Minutes:
48.1 A short comfort break was taken between 11:25-11:35 after the completion of application DC/18/05621 but before the commencement of DC/19/00973.
48.2 Item C
Application DC/19/00973
Proposal Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved) – Erection of 34 No. dwellings and associated garaging and parking (affordable housing elements to be agreed as per LPA policy). Creation of vehicular access to highway and pedestrian pavement link to village and adjacent Stonham Barns (via Stonham Barns Section 106 agreed route).
Site Location STONHAM ASPAL – Land to the East of Heatherleigh, East End Road, Stonham Aspal, Suffolk
Applicant Mr Andrew Turnbull
48.3 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.
48.4 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: a proposed footway through Stonham Aspal to Stonham Barns, the response from Anglian Water, the response from the Planning Policy team, the current speed limits along the A1120 and those proposed with the new development, the designation of Stonham Aspal in the current Local Plan and what was proposed under the Joint Local Plan.
48.5 Members considered the representation from Ian Wright of Stonham Aspal Parish Council who spoke against the application.
48.6 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the bus services in the area and the accessibility to footpaths.
48.7 Members considered the representation from Peter Emberson who spoke as an Objector.
48.8 Members considered the representation from Craig Beech who spoke as the Agent.
48.9 The Governance Officer read out a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Suzie Morley, who was unable to attend the meeting.
48.10 Members debated the application on the issues including: the distance from the development to the core of the village, whether the proposed development would be isolated, and the proposed changes to the speed limit.
48.11 Councillor Gerard Brewster proposed that the application be deferred however a seconder was not found.
48.12 Councillor John Matthissen proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as follows:
· 1.The proposed development does not relate well to the existing built up area of Stonham Aspall and by reason of the foreseeable bulk and mass of the development would represent poor design in a countryside location and fail to respect or improve the character and quality of that area. It is considered that the proposed scheme would by reason of poor design be an unsustainable form of development contrary to the provisions of 2008 Core Strategy policies CS1, CS2 and CS5, FC1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review and contrary to paragraphs 124, 130 of the NPPF and having regard to paragraph 11 it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
· 2.Information presently to hand does not indicate that safe and suitable pedestrian access for all persons can be achieved and delivered before the scheme is occupied contrary to paragraph 108 of the NPPF and fails to demonstrate “good design” having regard to paragraphs 124 and 130 of the NPPF.
48.13 Councillor Sarah Mansel seconded the motion.
48.14 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the proposals relationship with the settlement boundary, pedestrian safety, and the proposals relationship with the existing pattern of development,
48.15 By a unanimous vote
48.16 RESOLVED
That the application was refused for the following reasons:
· 1.The proposed development does not relate well to the existing built up area of Stonham Aspall and by reason of the foreseeable bulk and mass of the development would represent poor design in a countryside location and fail to respect or improve the character and quality of that area. It is considered that the proposed scheme would by reason of poor design be an unsustainable form of development contrary to the provisions of 2008 Core Strategy policies CS1, CS2 and CS5, FC1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review and contrary to paragraphs 124, 130 of the NPPF and having regard to paragraph 11 it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
· 2.Information presently to hand does not indicate that safe and suitable pedestrian access for all persons can be achieved and delivered before the scheme is occupied contrary to paragraph 108 of the NPPF and fails to demonstrate “good design” having regard to paragraphs 124 and 130 of the NPPF.
Supporting documents: