34.1 A short comfort break was taken between 10:44-10:50 after the completion of application DC/19/01947 but before the commencement of DC/19/01771.

34.2 It was noted that before the commencement of application DC/19/01771, Councillor Guthrie relinquished the Chair as she was the Ward Member. The Vice-Chair, Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE, became the Chair for application DC/19/01771 only.

34.3 Item E

Application           DC/19/01771

Proposal              Full Planning Application- Erection of 8 dwellings (following demolition of bungalow)

Site Location       DEBENHAM- 10 Ipswich Road, Debenham, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 6LB

Applicant              Mr J Vince

34.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers and the officer recommendation of approval with conditions.

34.5 The Case Officer responded to Members questions on issues including: that the holding objection from Suffolk County Council regarding Floods had been resolved, the proposed height of the buildings, the gradient of the land, the pedestrian access to the site, the mapped flood zone, the visitor car parking on the site, and the neighbourhood plan.

34.6 Members considered the representation from Dina Bedwell of Debenham Parish Council.

34.7 Members considered the representation from Nigel Yeldman who spoke as an Objector.

34.8 Members considered the representation from David Smith who spoke as the Agent. 

34.9 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Kathie Guthrie.

34.10 Members debated the application on the issues including: the weight of the Debenham Neighbourhood Plan, the height of the dwellings, and the sustainability of the proposal.

34.11 Councillor John Matthissen proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:

1.     The development is approved would result in significant loss of amenity by reason of light reduction, overbearing and intrusive impact of Plot 8 on No 1 Cherry Tree Close. Furthermore, the development (Plots 1 to 7) would be overbearing and harm amenity of occupiers of Cherry Tree Close and Deben Rise. On this basis the development is contrary to Local Plan policies H16, GP1, H3 and Debenham neighbourhood Policy DEB2.

2.     The development fails to provide sufficient visitor parking as advised by Suffolk County Council Parking Standards and would risk poor parking and risk harm to the character and amenity of the locality. This is considered contrary to Local Plan Policies T9 and T10 and Debenham Neighbourhood Plan Policy DEB7.

34.12 Councillor Terence Carter seconded the motion.

34.13 By a unanimous vote

34.14 RESOLVED

That the application was refused for the following reasons:

1.     The development is approved would result in significant loss of amenity by reason of light reduction, overbearing and intrusive impact of Plot 8 on No 1 Cherry Tree Close. Furthermore, the development (Plots 1 to 7) would be overbearing and harm amenity of occupiers of Cherry Tree Close and Deben Rise. On this basis the development is contrary to Local Plan policies H16, GP1, H3 and Debenham neighbourhood Policy DEB2.

2.     The development fails to provide sufficient visitor parking as advised by Suffolk County Council Parking Standards and would risk poor parking and risk harm to the character and amenity of the locality. This is considered contrary to Local Plan Policies T9 and T10 and Debenham Neighbourhood Plan Policy DEB7.