Item 03 Application No. IP/19/00071/FUL 03.pdf · reptile surveys carried out before commencement....

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 26th JUNE 2019 REF.NO. PD/19/02

Item 03 Application No. IP/19/00071/FUL

Ward: GIPPING

Proposal: Modification of rail tracks, new fuelling pad, oil and fuel tanks,materials store, maintenance facility building, wheel lathebuilding, inspection building, ancillary office, staff welfarefacilities, car park provision and access.

Address: Land Between Ipswich Railway Station And LondonRoad,Railway Line (Bramford To Wherstead),

Applicant: Freightliner Maintenance Ltd

Agent: Mr Dominic Waugh


Recommendation

Grant full planning permission upon condition that (briefly):-

1. Development to be in accordance with the approved drawings.

2. 15% of energy requirements of the buildings to be from decentralised andrenewable or low carbon sources unless demonstrated not feasible or not viable.

3. Development to be in accordance with recommendations of air quality report.

4. Construction Management Plan to be submitted before commencement, includingdust management plan and construction surface water management plan.

5. Further details of noise mitigation before first use including ongoing management

plan, subsequent agreed noise levels to be maintained.

6. Deliveries between 8am and 8pm only and shift change over between 6am and

Midnight only.

7. Conditions requiring contaminated land risk assessment prior to commencement,verification report, monitoring/maintenance plan, the reporting of unexpected

contamination.

8. Conditions restricting infiltration of surface water drainage and piling.

9. Condition requiring submission of strategy for disposal of surface water drainage

before commencement, including maintenance and management.

10. Details relating to the storage of fuel (to prevent ground water contamination) to beprovided.

11. Before first use details of cycle parking, motorcycle parking and electric vehiclecharging point to be submitted.

12. Details of access prior to commencement.

13. Conditions relating to provision of visibility splays, boundary planting and restriction

upon gates.

14. Details of signage scheme and deliveries management plan before first use.

15. Provision of vehicular areas before first use.

16. Development to be in accordance with ecological appraisal, including bat and

reptile surveys carried out before commencement.

17. Details of biodiversity enhancement before first use to be agreed and implemented.


18. Details of landscaping, plant density, size, and species to be provided and agreed,

and implemented the first planting season after meaningful completion.

19. Details of external lighting of buildings and yard to be agreed, including light bleed

to surrounding sites.

20. On commencement of the use, the applicant shall cease maintenance or fuellingat the existing facility adjacent to Ipswich Train Station.

Informatives:

1. Ipswich Borough Council supports the use of automatic sprinkler systems.

1. Proposal

1.1. The application site relates to railway lines within the ownership of Network Rail and in usefor rail freight purposes. The site is operated by Freightliner as a stabling marshalling andtrain crew depot on a 24/7 basis.

1.2. The site is approx. 350 metres to the west of Ipswich train station and has an overall areaof 2.6 hectares within an area extending from Ranelagh Road to the east and towards theLondon Road bridge to the north west. There are residential properties to the north of thesite fronting Ranelagh Road and the main railway line is directly to the south.

1.3. The site is within the IP-One Area and is close to the River Orwell, approx. 150 metres tothe north. The site is identified as a corridor for wildlife.

1.4. The application seeks the formation of a maintenance and fueling facility. This involves themodification and installation of railway tracks providing a capacity for 67 stabling wagons.

1.5. Three principle buildings would be erected to facilitate the proposed use and wouldcomprise:- Wagon maintenance facility, constructed using metal cladding, 54 metres long, 10

metres wide and rising to a height of 10 metres. Locomotive inspection building, constructed using metal cladding, 28 metres long, 8

metres wide and rising to a height of 9 metres.

Wheel lathe building, constructed using metal cladding, 30 metres long, 12 metreswide and rising to a height of 10 metres.

1.6. Various other smaller scale buildings are proposed as part of the use. These include officesand welfare facilities for the applicant and their employees comprising two portablebuildings formed from converted containers. These buildings would replace the existingdepot building adjacent to Ranelagh Road.

1.7. Also adjacent to Ranelagh Road the applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing carparking arrangements. This would include space for 44 with access from Ranelagh Roadwhich is net increase of 32 spaces. The landscaping would include a hedge, silver birchtrees, a planted gabion wall feature within the site and a planted screen on the sitesboundary with Ranelagh Road.

1.8. The use would also include a fueling facility with reinforced concrete pads and two 100,000litre fuel tanks. Further oil tanks are also proposed with a combined capacity of 14,000 litres.

1.9. The development would have a HGV access from Ranelagh Road at the location of the


former level crossing. An internal access would be formed involving the removal of aredundant rail line along the Lower Docks Branch Line. There would be an average of 2HGV and 1 large van deliveries to the site each day involving materials and fuel.

1.10. The application has been submitted with the following documents:

Ecological Reports, including Badger Survey Flood Risk Assessment Noise Impact Assessment Tree Report Air Quality Report Contaminated Land Report Transport Assessment Planning Statement

2. Background

2.1. The applicant has identified a need for a maintenance facility. Freight trains need routineand regular maintenance and refuelling and this is most effectively done near a terminal,such as Felixstowe, where the containers can be stripped so that the wagons can beinspected and the locomotives can be moved off the train for servicing.

2.2. Currently, the applicant has no wagon repair facilities in the area, with the nearest facilitiesin Southampton and Manchester. As a considerable portion of the applicant’s fleet starts orends their journey at Felixstowe, it results in many unnecessary and significant trips toManchester or Southampton when wagons are in need of maintenance.

2.3. Furthermore, the applicant currently fuels locomotives at a separate site adjacent to IpswichStation. However, this proves inefficient and problematic as each locomotive movementhas to cross the main railway line which is a constraint for Network Rail in increasingpassenger transport capacity on the line. The applicant states that by relocating the fuelpoint the application site, the applicant can operate more efficiently and can allow for thecapacity on the main railway line to increase.

3. Consultations

IBC Environmental Health – Air Quality: Having examined the information provided with regardto air quality, the Officer is satisfied that as there are no relevant receptors within 15m, no furtherdetailed assessment of locomotive idling is needed. A dust management plan should be providedto, and agreed by, the Council prior to construction commencing and this should detail themitigation measures required. This approach is in line with the IAQM ‘Guidance on theassessment of dust from demolition and construction’. The Officer agrees with the recommendedmeasures as detailed the Air Quality Assessment included with the application.

Noise Impact: A noise impact assessment has been carried out to assess the potential noiseimpact from industrial noise from the proposed new facility, traffic noise from the additional roadtraffic and noise from staff and visitors using the carpark. This assessment would appear to followthe appropriate standards and guidelines and concludes that “predicted noise levels show thatadverse impacts at receptors as a result of the new rail maintenance facility are unlikely” Theassessment makes various assumptions and the Officer recommends that the Local PlanningAuthority consider conditioning these to ensure that the predicted noise levels are not exceeded.

Best practice mitigation is included for industrial noise. To ensure there is no impact on road trafficnoise during the night deliveries to the site by HGV’s are limited to daytime hours only; and staffshift changes should be made outside the period 24:00 – 06:00hrs


Contaminated Land: A Geo-Environmental Desk Study has been carried out to determine the riskof land contamination. This study has identified the need to carry out further investigations. Priorto the commencement of the development the following must be undertaken:

A Phase 2 intrusive ground investigation and additional surveys based on therecommendations in section 9.1 (site investigation) and section 9.2 (further surveys andenquiries).

A Phase 3 remediation strategy based on the findings of the site investigation and othersurveys. This strategy should detail the remediation measures required and how theywill be undertaken. It should also detail how the remediation works will be validated.These should be submitted to and approved by the Local Authority.

Upon completion of the development a verification report should be submitted to theLocal Authority to demonstrate the completion of remedial works set out in theremediation strategy. It should also include any plan for longer term monitoring ofpollutant linkages and maintenance requirements.

The contamination mitigation measures specified within the application should be fullyimplemented during the construction phase.

IBC Landscape Officer – No objections although concerns raised regarding loss of trees.Recommended that bat, reptile and badger surveys need to be done before works on site start.

IBC Tree Officer – Landscaping generally looks good and the number of trees to be plantedshould more than mitigate for loss of predominantly self-sown trees T4 Sycamore (Cat B tree) toaccommodate proposed new modular office block building and T7 Sycamore ,T8 Sycamore, G5Sycamore & G6 Sycamore (All Cat C trees) for proposed new road /access route. Althoughnumbers and species will need to be provided for the additional native tree planting within theareas containing existing scrub and retained trees , as indicated on the landscape plan(128273/8001 A). Additional tree planting in these areas would be the ideal opportunity to furtherincrease tree numbers to enhance landscape, wildlife and important screening value (fromRanelagh Road) of site and surrounding area. This also applies to the hedge indicated on thelandscape plan, where detail of species composition, ideally native should also be provided.

SCC Drainage – Would not recommend approval without suitable conditions. This is because The attached documents do not include any drainage details. The previously submitted proposals are preliminary and do not clearly define the

capacities of the proposed tanks, pollution interceptors and details of the permeablepaving at this stage.

No detailed proposals for preventing pollution of ground water from spillages /leakagein the high risk fuelling and maintenance areas are included.

No maintenance proposals have been submitted.Conditions recommended requiring submission of strategy for disposal of surface waterdrainage before commencement, including maintenance and management. Furthercondition recommended requiring details of construction surface water management.

SCC Highways – Conditions recommended regarding details of access prior to commencement,visibility splays, boundary planting, signage scheme, deliveries management plan, provision ofvehicular areas, restriction upon gates.

Comment that the County Council requires the new access to be relocated slightly further east tooffer maximum manoeuvrability for vehicles exiting the site. Further access drawings are requiredand these works will be subject to an agreement under the Highways Act. To provide the visibilitysplays the new access will require the removal of the pylons.

A weight restriction is applied applies to Princes Street and no waiting Mon-Sat 8am - 6pm existon both sides of Ranelagh Road from the proposed new access location in an easterly direction.No waiting 24hrs exist on Ranelagh Road from the proposed new access in a westerly direction.On the southern side of Ranelagh Road this reduces to sections of daytime no waiting restrictions


Mon-Sat 8am-6pm.

Suffolk Fire and Rescue – General comments regarding access. No additional water supply isrequired and sprinklers are recommended.

Network Rail – Supports the application and the development of the facility. The Developmentmakes efficient use of an area of underutilised Freight land. The Development is operationallydesirable, supports modal shift and makes good use of existing freight land and will generate newlocal skilled job opportunities.

Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions requiring contaminated land riskassessment prior to commencement, verification report, monitoring/maintenance plan andreporting of unexpected contamination. Further condition restricting infiltration of surface waterdrainage and piling.

Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk tothe environment and the Environment Agency would object to the application. The EnvironmentAgency have also highlighted uncertainty over the details regarding positioning of the fuel tankswithin the proposal and should further information be submitted on those tanks and/or it beconfirmed that they are to be located below ground the Environment Agency request to be re-consulted for further comment.

Anglian Water – Comments regarding Anglian Water assets that may be affected. Availablecapacity for foul drainage. General comments regarding surface water drainage.

Representations

The following representations have been received against the proposal:-

Mr D Jones, 177 Ranelagh Road, IP2 0AH received 2.2.19Mr W Stankiewicz, 196 Ranelagh Road, IP2 0AB received 5.2.19Mr F Noto, 194 Ranelagh Road, IP2 0AB received 12.2.19Ms S Andrews, 86 Ranelagh Road, IP2 0AB received 16.2.19

Issues Raised:-

1. Concerns regarding noise and disturbance.2. Inadequate consultation.3. Increase in traffic and restriction upon traffic flow.4. Loss of property value.5. Concerns regarding restricted access.

4. Policy

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (2019)National Planning Practice Guidance (2014)

Local Planning Policy

Core Strategy and Policies DPD (2017)Policies CS2 (The Location and Nature of Development); DM1 (Sustainable Design andConstruction); DM2 (Decentralised Renewable or Low Carbon Energy); DM4 (Development andFlood Risk); DM5 (Design and Character); DM10 (Protection of Trees and Hedgerows); DM17(Transport and Access in New Developments); DM18 (Car & Cycle Parking); DM26 (Protectionof Amenity) and DM31 (The Natural Environment).


5. Comment

Need for development

5.1. There are clear benefits to the movement of freight by rail and these would be facilitated bythe proposed development. Furthermore, the applicant states that the development wouldhelp address current constraints upon both the passenger and freight rail network, includingwith regard to its current operations adjacent to Ipswich Station.

5.2. The applicant suggests that increasing capacity would support the overall aim of movingfreight from road to rail and would generate significant economic, social and environmentalbenefits. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would createadditional skilled jobs within Ipswich.

5.3. The applicant states that the movement of freight by rail benefits by increased productivityfor business, takes 76 lorries off the road per freight train and rail freight produces up to tentimes less small particulate matter; 76% less carbon dioxide, and as much as 15 times lessnitrogen oxide when compared to road haulage. Furthermore, on average, a gallon of fuelis able to move a tonne of goods 246 miles on the railway but only 88 miles by road. Thelocalised impact of the development must therefore be considered having regard to thewider benefits of the development.

5.4. Possible locations for the development are limited and realistically have to be alongsideexisting rail infrastructure and be in locations where land and capacity is available. Theapplicant also considers it important to carry out maintenance close to a destination, in thiscase the Port of Felixstowe, from an operational point of view. Such operations carried outat existing locations represents inefficiencies that will potentially impact upon the abovebenefits.

5.5. The applicant states that almost half of all the applicant’s services start or finish at the Portof Felixstowe. Furthermore, the applicant is the biggest rail operator of container traffic,operating 22 round trips a day to the Port of Felixstowe.

5.6. By comparison, the applicant operates 10 daily round trips to and from the Port ofSouthampton, the UK’s second biggest container port and the location of the applicant’sexisting light maintenance facility.

5.7. The applicant has considered provision of the facility within Felixstowe. However, they havefound that capacity is limited and would rely upon a single track line which is not electrified.Electric services destined for Felixstowe have to change locomotives in Ipswich as theFelixstowe branch line is not currently electrified. That drives a requirement to stable andmaintain electric locomotives at Ipswich (as well as a requirement for the supply of fuelledand maintained diesel locomotives). These activities could not happen at Felixstowe, oranywhere on the Felixstowe branch line, as the line is not electrified. Finally, there is noland available within Felixstowe, whereas the application site has been in use for rail freightstabling and marshalling for a considerable period.

5.8. The applicant also considered their existing sites within Colchester and Nuneaton, aswellas possible sites at other terminal locations within the Midlands or the North of England.However, capacity and land availability constraints render these locations unfeasible for thedevelopment.

Land Use

5.9. The site is within the IP-One Area of Ipswich. It is close to the Ipswich Village and towncentre areas of the town but not actually inside these areas.


5.10. Policy CS2 states that the regeneration and sustainable growth of Ipswich will be achievedthrough a number of policies, including the focusing new residential development andcommunity facilities into the town centre and Ipswich Village. Within these areas mixed usedevelopment with high residential densities is encouraged, however within the IP-One Areamedium density development is encouraged at an average density of 45 dph.

5.11. Employment uses are generally directed towards employment areas. However the natureof the development and land availability issues outlined above would restrict the location ofthe use. Furthermore, the site is outside of the Village and town centre areas where theconcentration of residential development is likely to be greatest.

5.12. Subject to the localised impacts of the development being acceptable, it is considered thatthe development is appropriate having regard to policy CS2.

Design and Layout

5.13. The proposal involves the erection of three main buildings to be constructed using metalcladding and rising to a height of between 9 and 10 metres. The nearest residential propertyto a proposed building would be approx. 30 metres away and fronting Ranelagh Road tothe north.

5.14. The buildings would be visible from Ranelagh Road, from neighbouring properties frontingRanelagh Road and from within Gippeswyk Park. The buildings would also be visible fromhigher ground to the south. The proposed alterations to the car parking adjacent toRanelagh Road would also impact upon the street scene.

5.15. Policy DM5 requires development to be well designed and sustainable, with a specificrequirement for development to function well and where possible integrate with adjoiningareas, exhibit good architectural quality whilst protecting and enhancing the specialcharacter and distinctiveness of the town and the street scene.

5.16. The applicant has provided a landscaping proposal which includes new tree planting, agabion wall feature and a hedgerow adjacent to Ranelagh Road in order to mitigate againstthe greatest visual impact of the proposal from the three main buildings proposed. Thesebuildings are approximately 30 metres away from the road and set within the context of therailway line. Existing landscaping would also reduce the impact of the buildings, particularlyfrom the park and higher ground to the south.

5.17. When viewed from Ranelagh Road the proposed buildings must also be considered in thecontext of other large commercial buildings within the retail parks adjacent to the RiverOrwell.

5.18. Officers can consider that that the proposed buildings would be appropriate having regardto the context within which they would be seen, which is mix of purpose built largecommercial sheds, some early C20th residential properties, and the railway embankmentthat has served the station yard for a significant number of years. Whilst the buildingsthemselves will be large in scale and visible from Ranelagh Road, given this overall contextand mitigation in the form of planting, it is considered that, on balance, they would beacceptable having regards to the requirements of policy DM5.

5.19. Policy DM1 states that the Council will encourage non-residential development of 500 sqm and above to achieve a minimum of BREEAM Very Good standard or equivalent. Aninformative is recommended in this regard.

5.20. Policy DM2 requires that all new build development in excess of 1000 sq. m shall provideat least 15% of their energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 26 th JUNE 2019 REF.NO. PD/19/02

sources. If it can be clearly demonstrated that this is not either feasible or viable, thealternative of reduced provision and/or equivalent carbon reduction in the form of additionalenergy efficiency measures will be required. The design of development should allow forthe development of feed in tariffs.

5.21. No details have been provided with regard to compliance with policy DM2. However, as thebuildings are designed with a specific use in mind it is unlikely that these energyrequirements will be feasible. It is recommended that further details or a clear demonstrationthat such requirements are not feasible be subject to a condition.

Impact upon amenity

5.22. The applicant has submitted air and noise reports that consider the impacts of thedevelopment. These will primarily be as follows based upon the submitted noise report:-

Daytime operations including; operational wheel lathe, extractor fans, power toolsand hand tools in the maintenance building, HGV/LGV deliveries and unloading.Additionally, locomotives will be idling at the inspection pit and fuel point.

Night-time operations including; operational wheel lathe, extractor fans, power toolsand hand tools in the maintenance building. Additionally, locomotives idling at theinspection pit and fuel point.

5.23. It is expected that 18 locomotives would enter and leave on a daily basis (Monday-Saturday). Between 10 and 18 of these will be inspected and fuelled on a daily basis withmany of the locomotives being ‘stabled’.

Approximate Locomotive Activity

Locomotive Idling Locations and Timings

5.24. Locomotives would be fuelled at the proposed fuel point. They would also be inspectedwhilst being refuelled and if no repairs are needed they would be taken back through theyard for departure.

5.25. If further repairs are required then the locomotive would be moved to the locomotiveinspection building. The proposed inspection building would include an exhaust extractionsystem, a reinforced concrete inspection pit with steps at each end, lighting, power andcompressed air.

5.26. The wagon maintenance building would be capable of accommodating two wagons. The


building would include one overhead gantry crane and would be used to undertake yearlymaintenance, inspection/repairs and brake testing.

5.27. Wheels would also be tested and if any work is required this would be undertaken in thewheel lathe building. The building would include an overhead gantry crane and a wheellathe pit.

5.28. Policy DM26 Planning permission for any development (including change of use) will notbe permitted where it would likely cause material nuisance to the proposed, existing and /or adjacent users, residents, occupiers or where it is liable to be detrimental to humanhealth.

5.29. Furthermore development which could itself be significantly adversely affected by theconduct of established or potentially noisy or polluting uses nearby will not be permitted.Exceptions to this will only be made where satisfactory mitigation measures can be securedthrough the use of planning conditions or Section 106 Agreements.

5.30. The air quality report considers both additional impact from construction and also fromadditional vehicles and locomotives when the use is in operation.

5.31. The air quality report has been considered by IBC Environmental Health who have raisedno objection. Additional road traffic impact would be negligible in terms of air quality andidling locomotives are not expected to be within 15 metres of the nearest residentialproperty. Therefore air quality impact of the development are not expected to be significantand the impacts of the construction of the development can also be mitigated against.

5.32. The design of the buildings, with extraction and enclosure where necessary, is an importantmitigating factor together with the distances to the nearest properties. It is also notable thatthe proposal involves the relocation of fuelling from an existing location adjacent to IpswichStation. It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the applicant’s use of theexisting facility to cease.

5.33. The proposal is considered to be acceptable having regard to policy DM26 and would notresult in a material nuisance arising from air quality as to be contrary to this policy.

5.34. The applicant has also submitted a noise report given the proximity of residential propertiesto the north of the site fronting Ranelagh Road. This report considers noise impact fromindustrial noise, noise from the revised car park and noise from additional road noise.

5.35. The predicted noise rating levels at nearby residential properties are less than a 5 dBthreshold above background noise taking into account road and rail traffic noise within thearea. Adverse impacts for nearby residential receptors are unlikely and this takes intoaccount HGV movements, idling locomotives, maintenance work and general activityassociated with the use. The applicant has taken into account the design and layout of theproposal, including an acoustically rated wall adjacent to the fuelling pad and measures toensure that the doors to the locomotive inspection building being kept shut whenlocomotives are running inside.

5.36. Some examinations and servicing of locomotives currently take place at the existing fuelpoint adjacent to Ipswich Station. However it is limited in scope and over capacity and theproposed facility would provide improved environmental and noise control when comparedwith the existing facility. For example, idling locomotives are currently powered up for testingat the fuel point which is in close proximity to nearby residential properties. If permitted,these activities will be moved into a specially designed building that would mitigate the noiseand air quality impacts of this activity at the application site, and would see a significantimprovement as a result. As stated above it is recommended that a condition be imposedrequiring the applicant’s use of the existing facility to cease.


5.37. The use would operate on a 24/7 basis, other than deliveries which would be during daytimehours only. The applicant’s assessment shows that there are unlikely to be any appreciableeffects on the noise levels at residential properties due to road traffic noise and noise fromthe car park is not likely to have any adverse impact at residential properties.

5.38. Representations have been received from residents with regard to noise and disturbance.However, these must be considered in the context of existing background noise and thereport states that background noise within the locality ranges from 42 dB to 58 dB whenmeasured during the night time. Furthermore, IBC Environmental Health have raised noobjection although have provided advice with regard to conditions. It is recommended thatconditions be imposed, including further details of mitigation, ongoing management andrestrictions upon deliveries to between 8am and 8pm only and shift change over to between6am and Midnight only.

5.39. The noise management plan would ensure that the proposed noise mitigation is providedand that the use operates with doors kept shut with extraction and ventilation providedwhere necessary. It will also ensure that there is a point of contact for residents.

5.40. Subject to the compliance with these conditions, Officers consider that the developmentwould not result in a material nuisance as to be contrary to policy DM26.

5.41. The applicant has submitted a report regarding land instability and contamination. Both IBCEnvironmental Health and the Environment Agency have considered the submitted reportsand raise no objections subject to restrictive conditions and conditions requiring furtherdetails, primarily with regard to further intrusive investigations and the protection ofgroundwater.

5.42. The proposal would be acceptable in these regards, subject to conditions, and in terms ofpolicy DM26.

Flood Risk

5.43. Policy DM4 states that development will only be approved where it can be demonstratedthat the proposal does not increase the overall risk of all forms of flooding, will be adequatelyprotected from flooding, will remain safe for people for the lifetime of the development andthat it includes water efficiency measures.

5.44. The site itself is not at risk of flooding, however land to the north is at risk of floodingassociated with the River Orwell and there is also some, albeit limited, risk in terms ofsurface water flooding.

5.45. A Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy has been submitted and SCC Drainagehave been consulted given the scale of development. The report demonstrates that theproposal would be appropriate having regard to flood risk and that safe access/egress isavailable. Furthermore it is proposed to keep floor levels raised above ground level wherepossible.

5.46. Nonetheless, SCC Drainage have recommended conditions requiring further details of thestrategy for surface water drainage, including details of implementation, maintenance andmanagement. A further condition requiring details of how surface and storm water will bedealt with during construction is also recommended.

5.47. Subject to the above conditions the proposal would be acceptable having regard to policyDM4.

Highway Issues


5.48. Policy DM17 seeks to promote sustainable growth in Ipswich and reduce the impact oftraffic congestion by setting a number of criteria, including that new development shall notresult in a severe adverse impact on rights of way or the local road network in respect oftraffic capacity and highway safety.

5.49. The applicant has stated that movements at the access would be right turn only whenleaving and left turn when entering, ie HGV’s will only serve the site using the RanelaghRoad to the east. The applicant also proposes to remove timber pylons and divert cablesto facilitate the access in order to assist with visibility.

5.50. SCC Highways have raised no objections subject to conditions requiring details of theaccess prior to commencement and further restrictive conditions including those relating tovisibility splays, gates, boundary planting, details of signage, deliveries management andprovision of vehicular areas.

5.51. SCC Highways require the proposed access to be relocated further to the east in order toincrease maneuverability and this can be secure by the above recommended conditions.

5.52. The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment and this shows that the proposalwould not result in a significant increase in trips as a result of the development havingregard to policy DM17. The proposal also includes 2 electric vehicle charging spaces andthese can be subject to conditions.

5.53. The site is within the IP-One Area. Policy DM18 states that there will be reduced maximumstandards of car parking provision for residential development within the IP-One Area,which has frequent and extensive public transport networks, and easy access to a widerange of employment, shopping, and other facilities.

5.54. More generally, the Council will require adopted standards of car and cycle parking to becomplied with in all new development (except in the IP-One area), and will expect parkingto be fully integrated into the design of the scheme to provide secure and convenientfacilities and create a safe and attractive environment.

5.55. The proposal seeks to provide a level of parking that meets the applicants and NetworkRail’s operational needs. The proposed operational staffing levels indicate that a total of 15staff would be on site at any one time.

5.56. The development is also required to provide 5 additional car parking spaces for NetworkRail staff for use when required. A further visitor space allowance of 5 spaces has beenincluded.

5.57. The proposed parking provision of 40 spaces within the main car park (plus 4 ancillaryspaces adjacent to the substation) is therefore proposed to anticipate the worst caseparking demand. Furthermore, the Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2015) suggest a maximumstandard of 42 car spaces for a Class B2 use over the same floorspace as the proposedbuildings, although this does not take account the external areas also part of the use so istherefore a conservative estimate.

5.58. The Guidance also requires a minimum of 9 cycle parking spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces, 2disability bays and 2 electric vehicle charging bays with ducting for a further 2 spaces. Theproposal would provide adequate disability and electric vehicle charging. However, theprovision of cycle and motorcycle parking, at 5 and 2 spaces respectively would be belowthe minimum standard suggest. There is adequate space within he parking area to providethese in full and it is recommended that conditions be imposed with regard to the provisionof parking that fully accords with the guidance.


5.59. The site is within the accessible IP-One area and is well served by public transport.However, there is also the risk that insufficient car parking would increase kerbside parkingupon surrounding roads. Subject to no objections being received from SCC Highways andappropriate conditions, Officers can conclude that the proposed parking is appropriatehaving regard to policy DM18. The parking has also been designed so that it does notdominate the street scene having regard to the submitted landscaping.

Biodiversity

5.60. Policy DM31 states that all new development is expected to incorporate measures toenhance conditions for biodiversity within and around the development. Proposals whichwould result in significant harm or net loss to biodiversity, having appropriate regard to the‘mitigation hierarchy’, will not normally be permitted. Enhancements for protected sites andprotected and priority species will be expected where possible.

5.61. Although much of the site comprises rail infrastructure of limited biodiversity value there aresome areas that have potential as habitats and the applicant has submitted an ecologicalappraisal. This report however confirms that the site is of low ecological value althoughfurther surveys with regard to badgers, bats and reptiles was, or is to be, undertaken.Otherwise the report concludes that the site can be developed without significant harm ornet loss to biodiversity and recommends that scrub be retained where possible withenhancements comprising two bat boxes.

5.62. The badger survey identified a possible habitat, however no signs of badger were observedand it was concluded that this sett was an unoccupied ‘outlier sett’ as only one entrancewas discovered and there were no obvious paths. Although considered unoccupied bybadger, there appears to be a fox using the sett as their territory. As a result, the reportrecommends several mitigation measures, such as protection zones, which the applicantwill implement during the construction phase of the development.

5.63. The report recommends further bat and reptile surveys. As these need to be carried outduring summer months it is recommended that these requirements, together with themitigation and enhancement noted above, be the subject of conditions.

Tree Impact

5.64. Policy DM10 Applications for development should retain existing trees and hedgerows ofamenity or biodiversity value where possible. Where development affecting trees orhedgerows is proposed, the application must be accompanied by an accurate survey andassessment of all existing trees and hedgerows on site in accordance with BS5837 ‘Treesin relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations)’ 2012 by acompetent arborist; and details of protective measures to be put in place during thedevelopment process to ensure the health and safety of each specimen and hedgerow tobe retained; and where removal of a mature tree is proposed, a plan for replacementplanting on a two for one basis and using semi-mature specimens, unless otherwise agreedby the Council.

5.65. Design in new development should have proper regard to the setting of protected trees.Landscaping and tree planting should be integrated into new development.

5.66. A number of trees would need to be removed in order to facilitate development. Thesecomprise trees of limited value, other than a single Sycamore tree of amenity value (Cat B).It is also proposed that a number of trees be planted as the subject of mitigation. Overallthe impact of the proposal upon trees would be moderate and at least 15 new trees, ahedge and a planted gabion feature are proposed.

5.67. It is recommended that the above tree protection requirements and new planting be secured


by condition. Officers therefore consider that the proposal would be acceptable havingregard to policy DM10.

Other Matters

5.68. Representation have been received against the proposal. Concerns have been raisedregarding noise and disturbance and these have been considered in the above report. Theapplication was advertised by site notice, press notice and with letters sent to all adjacentproperties in accordance to the Council’s procedure.

5.69. Loss of property value is not a material consideration.

6. Planning Balance / Conclusion

6.1. The proposal would facilitate rail freight, which has a number of key benefits includingeconomic and environmental benefits. Furthermore the applicant has considered otherlocations other than within Ipswich, however these have been found to be unfeasible for theproposed development.

6.2. Although the development would have localised impact in terms of visual impact andamenity impact, the applicant has submitted reports and proposed mitigation and Officersdo consider that the proposal would be acceptable in these regards and subject to requisiteplanning conditions.

6.3. It is also notable that the proposal would involve the relocation of fueling and maintenanceactivities from the existing facility adjacent to Ipswich Station. The existing facility is limitedin capacity and infrastructure and impacts upon residential properties in the vicinity.

6.4. The proposal is considered to be acceptable having regard to highway impact. Furthermore,the proposal would provide appropriate landscaping and would be acceptable havingregard to biodiversity.

6.5. The proposal would be acceptable having regard to policies DM1, DM2, DM4, DM5, DM10,DM17, DM18, DM26 and DM31.

Item 03 Application No. IP/19/00071/FUL 03.pdf · reptile surveys carried out before commencement....

Documents

Transcript of Item 03 Application No. IP/19/00071/FUL 03.pdf · reptile surveys carried out before commencement....