Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

24.1 Item E

 

Application          DC/19/00174                      

Proposal             Application under Section 73 of the town and country planning act – variation of condition 3 (on going requirement of development: time restriction on holiday dwelling/s) of planning permission (0590/17) to allow for residential use on plots 1 and 4.  

Site Location       BATTISFORD- Welhams Meadow, Church Road, Battisford, Suffolk

Applicant             J E knock and Partners

 

24.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval with conditions.

 

24.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that 2 of the 4 units from the original permission had been built, the parking constraints on the site, that no evidence had been submitted regarding the marketing of the proposal as a holiday venue.

 

24.4 The Members considered the representation from the Applicant Chris Knock and Georgina Knock.

 

24.5 The Applicants responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the pre- application advice that had been given by Planning Officers, why one  of the four units had not been constructed yet, and how far the nearest local amenities were.

 

24.6 Members considered the written representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Daniel Pratt, which was read out by the Chair.

 

24.7 Members debated the application on the issues including: whether a residential building would have been approved in the area, the economic benefits via tourism of the holiday use, and the previous decisions that had been given by the Planning Inspector on similar cases.

 

24.8 The Area Planning Manager advised Members of the outcomes of appeals to the Planning on similar sites, and that as two of the dwellings had not been built that it would amount to having new dwellings on the site.

 

24.9 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the sustainability of the proposal, the economic loss to the area, and that the site was within a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

 

24.10 Councillor Dave Muller proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

 

These recently developed units, in one case not having been constructed would result in new residential development in the countryside contrary to

CS1, CS2, FC1, FC1.1, would not constitute a sustainable form of development in the countryside and that the loss of these permitted holiday units would undermine the objective of safeguarding economic opportunities for the visitor and tourist economy of the District evidenced within the Councils visitor destination plan, Ipswich Area Sector Needs Assessment 2017 and Open for Business Strategy, contrary to Local Plan Policies H11 and RT19.

 

On this basis the application would fail to demonstrate that it would safeguard sustainable rural tourism contrary to NPPF paragraph 83C, and rural housing policies in paragraphs 77 and 78, with a new dwelling also being contrary to paragraphs 8 and 11 of the NPPF.

 

Moreover there is no evidence to demonstrate that this would be a form of rural housing which would be responsive to local circumstances, reflect local needs nor enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities having regard to the application documentation and its location poorly related to services and facilities whereby occupants would be expected to rely upon the private car to access relevant infrastructure, in particular education, healthcare and community facilities on a regular basis, not equivalent to the impacts identified with the holiday units.

 

In addition, the proposal would result in the loss of benefits from such units, which were identified as supporting the farm business and diversifying its income streams whilst supporting the angling club and other businesses in the area, as detailed in the supporting statement to the original application. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would continue to offer these, or that the loss would be outweighed by any benefits of the proposal.

 

Whilst residential use would support services to some degree this would not have the same benefits with regards to the farm business, angling club and tourism businesses specifically identified as benefitting during the application (0590/17), furthermore given the lack of sustainable access and impact on infrastructure it is considered that the proposal would have adverse impacts not outweighed by benefits, contrary to the NPPF.

 

 

 

24.11 Councillor Lavinia Hadingham seconded the motion.

 

24.12 By 7 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

 

24.13 RESOLVED

 

These recently developed units, in one case not having been constructed would result in new residential development in the countryside contrary to

CS1, CS2, FC1, FC1.1, would not constitute a sustainable form of development in the countryside and that the loss of these permitted holiday units would undermine the objective of safeguarding economic opportunities for the visitor and tourist economy of the District evidenced within the Councils visitor destination plan, Ipswich Area Sector Needs Assessment 2017 and Open for Business Strategy, contrary to Local Plan Policies H11 and RT19.

 

On this basis the application would fail to demonstrate that it would safeguard sustainable rural tourism contrary to NPPF paragraph 83C, and rural housing policies in paragraphs 77 and 78, with a new dwelling also being contrary to paragraphs 8 and 11 of the NPPF.

 

Moreover there is no evidence to demonstrate that this would be a form of rural housing which would be responsive to local circumstances, reflect local needs nor enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities having regard to the application documentation and its location poorly related to services and facilities whereby occupants would be expected to rely upon the private car to access relevant infrastructure, in particular education, healthcare and community facilities on a regular basis, not equivalent to the impacts identified with the holiday units.

 

In addition, the proposal would result in the loss of benefits from such units, which were identified as supporting the farm business and diversifying its income streams whilst supporting the angling club and other businesses in the area, as detailed in the supporting statement to the original application. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would continue to offer these, or that the loss would be outweighed by any benefits of the proposal.

 

Whilst residential use would support services to some degree this would not have the same benefits with regards to the farm business, angling club and tourism businesses specifically identified as benefitting during the application (0590/17), furthermore given the lack of sustainable access and impact on infrastructure it is considered that the proposal would have adverse impacts not outweighed by benefits, contrary to the NPPF.

 

Supporting documents: