In a recent appeal decision considering the agent of change principle, the inspector upheld the refusal of planning permission by Ipswich Borough Council for a residential development as a result of the uncertain noise and light impacts of a nearby Multi Use Games Area on the proposed dwellings.
The applicant sought outline planning permission for 80 homes (including 30% affordable) on land currently used as horse paddocks, adjacent to the edge of the built up area of Ipswich. A Multi Use Games Area formed part of the site boundary, with its hours of operation set by condition until 10pm on weeknights, 9pm at other times, and a 15 minute grace period to turn off floodlights.
The inspector referred to paragraph 200 of the NPPF, that where an existing community facility could have significant adverse effects on new development, the agent of change should be required to provide adequate mitigation.
The inspector considered that adequate information had been provided to demonstrate that an adequate noise environment could be provided inside the new homes. However, no evidence was provided on how adequate noise conditions could be provided in gardens, an intrinsic part of the development, nor on the consequences of noise impacts where dwellings could be located on the site.
No light survey considering the impact of the MUGA was submitted or requested. The inspector concluded that given the height of the floodlights and their proximity, there was potential for adverse effects on new residents. Considering this alongside other factors, the inspector could not be certain 80 homes could satisfactorily be located on the site.
As well as considering the agent of change principle, this is a decision which demonstrates the wide remit of inspectors at appeal. The living conditions for new occupiers was not a reason for refusal, nor did the Council’s environmental health officer raise any objections. The Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply, and the Council’s reasons for refusal were largely given limited weight by the inspector in considering the planning balance. This demonstrates the importance for applicants to consider fully the context of their proposals and ensure that adequate evidence of the suitability of the site is provided – even where not requested by the local planning authority.
Although ultimately withdrawn, proposed amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill sought to put the agent of change principle on a statutory footing. The definition of “agent of change” followed that of the NPPF, and in addition to planning authorities it also required licensing authorities to consider the principle. One of the proposals required an application submitted for development in the vicinity of premises licensed for “regulated entertainment” as defined by the Licensing Act 2003 (such as cinemas, theatres, and music venues) to be accompanied by a noise impact assessment. Applicants for development near any existing noise generating use should take into account this proposal and carefully consider if a noise impact assessment should be considered, and its scope – in this appeal decision, the inspector might have found the development to be acceptable had sufficient information on the noise impact on gardens (and the light impact of floodlights) been provided.
