Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

143.1    The Committee adjourned for a short comfort break between 11:45am and 12:00pm prior to consideration of Application DC/20/00263.

 

143.2    Item 7C

 

Application:           DC/20/00263

Proposal:              Full Application – Erection of 1 No. dwelling with attached garage

Site Location:        OCCOLD – Land at rear of Cedar Cottage, The Street

Applicant:             Hartbuild Ltd

 

143.3    The Area Planning Manager presented the application to the Committee, outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.

 

143.4    The Area Planning Manager responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the height of the proposed dwelling and confirmation that the application site is outside the draft local plan boundary.

 

143.5    Members considered the representation from Stephen Hubner who spoke on behalf of the Parish Council.

 

143.6    Members considered the representation from Sebastian Blemings who spoke as the Agent.

 

143.7    The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: landscaping and the size of the proposed dwelling.

 

143.8    Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Peter Gould.

 

143.9    Members debated the application on issues including: the size, height and dominance of the proposed dwelling in relation to the existing property, development outside the draft local plan boundary.

 

143.10  Councillor Andrew Stringer proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:

 

·       The proposed dwelling, if approved, would represent an overly dominate development out of scale with the character of the prevailing existing dwellings, with particular harmful impact on the rural setting and enjoyment of occupiers (including impact on their privacy) of Cedar Cottage a non designated heritage asset.  Furthermore, the detrimental, intrusive impact and harm on amenity is made worst by the position and scale of the development on higher land compared to existing development.  On this basis the development is considered contrary to policy H16, H13, H15, Gp1, HB1 of the local plan, FC1 and 1.1 of the focus review as well as contrary to chapter 12 of the NPPF, with particular reference to P127 and 130.  The limited public benefit of one dwelling is not considered to outweigh the harm identified. 

 

143.11  Councillor Barry Humphreys seconded the Motion.

 

143.13  The vote was taken by roll call and was unanimous.

 

143.14  It was RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

The proposed dwelling, if approved, would represent an overly dominate development out of scale with the character of the prevailing existing dwellings, with particular harmful impact on the rural setting and enjoyment of occupiers (including impact on their privacy) of Cedar Cottage a non designated heritage asset.  Furthermore, the detrimental, intrusive impact and harm on amenity is made worst by the position and scale of the development on higher land compared to existing development.  On this basis the development is considered contrary to policy H16, H13, H15, Gp1, HB1 of the local plan, FC1 and 1.1 of the focus review as well as contrary to chapter 12 of the NPPF, with particular reference to P127 and 130.  The limited public benefit of one dwelling is not considered to outweigh the harm identified. 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: