®Planning appeal decision
Land north-east of Humber Doucy Lane, Humber Doucy Lane, Ipswich, IP4 3QA
Hybrid Application - Full Planning Permission for the means of vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access to and from the site. Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for a mixed use development for up to 660 dwellings (Use Class C3), up to 400 sq m (net) of non- residential floorspace falling within Use Class E and/or Use Class F2(b), an Early Years facility, and associated vehicular access and highway works, formal and informal open spaces, play areas, provision of infrastructure (including internal highways, parking, servicing, cycle and pedestrian routes, utilities and sustainable drainage systems), and all associated landscaping and engineering works
- Authority
- East Suffolk
- Appeal type
- other · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Unknown
- Inspector
- Board D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the approach to the appeal scheme would provide a comprehensive and coordinated approach to development of the site (IBC RFR1, ESC RFR1)
- Whether the scheme would represent an appropriate quantum of development on the site (IBC RFR11, ESC RFR10)
- The effect of the scheme on the character and appearance of the area (IBC RFR4, ESC RFR3)
- Whether the scheme would make appropriate provision for green infrastructure (IBC RFR12, ESC RFR10)
- The effect of the scheme on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries, and Deben Estuary, designated European conservation sites (IBC RFR 7, ESC RFR6)
- The effect of the scheme on highway safety (IBC RFR3, IBC RFR2, ESC RFR2)
- Whether the scheme would be at risk from flooding, having particular regard to flooding and drainage strategy (IBC RFR5, ESC RFR 4)
- Whether the scheme would make appropriate provision for infrastructure (IBC RFR13, ESC RFR11)
- Whether the loss of sports pitches arising from the scheme would be justified (IBC RFR 10) [Appeal B only]
What decided it
The proposed on-site green space would not function effectively as SANG mitigation, so an adverse effect on the integrity of the nearby European protected sites could not be ruled out, and this strong reason for refusal disapplied the tilted balance and was not outweighed by other considerations.
Public benefits (housing delivery, affordable housing, economic benefits and open space) outweighed the less than substantial heritage harm, but this did not overcome the conflict with the development plan on green infrastructure/SANG provision (and sports pitch replacement in Appeal B), and with the tilted balance disapplied by footnote 7 the appeals were dismissed as the schemes conflicted with the development plan as a whole.
Framework references: 11
Plan policies cited: ISPA4, DM1, DM4, DM5, DM6, DM8, DM12, DM13, DM18, DM21, CS8, CS12, CS16, CS17, SCLP12.24, SCLP12.23, SCLP11.1, SCLP11.3, SCLP11.4, SCLP10.4, SCLP10.1, SCLP9.6, SCLP8.2, SCLP7.1, SCLP3.5, RSA2, RSA9, RSA11
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.