Written by Nikki O’Hagan, 24th October 2024
Three previous successes
Back in April, we told you about 3 of our recent planning appeal wins, all of which centred on East Suffolk’s cluster policies. These cluster policies are relatively new, having only been adopted in 2019 – 2020. There’s one cluster policy for the former Suffolk Coastal area and another cluster policy for the former Waveney area. Both policies are very similar but some of their requirements are slightly different. If you’d like to find out more about our three previous successes – in Witnesham, Woodbridge and Great Yarmouth – click the button below.
What are East Suffolk’s cluster policies?
In short, East Suffolk’s cluster policies provide support for small housing developments located in the open countryside – outside settlement boundaries – but within an existing “cluster” of development.
These policies mark a significant change in approach to the location of new residential development in East Suffolk. For many years prior to 2019 – 2020, housing developments were generally only permitted within settlement boundaries. Those settlement boundaries were set by East Suffolk’s planning departments and were rarely ever altered. Some settlements were never given boundaries at all and so were not generally able to build any new market houses.
The introduction of East Suffolk’s cluster policies changed this considerably, opening the door to new, small scale residential development in the rural areas. Isolated development is still generally prohibited. In order to meet one of the cluster policies, the development site must relate to an existing “cluster” of development. That cluster could be a hamlet or village – provided it is not within any settlement boundaries* – but it could equally be just a small, unnamed collection of homes.
*if it has settlement boundaries, there’s a good chance residential development will still be supported but by different planning policies.
This has meant that many East Suffolk sites where development was previously prohibited or even refused in the past – including the gardens of large, rural homes – are now able to be developed.
Click the link below to access copies of East Suffolk’s 2019 and 2020 Local Plans.
Why does East Suffolk keep having its decisions overturned?
The short answer is that East Suffolk has been interpreting and applying its cluster policies far too strictly. It’s unclear why exactly but it’s possible that the council did not fully grasp the implications of its cluster policies when they decided to introduce them. It’s equally possible that the council has had a change of heart and regrets adopting the policies in the first place. Whatever the reason, the policies do exist and the council has a legal obligation to apply them accurately and consistently. If the council wishes to abandon the policies, they will have to amend their Local Plans in the proper, democratic way.
“That might be what the policy says, but it’s not what it means“
Some planning policies are naturally open to interpretation but that’s not so much the case for East Suffolk’s cluster policies. Most of the cluster policies’ requirements are straightforward and unambiguous. Their meaning is further clarified in the policies’ supporting text and the separate, Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) adopted in 2022. The SPD even includes helpful illustrations that provide clear examples of sites that would and would not comply with the policies.
In spite of this, East Suffolk continues to distort the meaning of their cluster policies in order to refuse planning permission for developments that are objectively in compliance with them. Planning Direct has already been involved in 4 such refusal cases in East Suffolk. In every single one of those cases, the Planning Inspectorate has agreed with our straightforward interpretation of the policies and overturned the council’s refusals on appeal. All 4 of our clients now have planning permission to develop their sites, in accordance with the cluster policies.
In all 4 appeals, Planning Direct has taken support from an important 2018 Court case – commonly referred to as the Braintree case – that confirmed what we already knew to be true:
it doesn’t matter what a policy writer meant, all that matters is what the policy actually says.
To borrow the words of Mrs Justice Lang in the Braintree case:
East Suffolk has been seeking to add an impermissible gloss to its cluster policies in order to give them a meaning not found in their wording and not justified by their contexts.
If East Suffolk continues to misinterpret their cluster policies in this way, we are confident that the Planning Inspectorate will continue to overturn their refusals at appeal.
Appeal case 4: Aldeburgh
A long journey
Our client and their family have lived in a large property in the rural outskirts of Aldeburgh for many years. For more than a decade, our client had repeatedly attempted to secure planning permission to build a new home in their large garden. Unfortunately, all of those attempts had failed. Prior to 2023, their most recent attempt was made in 2018. The 2018 application had been refused by the Council for the following two reasons:
- Inappropriate and unsustainable location in the rural area. No planning policies supported the delivery of new houses in this rural location.
- The development was located in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB (National Landscape) and would cause harm to the AONB.
Our client decided to appeal this decision but the appeal was dismissed. To our client’s dismay, the Inspector agreed with the LPA on both counts. They found that the rural location was unsustainable, inappropriate and unsupported by planning policies. They also found that the undeveloped character of the site contributed positively to the AONB and that this contribution would be harmed by its development. This was in spite of the Inspector agreeing that the design was of a high quality.
Having persevered for a decade, the 2018 appeal dismissal appeared to be the final nail in the coffin of our client’s dream of building a new home in their garden.
A change in policy
Fortunately, the adoption of the new Suffolk Coastal Local Plan in 2020 changed everything for our client. In particular, the cluster policy (SCLP5.4) provided new-found support for the construction of houses on rural sites such as theirs. This meant that if they were to submit a new application, the council’s first reason for refusal of the 2018 application ought no longer to apply.
Encouraged by this significant change in policy, our client was determined to reapply for planning permission. With the assistance of expert landscape and architectural specialists, the design of the development was altered in order to improve its impact on the AONB.
With these policy and design changes in hand, it was expected that both reasons for refusal of the previous 2018 application – and subsequent planning appeal – would be overcome.
The new planning application
In April 2023, the new planning application was submitted to East Suffolk Council. Planning Direct’s Jamie Cann prepared the supporting planning statement. This explained in detail that:
- The location was now appropriate and sustainable because it was supported by East Suffolk’s new cluster policy SCLP5.4.
- The design changes significantly improved its impact on the AONB. For example, the proposed dwelling was more traditional and responsive to local character, including its palette of locally relevant materials. The improved landscape design also secured net gains for native trees, plants and biodiversity features, such as a new pond.
The Council’s decision
Unfortunately, the council took the view that the development did not comply with their cluster policy. In the council’s opinion, the houses within the group were “too loosely scattered, with significant undeveloped spaces in between”.
The council also noted that some of the houses in the group were located at the end of long private driveways rather than being accessed directly off the public highway. In the council’s own words, “it is not sensible planning to interpret the Policy as allowing further development of housing groups which lack direct access from the public highway.”
The council referred additionally to the site’s long history of rejected planning applications. They suggested that granting permission would be inconsistent with this history and at odds with the Inspector’s 2018 appeal decision.
As part of the application, the council had been required to consult their tree/landscape officer and the AONB Management Team. Both of these parties had responded positively to the application, agreeing that the development could enhance the protected landscape. Unfortunately, however, the council decided to overrule their expert consultees. They maintained that the development would cause harm to the AONB and took support from the Inspector’s unfavourable assessment of the 2018 appeal.
Consequently, planning permission was refused. The council’s reasons for refusal were very similar to the reasons given for refusal of the 2018 application:
- inappropriate rural location &
- harm to the AONB.
The only real difference was that the first reason for refusal now referred to conflict with East Suffolk’s cluster policy – SCLP5.4.
The grounds of appeal
We completely disagreed with the policy assessments of the council and urged our client to appeal their decision. Our client agreed and an appeal was promptly submitted. In the appeal, Planning Direct’s Nikki O’Hagan argued:
On East Suffolk’s cluster policy:
Firstly, the council is obliged to interpret and apply their cluster policy sensibly, having regard only to its plain English wording and supporting text. They are not permitted to “over-interpret” the policy by adding any additional or alternative meaning to it.
Secondly, we advised the Inspector that the “significant undeveloped spaces” in between the houses were not “open land” but gardens. We then directed the Inspector to the cluster policy’s supporting text which confirms that houses within a close group can be separated by gardens. We also asked the Inspector to consider the council’s own interpretation of the policy in their Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). For example, the SPD includes the following guidance:
“It is not appropriate to define a specific size of space(s) that would or would not be acceptable in determining whether dwellings are ‘close’ – this will depend on the character of the area and will involve planning judgement. For example, some clusters may be characterised by existing dwellings in large plots whereas others may comprise a more compact pattern.”
In light of this guidance, we suggested to the Inspector that the character of the area in this case was defined by large dwellings set in spacious plots.
Thirdly, we strongly refuted the council’s claim that all the dwelling sites within the cluster must border the public highway. This was not what the policy stated. Whilst the cluster must be adjacent to a highway, it could still include plots set back from the road and accessed via private driveways.
On its impact on the AONB:
Finally, we pointed to the positive consultation responses of the council’s tree/landscape officer and the AONB Management Team. We argued that the expert opinions of these landscape specialists attracted more weight than the opinion of the planning officer. We also highlighted the fact that the assessments of the 2018 Inspector were specific to the 2018 proposal. In our statement, we clearly identified the key differences between the 2018 and 2023 proposals and provided a comparison of their very different landscape impacts.
The appeal decision
The appeal was allowed in July 2024. The Inspector agreed that the development complied with East Suffolk’s cluster policy SCLP5.4 and avoided harm to the AONB. Planning permission was granted on this basis. The Inspector’s decision letter included the following useful assessments:
On the “loose” spacing of properties within the cluster:
Although these properties are all located on spacious plots, they are not separated by open fields or extensive open spaces, taking into account the loose knit character of the area.
The house to the north of the appeal site is a slightly greater distance from other dwellings within the cluster. But is separated by residential garden space, albeit one that is substantial in size, rather than an open field. Therefore, it also forms part of the cluster.
On the siting of some properties well back from the public highway:
Whilst some of these properties are set back from the existing highway, with access from it via long driveways, as a group they are all located adjacent to it. Therefore, this group of dwellings forms a ‘cluster’.
On its impact on the AONB:
The proposed dwelling would still be well set back from the road, with a large garden space located between the proposed building and the front boundary. Vehicular access would be via an existing private driveway which limits the amount of hardstanding required and ensures that it is out of public view.
Additional planting, along with the existing hedging and the significant set back from the road, would provide sufficient screening to ensure that the proposed building is not a visual intrusion into the wider landscape. It would also be located amongst existing development on an existing residential site and so
would not significantly harm the open nature of the surrounding area.
The design of the proposed dwelling is generally in keeping with the varied style of surrounding properties. It would use materials suitable to this rural environment. It would also accord with the pattern of development, as a large dwelling on a generous plot set well back from the road.
Therefore, it would not be an incongruous addition to the site, the surrounding area or the overall AONB. Consequently, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the AONB.
Summing up
Our client was understandably delighted with the outcome of the appeal. After a decade of failed planning applications, East Suffolk’s cluster policy has finally made their dream a reality.
Planning Direct is also thrilled to see their interpretation of East Suffolk’s cluster policy supported by another Inspector in another appeal. Since these cluster policies were first introduced by East Suffolk, Planning Direct has managed to secure consent for 4 separate cluster developments – in Witnesham, Woodbridge, Great Yarmouth and Aldeburgh – all on appeal.
And we’ve learnt a few things along the way…
A refusal of planning permission is not always the end of the road
Firstly, a refusal of planning permission is not always the end of the road, and neither is an appeal dismissal. Our Aldeburgh client had submitted 4 separate planning applications over the past decade and took 2 of these to appeal, losing both times. We won our Witnesham client consent after an appeal dismissal in 2020. Our Woodbridge client had also lost a similar appeal in 2018. The adoption of East Suffolk’s new Local Plans in 2019 – 2020 changed everything for all of our clients. In particular, the new cluster policies meant the previously unacceptable rural locations of their sites were suddenly acceptable.
You should always pay attention to planning policy updates as you never know what doors might be opened! And policy changes aren’t the only reason that previously refused developments might be approved today. You should also look out for:
- Physical changes to the local area, especially if those changes make your site more sustainable. This might include, for example, new housing developments, new transport links or new shops, services and workplaces.
- Relevant planning decisions, especially if permission has just been granted for similar development in the same area. This is because of the important principle of consistency in decision-making.
An appeal is very often worthwhile
Secondly, if your council has refused you planning permission, an appeal is very often worthwhile. If our 4 cluster clients had given up when East Suffolk refused planning permission, none of them would have consent today. And planning applications are getting more and more expensive – council fees are going up and submission requirements are increasing too.
However, planning appeals remain free* and the national success rate is around 1 in 3. If your appeal fails, you will rarely lose anything** and if it succeeds, you will walk away with planning permission.
*an appeal is free to submit and you are entitled to submit it yourself, avoiding all fees. If you’d like a professional planning consultancy to prepare and submit an appeal on your behalf, there will be a cost associated with this.
**in the interests of transparency, you should be aware that there is a very small risk that you could be required to pay the council’s appeal costs. Costs are only very rarely awarded and only if you are found to have behaved unreasonably and to have caused the council additional expense as a result. A good planning consultant will assist you to avoid this small risk.
Councils are not always correct
This really goes without saying but our 4 recent East Suffolk appeal wins have reaffirmed that councils get things wrong! Whatever the reason, councils don’t always interpret or apply their planning policies correctly. And they often inflate or overemphasise the impact of development, especially where landscape and townscape matters are involved. There’s a reason 1 in 3 planning appeals succeed and in many cases, common sense does prevail. If you’re convinced your local planning department has made a faulty decision, don’t assume they know better. There’s a good chance a Planning Inspector will agree with you.
East Suffolk’s cluster policies apply to a wide variety of rural sites
Finally, our 4 appeal wins have confirmed that East Suffolk’s cluster policies apply to a wide variety of rural sites. This includes small and large plots, settlement-adjacent and deeply rural plots, plots in residential use or not, plots with and without access to public transport and more! All that matters is that your site and proposal meets the criteria of East Suffolk’s cluster policy. If you own a site in East Suffolk, Planning Direct offers a preliminary policy assessment free of charge. Contact us today to find out more.