94.1 Item E
Proposal Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved – access to be considered) – erection of up to 32No dwellings (existing buildings to be demolished).
Site Location KENTON – Anchor Storage, Eye Road, Kenton, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 6JJ
Applicant Anchor Storage Ltd
94.1 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal.
94.2 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that the floor space was too large to be a Class Q application, that the development of the site would be in Flood Zone 1, the response from the Heritage Team, recent Appeal decisions in the area, the response from Suffolk County Councils Highways Department.
94.3 Members considered the representation from Chris Goldsmith of Kenton Parish Meeting who spoke against the application.
94.4 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the increase in housing in the village, the response from the Parish Council, the amount of traffic that would be generated from the site, and the change from HGV use.
94.5 Members considered the representation from Philip Cobbold who spoke as the Agent.
94.6 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the intention to relocate the business to a location with better transport links, the decontamination of the site, and the detail required by the floods team.
94.7 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Kathie Guthrie.
94.8 Members debated the application on the issues including: the sustainability of the proposal, that the community did not now support the application, and the distance to the nearest school.
94.9 Councillor Dave Muller proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor John Matthissen seconded the motion.
94.10 By 7 votes to 1.
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, remote from local services and lacking accessible sustainable transport modes, will result in a high level of car dependency for future occupants. The density and scale of the development would result in landscape harm. The identified adverse impacts outweigh the scheme’s public benefits, and therefore the proposal does not constitute sustainable development, contrary to Policies FC1 and FC1_1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
2. The proposal would also lead to the loss of employment land, with no significant benefit or alternative schemes provided, contrary to the directions of Saved Local Plan policy E4 and E6. Similarly, the area has not been shown to be one in high demand for housing such that the employment uses present on site should be replaced in line with the provisions of paragraph 121 of the NPPF.
3. While it is acknowledged that the removal of the existing buildings from the site would be read as a benefit to the setting of Sycamore Farmhouse, the replacement of these buildings would still result in harm to its setting. This harm has been identified as being less than substantial when read against the NPPF and the public benefits offered by the site are insufficient to counter this harm due to the adverse impacts arising from the location of the scheme. This runs contrary to paragraph 196 of the NPPF and to the provisions of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
4. The application fails to demonstrate that the site is suitable for housing in the context of land contamination and cannot demonstrate that the remediation of the entirety of the site would result in land that was considered suitable for residential uses. This runs contrary to the requirements of paragraphs 178 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 which seeks to avoid development on sites which may reasonably pose a health risk to its end user.
5. Paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 requires major developments to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, including taking advice from the lead local flood authority. The application fails to take account the advice from the lead local flood authority, contrary to paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.