Minutes:
133.1 The Committee adjourned for a short comfort break between 11:48am and 12:00pm prior to consideration of application DC/18/04491.
133.2 The Committee adjourned between 13:35 and 13:53 to clarify the proposal.
133.3 Item 7A
Application: DC/18/04491
Proposal: Full Application – Amended application for 28 dwellings. [incl 9 affordable homes]
Site Location: GREAT FINBOROUGH – Land adjacent to Buxhall Lodge, Buxhall Road
Applicant: Laurence Homes
133.4 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 approval.
133.5 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: access to open space from flats, transport and infrastructure, access, sustainability, and affordable housing provision.
133.6 Members considered the representation from Ward Member, Councillor John Matthissen.
133.7 Members debated the application on issues including: sustainability, design and size, Heritage impact, affordable housing provision, and highway issues.
133.8 Councillor Andrew Mellen proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
· The proposed development lies outside the settlement boundary of Great Finborough and the proposal would be within the countryside, contrary to Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Core Strategy (2008) and Local Plan Policy H7. Having regard to the absence of services and facilities within Great Finborough, it is foreseeable that future occupants would be reliant upon the private car with limited opportunity to maximise sustainable transport solutions and the development therefore fails to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 8, 11 and 103 of the NPPF (2018) and the presumption in favour of sustainable development having regard moreover to the harm identified to the historic environment. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to form sustainable development within the criteria set out by the NPPF. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 8, 11, 103, 193 and 196 of the NPPF (2018), Policies CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008), Policy FC1 and FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) and Policies H7 and HB1 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998).
· The proposed development would be suburban in character and of inappropriate scale, design and mass relative to the adjacent streetscape, despite its location within a small and traditionally linear village. The inappropriate, overly varied and uninformed architecture of the dwellings, hard landscaping and boundary treatment contribute to this unsympathetic scheme which fails to reflect local character. The proposal would therefore fail to protect, preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the locality, and therefore the setting and significance of the surrounding heritage assets, which would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Listed Buildings which are not outweighed by public benefits having regard to the overall application circumstances. On that basis, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of section 66 of the P(LBCA)A1990, the principles of the NPPF paragraphs 193 and 196, Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008) and Policy HB1 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998).
· The application fails to demonstrate that the development would not risk harm by reason of surface water flooding, having regard to the insufficient information to demonstrate a viable surface water drainage strategy, contrary to paragraphs 8, 148, 163 and 165 of the NPPF and Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy.
133.9 Councillor Andrew Stringer seconded the Motion.
133.10 The vote was taken by roll call, and by 5 votes to 3 the Motion was carried.
133.11 It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
· The proposed development lies outside the settlement boundary of Great Finborough and the proposal would be within the countryside, contrary to Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Core Strategy (2008) and Local Plan Policy H7. Having regard to the absence of services and facilities within Great Finborough, it is foreseeable that future occupants would be reliant upon the private car with limited opportunity to maximise sustainable transport solutions and the development therefore fails to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 8, 11 and 103 of the NPPF (2018) and the presumption in favour of sustainable development having regard moreover to the harm identified to the historic environment. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to form sustainable development within the criteria set out by the NPPF. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 8, 11, 103, 193 and 196 of the NPPF (2018), Policies CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008), Policy FC1 and FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) and Policies H7 and HB1 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998).
· The proposed development would be suburban in character and of inappropriate scale, design and mass relative to the adjacent streetscape, despite its location within a small and traditionally linear village. The inappropriate, overly varied and uninformed architecture of the dwellings, hard landscaping and boundary treatment contribute to this unsympathetic scheme which fails to reflect local character. The proposal would therefore fail to protect, preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the locality, and therefore the setting and significance of the surrounding heritage assets, which would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Listed Buildings which are not outweighed by public benefits having regard to the overall application circumstances. On that basis, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of section 66 of the P(LBCA)A1990, the principles of the NPPF paragraphs 193 and 196, Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008) and Policy HB1 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998).
· The application fails to demonstrate that the development would not risk harm by reason of surface water flooding, having regard to the insufficient information to demonstrate a viable surface water drainage strategy, contrary to paragraphs 8, 148, 163 and 165 of the NPPF and Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy.
Supporting documents: