Minutes:
Application No. B/17/0180/OUT Paper PL/17/32 – Item 3
|
Outline Application for industrial and commercial development (means of access to be considered) land east of Bull Lane, Acton Place Industrial Estate. |
The Case Officer Natalie Webb in presenting the application referred to the information in the Addendum which included the comments of Councillor William Shropshire in support of the officer recommendation of refusal. The Chairman read out comments from the Ward Member, Councillor Maybury, also in support of the officer recommendation. Jen Candler, Senior Planning Policy Officer was present at the meeting in support of the Strategic Planning comments included in the officer report.
The Case Officer clarified the Economic Development and Tourism response in the Addendum which focused on the need for further information to be provided by the Applicant. Members were advised that the additional information had been requested but nothing further had been provided to date. The further comments of the Highways Authority on the amended plans confirmed that the reasons for refusal as set out in officer recommendation 3 were still relevant. Members were in agreement with all three reasons for refusal as set out in the recommendation.
RESOLVED
That outline planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed development is contrary NPPF Paragraphs 19 and 20 which state inter-alia that local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century. In addition, NPPF Paragraph 22 states that the policy framework should ensure that there is not a surplus of employment sites in the District; that any sites which come forward should have a realistic prospect of what will be occupied. The proposal set out above adjoins a current employment site which has a number of vacant units. Additionally, a review and allocation of suitable sites for employment has recently been completed by the Council, set out in the Employment Land Needs Assessment (ELNA) and a Sector Needs Assessment (SNA), which consequently concluded that there is a surplus of employment land. With no justification of requirement for further expansion of the site, the development constitutes unsustainable development in the countryside.
2. The proposed development does not demonstrate that there is a viable surface water drainage system that can meet National (NPPF) and Local (CS15) Planning Policies, which state inter-alia that new development should minimise the exposure of people and property to the risks of all sources of flooding by taking a sequential risk-based approach to development, and where appropriate, reduce overall flood risk and incorporate measures to manage and mitigate flood risk and; minimise surface water run-off and incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) where appropriate. As there is a history of surface water flooding in close proximity to the site and an existing predicted risk to the site itself; in addition to ongoing issues with undersized culverting of the watercourse, without the information requested to ensure that a viable surface water drainage system can be provided, the development may be considered to be at risk of surface water flooding.
3. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy, which seeksinter-alia to minimise the need to travel by car using the following hierarchy: walking, cycling,public transport, commercial vehicles and cars). In addition, Policy CS1 states that Where there areno policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole. In this instance insufficient information has been provided to show that a safe access can be provided to the highway and insufficient information in regards to alternative sustainable transport modes.
Supporting documents: