Minutes:
127.1 Item 6A
Application: DC/18/02010 & DC/18/02412 (duplicate applications)
Proposal: Full Application – Residential development of 49 dwellings with new vehicular access from Bramford Road (B1113), associated parking, landscaping and open space.
Site Location: SPROUGHTON – Land on the East side of Bramford Road (known as Loraine Way).
Applicant: Hopkins Homes
127.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee, outlining the proposal before Members, the previous decision taken by the Committee in April 2019, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of approval.
127.3 The Case officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: traffic impact, health provision, footpath and floodplain.
127.4 Members considered the representation from Helen Davies of Sproughton Parish Council who spoke against the application.
127.5 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the progress of the Sproughton Neighbourhood Plan and consultation with Suffolk County Highways.
127.6 Members considered representations from Martyn Levett and Rhona Jermyn who spoke as Objectors.
127.7 The Objectors responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed footpath and the Housing Needs Survey.
127.8 Members considered representations from Paul Sutton and Chris Smith who spoke as the Agent and Applicant.
127.9 The Agent and Applicant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: impact on Heritage assets, renewable energy, build standard, footprint and outside space in respect of the proposed Affordable Housing and adoption of the roads.
127.10 Members considered the representation from County Council Division Member, Councillor Christopher Hudson.
127.11 Members considered the representation from Ward Member, Councillor Ric Hardacre and confirmed that they had all received and read the statement from Ward Member, Councillor Zac Norman.
127.12 Members debated the application on issues including: Heritage impact, impact on healthcare services, increased traffic, floodplain, maintenance of open spaces and roads and the cumulative impact of the development.
127.13 Councillor Sue Ayres proposed that duplicate application DC/18/02010 be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Adrian Osborne seconded the Motion.
127.14 The vote was taken by roll call and by 4 votes to 7 the Motion was lost.
127.15 Councillor David Busby proposed that duplicate application DC/18/02010 be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
· The circumstances of the application and the proposed development are not exceptional and are without a proven justifiable need, contrary to policies CS2 and CS11.
· The proposed development is considered to lead to a medium level of less than substantial harm to the settings of the Grade II listed buildings of Sproughton Hall, Root Barn and Tithe Barn and the Grade II* listed All Saints Church in Sproughton, and is not considered to respect the features that contribute positively to the setting and significance of these listed buildings, conflicting with Babergh Local Plan (2006) policy CN06, not respecting these heritage assets, the heritage characteristics of the village or historic views of heritage assets contrary to Babergh Core Strategy and Policies (2014) policies CS11 and CS15. Further to this, the public benefits of the scheme, chiefly the market housing, affordable housing, and net gains for biodiversity on the site, are not considered to outweigh this harm, making the proposal contrary to the heritage policies of the NPPF.
· 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.
127.16 Councillor John Hinton seconded the Motion.
127.17 The vote was taken by roll call and by 7 votes to 4 the Motion was carried.
127.18 Councillor David Busby proposed that duplicate application DC/18/02412 be refused for the following reasons:
· The circumstances of the application and the proposed development are not exceptional and are without a proven justifiable need, contrary to policies CS2 and CS11.
· The proposed development is considered to lead to a medium level of less than substantial harm to the settings of the Grade II listed buildings of Sproughton Hall, Root Barn and Tithe Barn and the Grade II* listed All Saints Church in Sproughton, and is not considered to respect the features that contribute positively to the setting and significance of these listed buildings, conflicting with Babergh Local Plan (2006) policy CN06, not respecting these heritage assets, the heritage characteristics of the village or historic views of heritage assets contrary to Babergh Core Strategy and Policies (2014) policies CS11 and CS15. Further to this, the public benefits of the scheme, chiefly the market housing, affordable housing, and net gains for biodiversity on the site, are not considered to outweigh this harm, making the proposal contrary to the heritage policies of the NPPF.
· 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.
127.19 Councillor John Hinton seconded the Motion.
127.20 The vote was taken by roll call and by 7 votes to 4 the Motion was carried.
127.21 It was RESOLVED:
1. That duplicate applications DC/18/02010 and DC/18/02412 be refused for the following reasons:
- The circumstances of the application and the proposed development are not exceptional and are without a proven justifiable need, contrary to policies CS2 and CS11.
- The proposed development is considered to lead to a medium level of less than substantial harm to the settings of the Grade II listed buildings of Sproughton Hall, Root Barn and Tithe Barn and the Grade II* listed All Saints Church in Sproughton, and is not considered to respect the features that contribute positively to the setting and significance of these listed buildings, conflicting with Babergh Local Plan (2006) policy CN06, not respecting these heritage assets, the heritage characteristics of the village or historic views of heritage assets contrary to Babergh Core Strategy and Policies (2014) policies CS11 and CS15. Further to this, the public benefits of the scheme, chiefly the market housing, affordable housing, and net gains for biodiversityon the site, are not considered to outweigh this harm, making the proposal contrary to the heritage policies of the NPPF.
- 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. That, in the event that an appeal against the refusal of planning permission is received, authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to defend that appeal for the reasons set out above, being amended and/or varied as may be required.
Supporting documents: