Minutes:
EDWARDSTONE
Application Nos. DC/17/05932 Paper PL/17/41 – Item 1 |
Full Application – erection of 2 two-bed dwellings, land adjacent Well House, Round Maple. |
The Case Officer, Jamie Edwards, in introducing this item, referred to the Addendum Note to Paper PL/17/05932 which contained the following:-
· Summary of Heritage Comments received following production of the officer report.
· Consequential revision of pages 38-40 of the report covering PART FOUR – CONCLUSION and including a revised officer recommendation.
He also corrected the information on Page 35 in B: Representations which should read 3 (not 4) objections and 8 (not 7) in support.
During the debate on this item, it appeared that Members might be minded to consider granting planning permission. The Case Officer referred to the Heritage Officer’s comment that he would be prepared to re-consider his advice to Committee if the applicant was prepared to amend the design of the proposed cart lodges as reported in the Addendum Note and that this could be conditioned in any approval. Gemma Pannell, Area Planning Manager addressed comments made by the agent regarding a recent appeal in Braintree District and confirmed that the reference to ‘isolated’ was not relevant to this application in that the site was not considered isolated in relation to other dwellings in the locality. However, the three strands of sustainability should be taken into account.
Notwithstanding the officer recommendation of refusal as revised and set out in the Addendum Note, a recommendation of approval with conditions was moved on the grounds that the benefits of the proposed development outweighed the small degree of harm which it represented, and that those benefits included the need for this type of housing and therefore paragraph 14 of the NPPF was engaged. At this point, Jo Hooley, the Legal Adviser to the Committee, referred Members to recent Judicial Review proceedings against Babergh which focussed on the importance of giving considered reasons and clearly identifying the exceptional circumstances which exist in each case.
Further discussion followed as a result of which no additional reasons or exceptional circumstances were identified and the motion to approve proceeded on the basis of the need for this type of housing and the benefits outweighing the harm, as referred to above. The voting was 7 in favour of approval with 7 against. The Chairman exercised his casting vote against approval and the motion was lost.
The revised recommendation of refusal as set out in the Addendum Note was proposed and seconded, resulting in the same equality of votes as before. The Chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of the motion to refuse the grant of permission.
It was RESOLVED
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-
· Policy CS2 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) states that planning permission will be permitted only in the Countryside in exceptional circumstances subject to proven justifiable need. CS15 requires new development to demonstrate how the proposal addresses the key issues and objectives identified in the Core Strategy. The site is not well related to the existing settlement, and no supporting evidence has been provided that justifies the need for the proposal, and that the site is a sustainable location. As a result, the proposal does not accord with policies CS2, and CS15.
· Whilst paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is necessary to consider whether any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
· Policy CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006) states that new development should be of an appropriate scale, form, siting and detailed design to harmonise with the existing building and its setting. The excessively large cart lodge causes harm to the grade II listed building, contrary to Policy CN06. Furthermore with regards to the NPPF the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 14 and 134, in that the harm caused is not outweighed by the public benefit.
· The assessment of the application has identified that the proposal does not comply with the development plan and, notwithstanding that the Council does not have a five-year housing land supply, it is considered that the unsustainable location significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development when considered against the Framework as a whole.
Supporting documents: