Proposal Outline Planning Application ( some matters reserved) – Erection of residential development of up to 65 new dwellings (including minimum of 35% affordable homes, with areas of landscaping and public open space, including vehicular access, and associated infrastructure works).
Site Location BRANTHAM- Land South of Slough Road, Brantham, Suffolk
Applicant Rainier Developments Limited
Note the meeting was adjourned between 11:03am and 11:15am.
44.1 The Case Officer presented Application DC/19/01973 to Members, outlining the proposal, the layout of the site and the officer recommendations to grant outline planning permission subject to conditions.
44.2 Members considered the representation from Sarah Keys of Brantham Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
44.3 Members questioned the representative for Brantham Parish Council including accessibility to facilities such as post office and medical provisions.
44.4 Members considered the representation from the Grant Stevenson, the Applicant.
44.5 The Applicant responded to Members questions included the need for affordable housing in Brantham.
44.6 Members considered the representation from Councillor Alastair McCraw the Ward Member for Brantham.
44.7 Members question the Ward Member including: the number of new planning applications for the village, the number of current commenced housing developments, the total number of dwellings in the village and the anticipated total number of dwellings including the Application be developed in the future.
44.8 Members continued to question the Ward Member in relation to school provision in relation to provision made under Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
44.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the provision for school transport, the grading of the agricultural land on the site of the Application, the development in relation to planning policies, access to foot paths and the site’s relation to the established settlement.
44.10 Members continues to debate the Application including the archaeological value of the site and pre and post archaeological investigations.
44.11 Councillor Peter Beer moved the proposed officer recommendations, which was not seconded by any Member.
44.12 The Chair then moved for a deferral which was not seconded by any Member.
44.13 Members debated the options for refusal of the Application and Councillor Zac Norman proposed that the Application be refused.
44.14 The Legal Advisor advised Members to specify the reasons for the decision for refusal of the Application and Members agreed the following reasons:
· Conflict with Core Strategy policy CS2 of development outside Built Up Area Boundaries where there were no exceptional circumstances to justify it
· Conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS11 as there was no full local housing needs assessment submitted for the development
· Conflict with Core Strategy policy CS15 to protect the landscape in the district due to the resultant settlement coalescence with East Bergholt
44.15 Councillor Lee Parker seconded the motion.
44.16 The Legal Advisor asked that the Committee provided reasons for the decision for refusal.
44.17 Councillor Stephen plumb proposed that the reasons for refusal be written based on the debate and be reported to the Committee at the next Planning Committee.
44.18 The Chair sought approval for this motion from the proposer Councillor Zac Norman, who agreed the amended motion.
Resolved to refuse with reasons for refusal deferred to be reported and agreed by Members at future planning committee meeting.