Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

111.1 Item B

 

Application          DC/19/00291

Proposal             Outline Planning Application – Erection of up to 45 dwellings, and shared foot/ cycle path and access.

Site Location       BENTLEY- Land West of Church Road, Bentley, Ipswich

Applicant             Mr D E J Baker

 

111.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

 

111.3 Members considered the representation from Michael Bamford of Bentley Parish Council who spoke against the application.

 

111.4 Members considered the representation from Marianne Munday who spoke as an Objector.

 

111.5 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: The Neighbourhood development plan having specialist consultations for landscape, and the flooding that had been recorded in the area.

 

111.6 Members considered the representation from Helen Adcock who spoke as the Agent.

 

111.7 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the affordable housing provision on the site, the deliverability of the site, and that a housing needs survey had been undertaken.

 

111.8 Members debated the application on the issues including: the Affordable Housing provision both on and off site, the deliverability of the site, and the sustainability of the proposal.

 

111.9 Councillor Derek Davis proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Stephen Plumb seconded the motion.

 

111.10 RESOLVED

 

Members resolved to:

 

(1) Refuse planning permission, for reasons including:

 

i.                Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy seeks to direct new development sequentially to the towns / urban areas, and to the Core Villages and Hinterland Villages. Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy requires development to consider the landscape characteristics of the village, and also requires the identification of local housing need. Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that development respects landscape features. Furthermore, the LPA is able to demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Land Supply, thus the “tilted balance” of Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is not engaged.

 

ii. The circumstances of the application and the proposed development are not exceptional and are without a proven justifiable need, contrary to policy CS2. The application fails to adequately demonstrate how the proposal responds to a locally identified housing need, contrary to policy CS11 and paragraph 77 of the NPPF, which requires development in rural areas to be responsive to local circumstances and reflect local needs.

 

ii.              The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and location, would cause significant harm to the open countryside and the way that it is experienced and would fail to respect the local context and character, and the rural setting, of Bentley and its settlement, contrary to policies CR04, CS11, CS14 and CS15 of the development plan and paragraphs 98, 127, and 170 of the NPPF.

 

iii.            The site is poorly connected and does not integrate with sustainable transport modes. Future owner / occupiers would therefore be heavily reliant on the use of the private motor vehicle, as sustainable accessibility to key services, facilities and amenities is not readily available to meet the living and working needs of future owner / occupiers. Furthermore, the proposal lacks demonstrable social, economic and environmental benefits, and undermines policy CS15 and paragraph 8 of the NPPF through no justifiable need or mitigating measures.

 

The development conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

 

(2) In the event that an appeal against the refusal of planning permission is received, delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to defend that appeal for the reasons set out under (1) above, being amended and/or varied as may be required.

Supporting documents: