the potential delivery of 40 dwellings. Category 2 sites are defined as:

“Moderately deliverable sites‟ – those sites which perform moderately well in the assessment. These sites can still be brought forward, but the constraints affecting them will need to be addressed.”

5.30 With this in mind, it is clear that RBC has considered the site to be suitable for residential development.


National Planning Policy Framework 5.31 As set out earlier in this chapter, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act

2004 states that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the ‘Development Plan’ unless ‘material considerations’ indicate otherwise.

5.32 The Courts have held that the Government’s statements of planning policy are such ‘material considerations’ which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications.

5.33 The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (“DCLG”) on 27 March 2012 and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

5.34 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]. In terms of decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

5.35 In line with this paragraph 6 of the NPPF states that the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF “taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system” (our emphasis)

Core Planning Principles 5.36 The overriding focus of the NPPF is to deliver ‘sustainable development’. The guidance within

the NPPF is structured around 12 core land-use planning principles [paragraph 17] which should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking.

5.37 Relevant principles in this instance are that planning should:

• always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

• take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;

• support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy); and,

• contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.

Achieving Sustainable Development 5.38 Generally speaking, the NPPF policies seek to direct new development to urban areas and

within the defined development boundaries of established towns and villages, to ensure that existing areas of countryside and green space remain, for the most part, undisturbed. However, the NPPF does makes provision for the development of isolated dwellings within the countryside, under the special circumstances listed in paragraph 55:

“To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:


• the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or

• where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or

• where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or

• the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

Such a design should:

− be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas;

− reflect the highest standards in architecture;

− significantly enhance its immediate setting; and

− be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

(Paragraph 55, NPPF – our emphasis)

5.39 Paragraph 55 therefore states by way of bullet 4 (and the four sub-bullets) that an isolated new home in the countryside can be considered as a “special circumstance” where the proposal is of “exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.” The use of the word “or” after each bullet point is also important as it indicates that any of the exceptional circumstances may be acceptable.

5.40 In terms of justifying the proposal against the four sub-bullet points, we believe this is demonstrated by the application drawings along with the accompanying Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture. Moreover, it has been recognised by the Places Matter! Design Review Panel who drew the following conclusion in their e-mail dated 6 December 2013:

“..it is implicit in our report that we consider this to be a scheme of great quality and innovation which has the potential to inform a much wider audience around design in a rural setting. The ambition and quality of thinking shown by this team represents the highest standards in architecture.

The scheme has the potential to significantly enhance the existing landscape setting whilst showing a sensitivity to its local context. We are entirely supportive of the design we have seen to date and would very much support this resulting in a successful planning application.” (our emphasis)

5.41 It is therefore clear that the proposed development meets the “special circumstances” required under Paragraph 55.

5.42 Importantly, unlike the Core Strategy, the “special circumstances” set out under Paragraph 55 of the NPPF makes provision for isolated dwellings in the countryside. In this instance it is worth noting that since the adoption of the Core Strategy pre-dates the publication of the NPPF, the absence of a policy allowing for isolated developments outside of the Urban Boundary (in line with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF) within the Core Strategy therefore results in a level of inconsistency with the NPPF, and in line with Paragraph 215 of the NPPF, reduces the weight to be applied to Policy 1 of the Core Strategy.


5.43 This notwithstanding, it is recognised that Policy 1 of the Core Strategy does allow for this to be taken into consideration as it states that proposals for development outside of the Urban Boundary will be determined in accordance with relevant national [and local] planning guidance. In other words, when considering proposals against the provisions of Policy 1 of the Core Strategy, due weight should be given to Paragraph 55 of the NPPF, and should the proposals meet the “special circumstances” of Paragraph 55 then development should be granted.

5.44 This interpretation was presented in an appeal decision dated 14 September 2012 for the development of a new eco-farmhouse at Clayhill Farm, Clay Lane, Lavenham, Sudbury, Suffolk. A copy of the Inspector’s decision is attached at Appendix 6 – notably, planning permission was granted.

Objective 7: Requiring good design 5.45 The importance of good design is supported by paragraph 56 of the NPPF which states:

“The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

5.46 As set out above and within the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture, the proposed development is considered to be of a high design quality.

5.47 Creativity is encouraged by way of paragraph 60:

“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 conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.”

5.48 Paragraph 62 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to have local design review arrangements in place to provide assessment and support to ensure high standards of design. It goes on to state:

“In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the recommendations from the design review panel.”

5.49 As referenced in Chapter 4, the proposed development has been presented to the ‘Places Matter!’ Design Review Panel and received very favourable feedback. In line with this, we expect RBC to have regard to the recommendations provided by the Design Review Panel. Further details are provided in Chapter 6 of this Statement.

5.50 Outstanding and innovative design is also promoted by way of NPPF paragraph 63:

“In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.” (our emphasis)

5.51 Paragraph 65 is of particular relevance:

“Local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset of its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).” (our emphasis)

5.52 As set out above and within the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture, the proposed development will be of an exceptional and unique design quality.


Objective 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 5.53 Paragraph 109 outlines that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural

and local environment whilst paragraph 118 states that “when determining planning applications, local authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.”

5.54 The proposed development will not result in the loss of any trees or woodland and has been designed to comprise the highest environmental standards. As outlined in the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture, the scheme will conserve and enhance the natural environment as follows:

• The garden will become an extension of the meadow towards the house with strategic pieces of sculpture positioned to create viewpoints.

• The southern part of the application site will be laid out as a traditional orchard with both native apple and pear trees being planted.

• The lower terrace will be created by careful modelling of the existing topography with an informal pond created to aid the transition between the natural landscape and the more formal domestic paved terrace.

• The banks of the pond will be planted with native water plants to aid its integration into the landscape. This pond will also be used to collect rainwater run-off from the terrace. Strategic tree planting along the western boundary will screen the house from the lane and provide visual amenity.

• Tree species will be deciduous native trees planted to an informal layout.

The Planning System: General Principles 5.55 The General Principles document was published by the ODPM in January 2005 and is a

relevant material consideration which continues to be referenced in appeal decisions. Paragraph 29 is particularly important:

“The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion.

The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest.” (our emphasis)

5.56 Our client’s proposals will have no material impact on local amenity and is therefore consistent with the spirit of the General Principles document

National Planning Practice Guidance 5.57 On 28 August 2013, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

launched for testing and comment in Beta the national planning practice guidance web-based resource (“NPPG”). The site was open for public testing and comment until 14 October 2013.

5.58 Even though the NPPG is only current available in “test mode” it has been given “limited weight” by the Secretary of State in recent planning decisions4.

4 Appeal Ref: 2167430, dated 29 August 2013


5.59 The NPPG states the following under the heading ‘Why is Design Review Important?’

“Local planning authorities are required under the National Planning Policy Framework to put local design review arrangements in place to provide appropriate assessment of proposals and to support high standards of design. They should also, when appropriate, refer major projects for a national design review. The Government strongly believes that design review leads to better quality development.”

5.60 In this context it is worth noting that the proposed development has been presented to the ‘Places Matter!’ Design Review Panel and received very favourable feedback. Further details are provided in Chapter 6 of this Statement.


6. Principle of Development and Policy Compliance The Principle of Development Outside of the Urban Boundary

6.1 As set out within Chapter 5 of this Statement, Paragraph 55 of the NPPF permits the development of isolated dwellings outside of the Urban Boundary, providing the development meets the “special circumstances” set out within the Paragraph. It has been demonstrated in Chapter 5 that the proposed development meets the stated “special circumstances” due to the exceptional design quality and innovative design features which will be incorporated into the proposed development. Further details are also provided below.

6.2 Policy 1 of the RBC Core Strategy requires that development “should take place within the defined urban boundary” (in line with Local Plan Saved Policy DS1), but goes on to state that “proposals outside the urban boundary will be determined in accordance with the relevant national and local planning guidance”. Therefore, having regard to Paragraph 55 of the NPPF, along with other relevant policies of the Core Strategy and the NPPF (addressed in Chapter 4) development outside of the Urban Boundary can be permitted under Policy 1 of the Core Strategy.

6.3 This notwithstanding, the adoption of the Core Strategy pre-dates the publication of the NPPF, and the absence of a policy allowing for isolated developments outside of the Urban Boundary (in line with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF) within the Core Strategy therefore results in a level of inconsistency with the NPPF, and in line with Paragraph 215 of the NPPF, reduces the weight to be applied to Policy 1 of the Core Strategy.

6.4 In other words, when considering proposals against the provisions of Policy 1 of the Core Strategy, due weight should be given to Paragraph 55 of the NPPF, and should the proposals meet the “special circumstances” of Paragraph 55 then development should be granted.

6.5 This interpretation was presented in an appeal decision dated 14 September 2012 for the development of a new eco-farmhouse at Clayhill Farm, Clay Lane, Lavenham, Sudbury, Suffolk, where permission was duly granted. A copy of the Inspector’s decision is attached at Appendix 6.

Is the Proposed Design of ‘Exceptional Quality’ or an ‘Innovative Nature’? 6.6 As set out in Chapter 3 of this Statement – along with the Design & Access Statement

prepared by Shack Architecture – the proposed development was presented to the ‘Places Matter!’ Panel on 5 November 2013, as part of the pre-application process.

6.7 It is relevant to note that the ‘Places Matter!’ panel is made up from a range of respected environment professionals providing expertise from a range of urban design disciplines. Details of the Design Review process are provided on the ‘Places Matter!’ website5:

“Design Review is a respected method of improving the quality of new development by offering constructive, impartial and expert advice. Design Review panel meetings allow local authorities, clients, developers and design teams to present their schemes at the pre-planning stage to a panel of experts from the built environment sector and benefit from the discussion and constructive advice of the panel.

The Places Matter! Design Review Panel, along with other design review services around the country, providing local planning authorities with access to independent practical design advice.”

5 http://www.placesmatter.co.uk/?page_id=117


http://www.placesmatter.co.uk/?page_id=117

6.8 The feedback received from ‘Places Matter!’ following the Design Review is provided at Appendix 3. It provides some quite detailed feedback on the proposals which the panel feel are required to refine and simplify the design but clearly states that “Our comments have been mostly about detail because we are comfortable with the principles”.

6.9 Excerpts from the response which relate more specifically to the principle of the development are provided below by way of a summary:

“We are supportive of an approach which leaves a delicate mark on the landscape and one which seeks to explore the full landscape potential of this attractive site. We are also supportive of your approach of using a strong rectilinear form for the building and its general massing.”

“We are very supportive overall with your approach to this scheme. The placement of the house is appropriate and the context is right. We appreciate the distinct massing with the heavy ground floor and the lighter box above.” (our emphasis)

6.10 A further response from ‘Places Matter!’ dated 6 December 2013 is provided at Appendix 4 and responds to a request from RBC Planning Manager, Stephen Stray, that the panel confirm that the proposals meet the requirements of Paragraph 55 of the NPPF. By way of a summary, the further panel response states:

“It is implicit in our report that we consider this to be a scheme of great quality and innovation which has the potential to inform a much wider audience around design in a rural setting. The ambition and quality of thinking shown by this team represents the highest standards in architecture. The scheme has the potential to significantly enhance the existing landscape setting whilst showing a sensitivity to its local context. We are entirely supportive of the design we have seen to date and would very much support this resulting in a successful planning application.” (our emphasis).

6.11 In sum, it is clear that the ‘Places Matter!’ panel, which comprises a number of well-respected design professionals who are employed to undertake an impartial design review and provide feedback and advice consider the proposed development to be of “great quality and innovation” and to have been designed to “the highest standards in architecture”.

6.12 It is therefore evident that the proposed development is of exceptional quality and an innovative nature and therefore meets the “special circumstances” set out within Paragraph 55 of the NPPF and is therefore policy compliant. In addition, scheme is consistent with a number of the design policies outlined in the NPPF – in particular paragraphs 56, 62, 63 and 65.

6.13 The proposed development should therefore be given the full support of the Local Planning Authority.


7. Summary and Conclusions 7.1 Having introduced the site and having had regard to the relevant local and national planning

policies, it is important to consider the key issues that will need to be addressed as part of any planning application involving land off Lomas Lane, Rawtenstall.

Issue Summary

Countryside Location

• The site is Greenfield and located outside the designated Urban Boundary. It is therefore within the countryside. The site is, however, approximately 0.15km to the south of the Urban Boundary (at its southern-most point) and is therefore in close proximity.

• RBC’s Core Strategy Policy 1 states that development should take place within the defined urban boundary unless it has to be located in the Countryside, and “proposals outside the urban boundary will be determined in accordance with the relevant national and local planning guidance” (our emphasis)

• Core Strategy Policy 1 pre-dates the publication of the NPPF, Paragraph 55 of which outlines that local planning authorities “should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside” unless “special circumstances” can be demonstrated.

• A special circumstance identified by paragraph 55 of the NPPF is “the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling”. This has been demonstrated successfully at appeal elsewhere in the country6.

• The proposed development meets the “special circumstances” listed under Paragraph 55 of the NPPF by way of its high quality and innovative design, and this has been corroborated by the ‘Places Matter!’ Design Panel as part of their impartial Design Review process.

• In addition, Core Strategy Policy 3 indicates, however, that the largest number of additional houses should be built in the Rawtenstall area which includes the Longholme ward.

• The site has also been identified in the 2010 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as being “moderately deliverable” for residential development.

High Quality Design

• The proposed development is of “great quality and innovation” and has been designed to “the highest standards in architecture”, as verified by the ‘Places Matter!’ Design Panel as part of their impartial Design Review process.

• The NPPF also identifies “high quality design” as one of the 12 Core Planning Principles.

• According to the NPPF “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.”

6 See Appeal Decision included at Appendix 6 of this Statement.


Issue Summary

• High Quality Design is also advocated by Core Strategy Policy 23.

Low Carbon Future and Renewable Resources

• Paragraph 65 of the NPPF outlines that authorities should not refuse permission for buildings “which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns can be mitigated by good design.”

• Core Strategy Policy 19 states that “all types of renewable and low carbon energy generating proposals” will be “given positive consideration.”

• The transition to a low carbon future and the use of renewable technologies is also identified in the NPPF as one of the 12 Core Planning Principles.

• Our client’s commitment to a green, more sustainable lifestyle has informed their decision to build a Passivhaus project that will incorporate renewable energy technologies and strive to be a ‘Lifetime Home’.

Impact on Countryside and Biodiversity

• Both the NPPF and the Core Strategy emphasis the need to conserve and enhance the natural environment.

• The proposed development will not result in the loss of any trees or woodland and has been designed to comprise the highest environmental standards – a commitment outlined in greater detail in the Design & Access Statement prepared by Shack Architecture.

Table 7.1

7.2 The proposed development should therefore be given the full support of the Local Planning Authority for the reasons set out above and elsewhere in this Statement.


Appendix

Appendix 1 Site Location Plan.

Appendix 2 Letter from Stephen Stray providing feedback following pre-application meeting on 28 August 2013 – received 3 October 2013.

Appendix 3 Letter from ‘Places Matter!’ following presentation to Design Review Panel on 5 November 2013 – dated 18 November 2013.

Appendix 4 Email from ‘Places Matter!’ – dated 6 December 2013.

Appendix 5 Extract from Rossendale Borough Council 2010 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Site ID 1124).

Appendix 6 Appeal Decision 14 September 2012.


APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

Proposed Dwelling in the Countryside, land off Lomas Lane, Rawtenstall

Dear Euan

With reference to our meeting on 28th August 2013 regarding this site, I wish to provide the following feed-back by way of pre-application response.

Attendees – Stephen Stray – Planning Manager RBC, Euan Kellie – Agent, Anthony O’Toole – Architect, Karen & Eric Howard – potential applicant.

The site – In summary, we discussed how the site is situated within the countryside and accordingly, that having regard to adopted Rossendale Core Strategy, there would be a presumption against development having regard to policy 1. Accordingly, the focus for any consideration of a house in this location being acceptable is related to paragraph 55 of the NPPF and consultee responses in particular. As part of the meeting SS requested a design philosophy / justification be sent through after the meeting, so that SS could be clear on the detail of the proposal outlined in the meeting. SS reaffirmed also that the council was of the view it could demonstrate a 5 year land supply and so arguments in relation to this aspect of policy would not be considered to make the case in respect of this proposal.

In relation to the design specifics, SS indicated that the Council would give significant weight to a peer review by the “Places Matter” team, and that early discussion with them was imperative if the proposals were considered to demonstrate that it is of exceptional quality or innovative nature having regard to the criteria set out in paragraph 55.

During the discussions, you agreed to forward on comments from Kelly Holt of LCC highways who had been supportive of the principle of access into the site. I have checked these comments with Andrew Coombe as Kelly’s manager. He has advised that the access is suitable subject to the gated entrance being set back 5 metres from the road frontage.

I also requested as part of any future submission view-points being taken from around the site. I also feel that in due course, cross sectional drawings will be required to give an understanding of the proposals and how they will sit in the landscape in this location.

As part of the discussions in the meeting, it was flagged up that there was an intention to deal with waste water by way of a sustainable pond / reeds bed system. Accordingly, I have forwarded the information submitted prior to our meeting to the Council’s contact with the Environment Agency. I also flagged up that there was an intention to use spring water. A copy of the correspondence sent across is attached for your information.

I have also sought verification as to who may also be involved with this element at the borough Council.

Unfortunately, I have not had a response to my correspondence from the contact at the Environment Agency. I am aware that Catherine Hunt is now Catherine Neild, and has been unable to make a recent meeting due to personal reasons. I have followed the matter up with a call and left a message, but you may find it is worth pursuing this element of the proposal with her too.

I am informed that Rossendale Building Control would be the body to look at aspects of the waste water solution, however, the Environment Agency would pick up issues in relation to the water quality of any treated effluent that would be released from the pond into the water courses observed near the site.

A desk top study of the site has also identified that within the red edge identified, a TPO exists for 2 trees. Reference TPO T2/E/T254 and 255. The plan indicates these are located towards the northern end of the site where a reservoir appears to have been once in position.

Having reviewed this record, it is considered that a scheme in the location shown upon the site would not impinge on the protected trees though it was indicated the reed bed pond may be sited in this location during the meeting.

Having regard to all of the above, as it currently stands, I am of the view the proposal is contrary to policy and would be recommended for refusal. However, I am willing to reconsider this view if the Places Matter Review is favourable or makes suggestions which are taken on board by the applicant and as a result there is justification that the proposal meets the requirements of paragraph 55. In light of reference to appeal decisions allowing for residential development in the countryside having regard to paragraph 55, I would be grateful if you could send through details of any relevant appeal decisions for me to consider.

Regards

Stephen Stray

APPENDIX 3

Antony O’Toole Shack Architecture Limited

Unit 5, The Curve

139 Telegraph Road

Heswall, Wirral, CH60 7SE

18 November 2013

Dear Antony

Re: Howard House, Balleden, Rossendale

Design Review Report, 05 November 2013

Thank you for sharing this scheme with Places Matter! Design Review. We

understand that this site is within the Rossendale SHLAA and has been designated

for 40 dwellings even though it is in a countryside designation. We are very

supportive of designing a house that does not only aim to achieve the Passivhaus

standards but also considers the clients’ future needs in terms of Lifetime Homes.

We are supportive of an approach which leaves a delicate mark on the landscape

and one which seeks to explore the full landscape potential of this attractive site.

We are also supportive of your approach of using a strong rectilinear form for the

building and its general massing.

In looking at the external spaces we are not convinced by the elliptical form of the

enclosed patio area. Rather than make a strong fixed boundary between this area

and the wider landscape we think it would be stronger for you to blur the

boundaries between the two. The organic shape of this terrace jars with the very

orthogonal building form. We feel it would be more successful to either make the

terrace more orthogonal in form or to make it more a part of the wider landscape.

In its current form it detracts from both the clarity of the main building and the

natural quality of the landscape. We understand that the pool is not being

considered for recreation but as part of the way that water will be dealt with on site.

This is a very good transitional element between the domestic landscape and that

of the wider area. The elevations are quite convincing simple and orthogonal.

Keep it simple and strongly shaped as a contrast to the more natural surroundings.

of 4

The front courtyard works better in the overall context. However, there is a strange

‘L’ shaped suburban format which jars and does not feel part of the landscape.

You need to decide whether this is very much part of the house or of the

landscape. It might be the wisest idea to let the landscape come up to the house

creating the impression that it is emerging out of the land. Maybe building and

landscape could merge more at the lower level. This is where we would see that

creating a turf roof over the lower section of the building would give it a much

closer relationship to the wider landscape. This would help with the thermal mass

and bio diversity.

We also feel you should revisit the roof terrace. We support the use of this roof but

think you might give further consideration to the way that you might use this space.

The planters you are proposing might become a burden to maintain and the roof

might work better as a green roof. We feel that if the roof is to be a welcome

usable summer retreat that it would work better with less distinct parapet walls. If

wind screening is thought necessary this might work better if made from glass

rather than stone. Reducing to parapet might also give better proportion to the

sections of wall above the windows, which at present feel a little heavy.

Your intention to plant an orchard at the southern end of the site is commendable.

We would simply suggest that as this will not be part of a commercial operation it is

not necessary to plant these trees in a ridged grid pattern and it could be planted in

a more creative and/or playful pattern.

You are currently showing the garage attached to the side of the house. As you

have shown it the entrance is either through the garage side door into an interior

hallway with a u shaped stair or up an exterior stair from the entrance courtyard.

While we understand the reasoning behind that we would suggest you also

consider relocating the garage to the northern side of the front courtyard as this

would mean less need for cut and fill excavation. This would also allow you to

reconsider the entrance into the house and how the procession to the living area

could work.

of 4

By relocating the garage to the north end of the building the entrance could be at

that end of the corridor off which the studio and bedrooms lead and the stair could

be a continuous run along the outside wall in a more dramatic fashion. You might

then enhance the quality of the corridor by incorporating a slot above the staircase

or creating a ribbon of windows at a higher level which would provide light and

more drama to this otherwise unlit (from natural light) space. We would suggest

that both the exterior stairs you are showing might work more successfully it they

hugged the outer wall and essentially became a part of that wall.

The plan of the living area would be more successful if less of the space were

taken up with the staircase. We would also suggest you look at other ways of

dividing up this space. Look at the plan of the Farnsworth House by Mies van der

Rohe and his use of service cores away from the exterior walls.

Part of what makes a house fit the Lifetime Homes agenda is being able to fit out

the space and to make the ground floor as flexible as possible by being able to

move partitions when the occupant's needs change. You should also think of ways

of partitioning the home in order to create a separate living accommodation.

The cantilevered end to the upper part of the house will produce an external space

underneath and this must be considered as it is on the cooler eastern side of the

building and it will be sheltered throughout the year. It is important to consider

what purposes this space could have in the way the family lives. The height of this

space will also be critical. We like the way that the southern elevation has the

dramatic quick drop away. This needs to be reinforced with something interesting

happening with the space beneath. As with all cantilevered structures, the

structural elements and finishes must be designed to accommodate the long term

movement (which is inevitable) of the unrestrained end.

We are very supportive overall with your approach to this scheme. The placement

of the house is appropriate and the context is right. We appreciate the distinct

massing with the heavy ground floor and the lighter box above. Our comments

have been mostly about detail because we are comfortable with the principles and

only want you to refine and simplify what is an elegant building. We would ask you

and the client to envision how you live in, around, over and under the building.

Your entry yard at present will be quite costly so consider the placement of the

garage.

of 4

The success of this will be how you deal with the detail. As such a robust structure

we think you need to be careful about frail looking elements such as the staircases

as currently detailed. We suggest you reinforce the language of the building by

making those big moves.

Yours sincerely

Charlotte Myhrum

Design Review Manager

Cc: Karen and Eric Howard

Euan Kellie, Euan Kellie Property Solutions

Stephen Stray, Rossendale Council

APPENDIX 4

From: Charlotte Myhrum <[email protected]> Date: 6 December 2013 18:52:47 GMT To: karen wright <[email protected]> Subject: Howard House, Balleden Additional comments following Places Matter! Design Review of Howard House, Balleden on 5 November 2013 Dear Karen and Eric, Thank you for your note and for Stephen's comments. The panel report is not explicit on the NPPF question because we are a design panel and whilst we have planning expertise and consider planning issues our remit is fundamentally about design. That said it is implicit in our report that we consider this to be a scheme of great quality and innovation which has the potential to inform a much wider audience around design in a rural setting. The ambition and quality of thinking shown by this team represents the highest standards in architecture. The scheme has the potential to significantly enhance the existing landscape setting whilst showing a sensitivity to its local context. We are entirely supportive of the design we have seen to date and would very much support this resulting in a successful planning application. Yours sincerely Charlotte Myhrum Places Matter! Design Review Manager

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX 5

1124 1.849 Lomas Lane, Balladen Lomas Lane Rawtenstall Residential Agriculture & Related

Site IDSite Area (HA) Site Name Street Name Town Current Land Use Other

Surrounding Land Use

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2010

Suitability

Availability

Acheivability

Results

Crown Copyright 100018418Notes

Previously Developed Land

Adjoining settlement boundary of Rawtenstall

Site is more that 800m from all local services

Site is within 400m of a bus stop with hourly or more frequent services

Site is within 5km of Secondary School and Hospital

Site is within a defined Greenland, Recreation Area or Countryside

Extensive new access infrastructure not required

Extensive new drainage infrastructure not required

Site is not affected by ground conditions

Within Flood Zone 1 (low probability)

Adjacent to a defined key nature conservation area

NonePotential Effect on Prospective Residents

Nature Landscape Wildlife Conservation

Flood Risk

Ground Conditions

Infrastructure Limitations

Access Limitations

Designations

Accessibility to Higher Level Services

Accessibility to Public Transport Services

Accessibility to Local Services

Located in a Development Area

Re-Use of Land

Low intensity land uses

Site does not have planning permission or planning history

Planning Status

Control of Site

Development for housing is undesireable

Good Desireability

Good Desireability

No known physical constraints or expected exceptional costs

Previously developed land affordable housing requirement

Necessary infrastructure will be in place to permit development of site

Available within 5 yearsAvailability

Infrastructure delivery

Affordable Housing Contribution

Deliverability of the site

Desireability of immediate area

Desireability of Wider area

Economic Viability of Existing Use

78 40 2Total Score Potential Yield Category

21 December 2010 Page 360 of 416

APPENDIX 6

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 24 July 2012

Site visit made on 24 July 2012

by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 14 September 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/D3505/A/12/2173098

Clayhill Farm, Clay Lane, Lavenham, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 9PG

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr Christopher Whitton against the decision of Babergh District Council.

• The application Ref: B/11/00604/FUL/DB, dated 13 May 2011, was refused by notice dated 3 October 2011.

• The development proposed is a new eco farmhouse.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new eco

farmhouse at Clayhill Farm, Clay Lane, Lavenham, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 9PG

in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref B/11/00604/FUL/DB, dated

13 May 2011, and subject to the 11 conditions listed in the Schedule of

Conditions appended to this decision.

Policy Context

2. The appeal proposal is for a house in the countryside. Policies in the

development plan of most relevance to this case are: Policies CR01 and HS04

of the 2006 adopted Babergh Local Plan (LP) Alteration No.2. These aim to

direct new housing to defined areas of towns and villages, to ensure that

existing land uses in the countryside for the most part remain undisturbed and

to protect its quality and landscape character. The objectives resonate with

Government policy in respect of achieving sustainable development and

protecting valued landscapes. To that extent the LP policies are consistent with

the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, unlike the

Local Plan, the Framework makes provision for isolated dwellings in the

countryside, under the special circumstances listed in paragraph 55. Absence

of a similar provision in the LP introduces a level of inconsistency with the

Framework, and reduces the weight to be applied to the policies mentioned

above1.

Main Issue

3. As agreed at the Hearing, the scheme can only be accorded the special

circumstances status referred to earlier if its design meets the innovative or

1 See paragraph 215 of the Framework.

Appeal Decision APP/D3505/A/12/2173098

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

exceptional quality tests specified in the Framework. That is the main issue on

which the appeal turns.

Reasons

4. The Framework lists a series of considerations that the design of a house in the

countryside should achieve, to attain the quality expected. My assessment of

the proposal is along similar lines.

Is the design truly outstanding or innovative?

5. The answer to this question is neither straightforward nor capable of being

resolved without looking at the fuller picture. Clay Hill Farm extends to some

18 Ha of arable land, much of which is farmed using intensive mechanised

processes. Mr and Mrs Whitton’s plans for the appeal site and the land to the

north of it reflect their continuing commitment to low energy, environmentally

friendly methods of living, working and farming.

6. The new house and outbuilding are to be constructed using natural, locally

sourced materials (local straw bale, timber frame and locally produced hemp).

The materials of construction, levels of insulation and an airtight fabric would

achieve thermal performance to at least “Passivhaus” standards. Surface

water collection, waste composting and recycling, solar water heating, use of

photovoltaic cells, recycled energy, wood burning stoves using home grown

logs and LED lighting would all contribute to achieving Level 6 of the Code for

Sustainable Homes that the project is intending.

7. The technology, materials of construction and energy saving principles

proposed here are well-established and indeed many have been deployed on

other buildings designed by Modece Architects. The local authority is therefore

right to question the degree to which the design could be described as

innovative. In addition to which, the appellant agreed that the proposed

landscaping and farming practices intended could proceed without the new

dwelling.

8. I agree that no single element of this scheme on its own could be regarded as

ingenious or inventive. The significant point about this development, however,

is the opportunities it would provide for an integrated approach to sustainable,

low energy, environmentally-friendly style of living and working. The house

and outbuilding are designed as part of a wider sustainable and mutually

dependent system involving home, landscape and farming methods using best

environmental practices. The concept is linked to an agricultural setting and

landscaping scheme designed to provide for the needs of the occupants.

9. Thus, part of the appeal land is to be planted with woodland and coppiced to

serve future heating requirements. The landscape design proposes new

hedges to re-introduce the small field patterns lost to prairie farming on land to

the north of the appeal site. The landscaping scheme and management plan

covering land beyond the appeal site, and secured through the planning

obligation, widen the scope for traditional and organic farming methods, and

the potential for the appellant to pursue his ambitions of growing crops not

reliant on intensive farming practices.

10. The combined circumstances of implementing buildings of highly developed,

progressive “green” credentials and a principle of landscaping design that

would connect construction and liveability of the house to the land contribute to



a design that is potentially outstanding, although not groundbreaking in terms

of its individual components.

Does the design reflect the highest standards in architecture?

11. The proposed house would represent uncompromising contemporary

architecture with exemplar energy performance and zero carbon credentials.

Part of the accommodation would be recessed into the slope of the land, but

even that would not conceal what would be a visual intrusion in the

countryside. That is not to denigrate the concept, as traditional Suffolk

farmhouses sit high upon the landscape. The design embraces the site’s

physical advantages (contours, orientation and views) while also introducing a

dynamic composition of rectangular and semi-circular shapes and volumes

partly floating and part buried beneath the ground on which it sits. The timber

clad west facing façade in particular would be a striking addition to the open

landscape, with the interplay of the zinc boxed window and shuttered openings

adding to its sculptural qualities.

12. The outbuilding, although of a more traditional shape, would have a modern

appearance with simple, clean shapes and lines. The cut-out in the roof

introduced for views to the north is just one of a number of features in the

design of the two buildings reflecting how the landscape and wider views have

shaped the final outcome. The layout of the interior similarly relates well to

what the site has to offer. This is truly architecture of high quality. It may not

appeal to some but it cannot be faulted for the way it responds to the site’s key

features and for aiming to create a noteworthy addition to the landscape.

Would the design significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive

to the defining characteristics of the local area?

13. The appeal site lies in or is surrounded by “rolling valley farmlands” and

“ancient rolling farmlands”. The attractiveness of the landscape is recognised

in the designation as a Special Landscape Area, which is afforded protection by

LP Policy CR04. The site also adjoins the Lavenham Conservation Area

(covered by LP Policy CN08).

14. There is nothing in the immediate setting of the appeal site that could be

regarded as unattractive or overtly damaging to the landscape. On the other

hand, reinstating original field patterns, planting new hedgerows and

reinforcing existing ones with native species would bring ecological benefits to

the locality. Similarly, the new woodland and orchards proposed on the appeal

site would add to local bio-diversity. Passers-by using the lane and local

footpaths would be presented with a more diverse agricultural landscape. The

setting of the new development would be enhanced in this way.

15. The local planning authority’s fears about the new house representing an alien

feature are not without foundation, as it clearly represents a departure from

the local vernacular in its appearance. But for that it would be all the more

interesting and a striking presence in the landscape. Natural materials used

externally would blend in well with the grassed meadows and woodlands

proposed alongside the house. The buildings would be seen mainly from local

footpaths and the lane; they would not be discernible from distant vantage

points.

16. My own view, which I accept is not shared by the local planning authority, is

that this concept designed to showcase excellence in sustainable construction



and living, high quality architecture and a well considered landscaping scheme

could be accommodated in this location without detracting from the key

characteristics of the countryside or harming the setting of the nearby

conservation area. The proposal would thus comply with the objectives of LP

Policy CR04 and CN08. Local community bodies expressed similar views in

writing and at the Hearing.

Conclusions on the Main Issue

17. The new house would be located beyond Lavenham’s built-up edge, albeit less

than 1 km from many of the facilities the village has to offer. However, the

quality of the architecture, the range of visual and ecological benefits flowing

from the design and the sustainable features incorporated into the buildings

render it acceptable against the exceptions allowed for in the Framework. The

conditions and completed planning obligation (described below) would secure

the main principles of the concept, and reinforce the case for allowing the

appeal in the face of conflict with LP Policies CR01 and HS04.

Conditions

18. The conditions discussed at the Hearing were based on the list included in the

Council’s statement. Otherwise than as set out in this decision and conditions,

the development should be carried out in accordance with the approved plans,

for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. To ensure

that the design concept is not compromised either by poor quality materials or

future changes to the buildings, conditions are imposed to control the external

and internal materials of construction and finishes and to remove certain

permitted development rights. It would be unreasonable to prevent the

appellant from exercising his rights under Classes F-H of Part 1, Schedule 2 of

the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995,

as the works allowed under those sections are unlikely to alter the design

concept to any significant degree.

19. Landscape implementation and its future management are covered by the

planning obligation, and to impose conditions along similar lines would be

unnecessary. To accord with the County Archaeologist’s advice, a condition is

included to secure a programme of archaeological investigation. The parties

agreed that the condition relating to contamination on the land is unjustified.

Because of the distance of the appeal site from other buildings, the condition

covering a construction method statement has been rationalised to include only

those operational elements that could cause inconvenience locally if not

properly managed.

20. Finally, it was agreed that securing Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes

is essential to the core principles of the proposed scheme. Accordingly, a pre-

and post-construction two part condition is imposed, along the lines discussed

at the Hearing.

S106 Planning Obligation

21. The recreational amenities contribution included in the completed planning

agreement is required to assist with overcoming deficiencies in Lavenham, as

identified in an assessment of open space, sport and recreational facilities

report updated in 2010. In doing so, the contributions would accord with the

requirements of LP Policy HS32.



22. The planning agreement additionally commits the appellant to a detailed

landscaping scheme, a landscape management plan and implementation of

these in accordance with an agreed timetable. Given the importance of

landscaping to the design, and to wider ecological benefits, this element of the

planning agreement is essential to acceptability of the proposed development.

In effect, the provisions of the planning obligation are necessary to make the

development acceptable, are directly related to it and fairly and reasonably

related to it in scale and kind.

Overall Conclusions

23. The appellant’s case refers to the new dwelling as an educational resource but

no mechanism is provided to secure that benefit. The matter does not carry

any weight in the decision reached. I have taken account of all other matters

raised but none is of such weight as to alter the balance of the conclusion that

the proposed new dwelling should be permitted.

Ava Wood Inspector

Schedule of Conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years

from the date of this decision.

2) Other than as required by other conditions, the development hereby

permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved

plans: 0805/2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b, 10b, 11b, 12b, 13b, 14b,

15b, 16 and 17 and Figures TLP/04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 10.

3) No development shall take place until the materials to be used in the

construction of the external and internal surfaces of the buildings hereby

permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with

the approved details.

4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-

enacting or modifying that Order), no fences, gates or walls shall be

erected within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted.


(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and

re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages or

outbuildings shall be erected, other than those expressly authorised by

this permission.


(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and

re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the dwellinghouse

and outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be extended or altered or the

roof extended or altered in any way.


(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-

enacting or modifying that Order), no windows, dormer windows or other



openings shall be constructed other than those expressly authorised by

this permission.

8) The development hereby approved shall not take place until an interim

certificate following a design stage review, based on design drawings,

specifications and commitments, has been issued by a Code for

Sustainable Homes Licensed Assessor to the Local Planning Authority,

indicating that the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is capable of

achieving a minimum of Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The

dwellinghouse shall be constructed to meet Level 6 of the Code for

Sustainable Homes specified minimum level as above.

9) Prior to occupation of the dwellinghouse, a Post-Construction Stage

assessment shall be undertaken. Should that assessment indicate that

the specified minimum code level as above has not been met,

appropriate mitigation to ensure the code level can be met shall be

undertaken. Prior to occupation, or in accordance with an alternative

timetable to be agreed with the local planning authority, the developer

shall submit to the local planning authority a certificate from the Building

Research Establishment (BRE) or another certificated third party,

indicating that the relevant code level has been met.

10) No development shall take place until the developer has secured the

implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance

with a written scheme of investigation submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority.

11) No development shall take place until a construction method statement

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority. Construction shall proceed in accordance with the approved

statement which shall provide for:

(i) loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(ii) storage of plants and materials used in the construction, and

(iii) erection and maintenance of security hoarding.



APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Christopher Whitton Appellant

Mrs Sue Whitton Appellant

Mr Ralph Carpenter Dip Arch

RIBA

Modece Architects

Mr Matthew Bell MA Arch Architect

Mr Richard Scales BArch RIBA Modece Architects

Mr Tim Harbord DipTP MRTPI Planning Consultant

Mr Christopher Stratton OBE

DipLA FLI MRTPI

Landscape architect

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mrs Deborah Board MRTPI Principal planner

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mrs Sarah Partridge MD, OBee Community Interest Company

Mr John Knight Transition Lavenham

Mrs J De Ath Lavenham Resident

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING AND POST HEARING

1 Copies of relevant policies from the East of England Plan

2 Landscape Typology Map

3 Written statement read out by Mr Knight on behalf of Mr John Busby,

Energy sub-group leader, Transition Lavenham CIC

4A&B Extracts from Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

5 Copy of LP Policy CR04

6 Planning Obligation and Deeds of Variation

PLANS

Application Plans:

0805/2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b, 10b, 11b, 12b, 13b, 14b, 15b, 16

and 17.

Figures TLP/04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 10

land off lomas lane, balladen, rossendale...1. introduction 1.1 this planning policy compliance...

Documents