Minutes:
10.1 A lunch break was taken between 13:50- 14:20 after the completion of 1856/17 but before the commencement of DC/18/00861.
10.2 It was noted that during the break Councillor Andrew Stringer left the meeting and Councillor James Caston re-joined the Committee following the completion of application 1856/17.
10.3 Item 8B
Application DC/18/00861
Proposal Outline Planning Application (with means of access to be considered) – erection of up to 73 dwellings, public open space and supporting site infrastructure including access.
Site Location Land to the East of, Ely Road, Claydon, Suffolk
Applicant M.Scott Properties Ltd, The St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocese
10.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the history of the site, the contents of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of approval.
10.5 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed parameter plan and the pedestrian access to the site, the vehicular access to the site, and that strategic housing had been consulted, that the housing mix could be secured.
10.6 Councillor John Field declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in the application under discussion as he was a Governor at Claydon Primary School.
10.7 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the surface of the slade pathway, the access on Ely road, street parking in the surrounding area, whether the height of dwellings could be restricted, the accessibility of the dwellings, landscaping on site, the impact on neighbourhood amenity for existing residents, the allocation of the site within the Draft Joint Local Plan, and that construction traffic would use Ely Road.
10.8 Members considered the representation from Richard Scott who spoke as the Applicant.
10.9 The Applicant responded to Members questions on issues including: the number of proposed bungalows on site.
10.10 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor John Whitehead who spoke against the application.
10.11 The Ward Member responded to Members questions on issues including: the routes of vehicles from the proposed estate to the nearest shops and wider transport connections, that the village did not have a neighbourhood plan and that the walkway across the site was not a public right of way.
10.12 Members debated the application on the issues including: the number of proposed dwellings on site, the access to the site, the housing mix on the site, the proposed landscape buffer, the traffic issues that would caused by the site, and the route of construction traffic.
10.13 The Chief Planning Officer responded to a question raised earlier from Cllr Matthissen regarding M4(2) and M4(3) buildings and that the district was moving towards the Joint Local Plan which would require 50% being of that class however there was not any policy to support this but that a scheme for the provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings under M4(2) to be submitted with the reserved matters.
10.14 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the accessibility of local facilities and shops, the restriction of deliveries to be outside of school hours, the pedestrian connectivity of the proposal, and the levels of the site compared to the immediate area, and the density of the site.
10.15 The Chief Planning Officer advised Members that if there were concerns regarding the application then unacceptable harm would need to be identified for any defendable refusal.
10.16 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the land ownership of the site, the weight of the Draft Joint Local Plan.
10.17 The Chief Planning Officer advised Members that access to the proposed site and the options that were available to the committee as well as its impact on residential amenity and ecology.
10.18 Councillor John Matthissen proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as follows:
- H16 Loss of amenity and the effect on local residents through noise activity and disturbance and traffic fumes
- Harm to the landscape character.
10.19 Councillor Rowland Warboys seconded the motion.
10.20 The Case Officer responded to Members questions on the response from Place Services that there was no objection from them and then provided information on the density of the site in the surrounding area.
10:21 A short break was taken to allow the Chief Planning Officer and Case Officer to confirm wording for the refusal as proposed.
10.22 The Chief Planning Officer advised the proposer and seconder of the following wording as follows:
- That the proposed development would not represent good design and result in short term construction traffic and long term traffic associated with future residential occupation of the site. This traffic which will be reliant upon the access through existing road network within the adjacent residential area would have a material detrimental impact upon that adjacent residential area reducing its amenity by reason of noise, activity and traffic fumes contrary to the Local Plan policy H16 of the 1998 Local Plan and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF (2019) which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
10.23 The Proposer and seconder agreed with the wording as read out by the Chief Planning Officer.
10.24 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the Draft Joint Local Plan and its allocation, the safety of future residents, the number of accesses t the allocation site.
10.25 The Case Officer provided further information to the Committee on an approved site to the south of the current application.
10.26 Members debated the possibility of a minded to refuse decision taking into account the new information of the southern site and the density of the site.
10.27 Following debate on the benefits of this the proposer, in agreement with the seconder agreed to change their proposal as follows:
That the Committee are minded to refuse application DC/18/00861 for the following reason:
That the proposed development would not represent good design and result in short term construction traffic and long term traffic associated with future residential occupation of the site. This traffic which will be reliant upon the access through existing road network within the adjacent residential area would have a material detrimental impact upon that adjacent residential area reducing its amenity by reason of noise, activity and traffic fumes contrary to the Local Plan policy H16 of the 1998 Local Plan and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF (2019) which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
And
That the Committee instruct officers to negotiate a lesser density of development.
10.28 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the allocation in the Draft Joint Local Plan, the information on the approved site to the south of the proposal, and the loss of residential amenity through overlooking, the proposed landscape buffer.
10.29 By 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.
10.30 RESOLVED
That the Committee are minded to refuse application DC/18/00861 for the following reason:
That the proposed development would not represent good design and result in short term construction traffic and long term traffic associated with future residential occupation of the site. This traffic which will be reliant upon the access through existing road network within the adjacent residential area would have a material detrimental impact upon that adjacent residential area reducing its amenity by reason of noise, activity and traffic fumes contrary to the Local Plan policy H16 of the 1998 Local Plan and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF (2019) which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
And
That the Committee instruct officers to negotiate a lesser density of development.
Supporting documents: