Minutes:
104.1 A short comfort break was taken between 10:38 -10:48 after the completion of DC/19/03851, but before the commencement of DC/19/03824
104.2 Item B
Application DC/19/03824
Proposal Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved – access to be considered) for site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2).
Site Location ELMSWELL – Land to the West of the Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell
Applicant Harrow Estates PLC
104.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the updates since the item had previously been before the Committee, and the officer recommendation of approval.
104.4 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the issues that were raised at the previous hearing of the application, the contribution towards a footpath, the strategic plan from the County Council regarding infrastructure, the proposed traffic improvements and their association with other developments coming forward, and the comments received from the Strategic Planning Policy Team.
104.5 Members considered the representation from Peter Dow of Elmswell Parish Council.
104.6 Members considered the representation from Geoff Armstrong who spoke as the Agent.
104.7 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Helen Geake.
104.8 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the topography of the landscape.
104.9 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Sarah Mansel.
104.10 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that there were a number of unknowns in terms of the footpath provision to Woolpit but that these were not required to mitigate the proposal before Members. Furthermore, the Area Planning Manager advised that when looking at educational arrangements the system was not purely catchment based and that there was an element of choice within the system, and that the Education Authority had not objected to the proposal.
104.11 Members debated the application on the issues including: the suitability of pathways and routes that could be taken from the site.
104.12 A short adjournment was taken between 11:31-11:37 to allow Officers to confirm details regarding connectivity from the site.
104.13 After the break the Area Planning Manager advised the Committee that the applicant had put forward money for a footpath scheme but that there was not currently a scheme for a new pathway in place and that it was not necessary for this development to go ahead.
104.14 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the provision of transport for children for schools.
104.15 Councillor Terence Carter proposed that the application be refused as the details of the footpath had not been provided.
104.16 The Area Planning Manager advised the Committee that there would be no further information coming forward regarding a footpath through Elmswell to Woolpit as that information was not available and that if Members did decide to refuse on the footpath linkage issue which was unsupported by policy this would be likely be deemed as being unreasonable and the Council would be liable to costs. His opinion was that this would be a weak position at an appeal.
104.17 Councillor Carter withdrew his motion for Refusal.
104.18 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the schooling provision in the area, the social and environmental harm that could be caused, the number of school places meeting the needs of the development, and that the site was not in the emerging Joint Local Plan.
104.19 Councillor John Matthissen proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
It was noted that a short adjournment was taken between 12:18-12:29 to confirm the wording as detailed below:
- The Application would result in the expansion of Elmswell to the west and place a burden on the infrastructure of the village to cope. The site is unallocated in the Local Plan 1998, Core Strategy/ Focus Review and not proposed to be allocated within the Draft Joint Local Plan as an allocated site for sustainable housing where demonstrated to be supported by services and / or have suitable access to services. While the emerging Draft Joint Local Plan does allocate development within Elmswell, the infrastructure development plan makes account of this and provision is made for the expansion of facilities and services to cope with development on those allocated sites. This site is unallocated and as such is outside the Infrastructure Development Plan such that there may not be capacity within existing services, including school provision, to accommodate the increased population that is expected with this application. In conclusion, the emerging draft joint local plan is given reasonable weight alongside current policy position for proper planned development in this case as directed by the NPPF and the merits and benefits of the proposal are not considered to outweigh the risk to sustainability of future development of this settlement.
104.20 Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE seconded the motion.
104.21 By a unanimous vote
104.22 RESOLVED
That the application is refused for the reason detailed below:
- The Application would result in the expansion of Elmswell to the west and place a burden on the infrastructure of the village to cope. The site is unallocated in the Local Plan 1998, Core Strategy/ Focus Review and not proposed to be allocated within the Draft Joint Local Plan as an allocated site for sustainable housing where demonstrated to be supported by services and / or have suitable access to services. While the emerging Draft Joint Local Plan does allocate development within Elmswell, the infrastructure development plan makes account of this and provision is made for the expansion of facilities and services to cope with development on those allocated sites. This site is unallocated and as such is outside the Infrastructure Development Plan such that there may not be capacity within existing services, including school provision, to accommodate the increased population that is expected with this application. In conclusion, the emerging draft joint local plan is given reasonable weight alongside current policy position for proper planned development in this case as directed by the NPPF and the merits and benefits of the proposal are not considered to outweigh the risk to sustainability of future development of this settlement.
Supporting documents: