Minutes:
91.1 Item C
Application DC/19/03659
Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 5 No dwellings (following demolition of agricultural buildings).
Site Location BRUNDISH – Newtons Farm, Stradbroke Road, Brundish, Woodbridge, Suffolk, IP13 8BG
Applicant Greenfield Durrant Ltd
91.2 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.
91.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that no response had been received from Planning Policy, and that it was deemed as feasible that the trees could be moved across the site but that a condition could be added to replant the trees if this failed.
91.4 The Area Planning Manager and Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the conversion of agricultural buildings under Class Q applications, and that a pond was proposed to be re-introduced on site.
91.5 Members considered the representation from Anthony Bryant of Brundish Parish Council who spoke against the application.
91.6 Members considered the representation from Amy Finn, who spoke as an objector.
91.7 Members considered the representation from Rupert Durrant, who spoke as the Applicant.
91.8 The Applicant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that a housing needs survey had not been conducted and what the positive impact of the development would be.
91.9 Members considered the representation from Councillor Julie Flatman who spoke as the Ward Member.
91.10 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that there were no bus services in the area.
91.11 Members debated the application on the issues including: the relevance of Class Q applications with regards to the site as this was not a Class Q application, the footprint of the building being significantly larger than the existing agricultural buildings, that the sites location was not sustainable, and that the proposed design was not in-keeping with the layout of the area which included the proposed height of the development.
91.12 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that the previous Class Q permission was a relevant material planning consideration and that it was within the Committee’s prerogative to decide whether the enlargement of the footprint of developed land was acceptable.
91.13 Councillor John Matthissen proposed that the application be refused for the reason detailed below:
The application was refused for the following reason:-
The site benefits from a potential fallback position created by the previous (and now lapsed) Class Q barn conversion (Ref 3481/16) and full planning permission for the creation of one residential dwelling (Ref DC/18/02008) on site. However, it is considered that this application far exceeds both the scale of development and footprint of development established under this position. The increase in the number of dwellings and increase in the developed area of the site is such that it is not considered to be directly comparable and beyond the permitted allowance of Class Q that accepts the burden of development within strict criteria based on the principles of reuse of existing buildings and to restrict potential harm. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the development of the site would represent sustainable development without any potential fallback position or when this position is exceeded. When weighed against the three strands of the sustainability set out within the NPPF, while some positive benefits can be found when considering the social and economic impacts of development, the location of the site poorly connected to serviced (including education) and there are no nearby facilities to speak of such that there would be an overwhelming dependency on the use of private car travel by future residents of the site. It is further considered that the design of the proposed development would be out of keeping and out of character with the surrounding development and rural environment. Consequently, the scale of the environmental harm identified and scale of the development, when balanced against benefits of the site and any fallback position, would clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of approving the application judged on its merits. The development is considered contrary to Local Plan 1998 policies H7 and GP1, Core Strategy policies CS1, CS2 andCS5 and NPPF.
91.14 Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE seconded the motion.
91.15 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: Planning Appeal decisions that had taken place in the area, the visual impact of the proposed development, and the scale of the development.
91.16 By a unanimous vote
91.17 RESOLVED
The application was refused for the following reason:-
The site benefits from a potential fallback position created by the previous (and now lapsed) Class Q barn conversion (Ref 3481/16) and full planning permission for the creation of one residential dwelling (Ref DC/18/02008) on site. However, it is considered that this application far exceeds both the scale of development and footprint of development established under this position. The increase in the number of dwellings and increase in the developed area of the site is such that it is not considered to be directly comparable and beyond the permitted allowance of Class Q that accepts the burden of development within strict criteria based on the principles of reuse of existing buildings and to restrict potential harm. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the development of the site would represent sustainable development without any potential fallback position or when this position is exceeded. When weighed against the three strands of the sustainability set out within the NPPF, while some positive benefits can be found when considering the social and economic impacts of development, the location of the site poorly connected to serviced (including education) and there are no nearby facilities to speak of such that there would be an overwhelming dependency on the use of private car travel by future residents of the site. It is further considered that the design of the proposed development would be out of keeping and out of character with the surrounding development and rural environment. Consequently, the scale of the environmental harm identified and scale of the development, when balanced against benefits of the site and any fallback position, would clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of approving the application judged on its merits. The development is considered contrary to Local Plan 1998 policies H7 and GP1, Core Strategy policies CS1, CS2 andCS5 and NPPF.
Supporting documents: