Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

54.1 Item 7b

 

Application:              DC/20/05046

Proposal:                 Application for Outline Planning Permission (some matters reserved, access to be considered). Town and Country Planning Act 1990. – Erection of 279 No. dwellings (including 100 affordable dwellings) and access.

Site Location:          NEEDHAM MARKET – Land on the North West Side of, Barking Road, Needham Market, Suffolk

Applicant:                Mr David Willis, Mrs Marlene Parry and Mr Michael Watson

 

54.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee, outlining the application before Members, the location and layout of the site, potential flood issues, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

 

54.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the location of the site in relation to the special landscape area, previous applications on the site, the emerging Needham Market Neighbourhood Plan, the proposed access to the site, what the CIL contribution of the site would be, and that no pre-application advice had been sought.

 

54.4 Members considered the representation from Jason Parker who spoke as the Agent.

 

54.5 Councillor Rachel Eburne declared that she had been lobbied on application DC/20/05046.

 

54.6 Th Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: why the application was pursued with the issues identified on site.

 

54.7 The Strategic Projects and Delivery Manager advised Members that this application had been evaluated with regard to the current planning policy context and as such there would be some differences in policy context since the previous application of the site had been before Members.

 

54.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Mike Norris who spoke as the Ward Member who spoke against the application.

 

54.9 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current status of the Needham Market Neighbourhood Plan.

 

54.10 Members considered the email representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Daniel Pratt which was read out by the Chair.

 

54.11 Members debated the application on the issues including: the requirement for a second access.

 

54.12 Councillor John Field proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Dave Muller seconded the proposal.

 

54.13 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the viability of the proposal, the officer recommendation, the status of the Needham Market Neighbourhood Plan.

 

54.14 By a unanimous vote.

 

54.15 RESOLVED  

 

1) That Members resolve to: refuse planning permission, for the following reasons:

 

i)                The proposal strictly conflicts with Mid Suffolk’s Core Strategy policies CS1 and CS2 and Local Plan policy H7, as it is located outside of the settlement boundary for Needham Market and is within the countryside. The development does not accord with the exceptional circumstances tests applied under policies CS2 and H7 and is not considered a countryside compatible development. The proposal would extend the urban edge of Needham Market into a sensitive countryside landscape gap, which would represent an incongruous and discordant growth on the western edge of Needham Market which would not be well integrated and would have minimal relationship with the existing settlement, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS5.

 

ii)              There is a single main access into the site along the southern boundary, which is inadequate to serve 279 dwellings and runs through an area at a high risk from pluvial and fluvial flooding. In the event of flooding there would be no means of suitable access in or out of the site. The development would be significantly affected by flooding and is thus contrary to Core Strategy policy CS4. The proposed emergency access onto The Drift (bridleway) north is wholly inappropriate for both irregular and regular or widespread use and would pose a danger to and discourage users of the bridleway. Notwithstanding its unsuitability, insufficient information has been submitted relating to the emergency access and the site location plan does not show how this access point connects onto the highway. Moreover, the bridleway would need to be upgraded to a byway in order to be used by vehicles, for which separate consent is required prior to determination and this has not been resolved. Furthermore, insufficient information has been submitted in respect of sustainable transport means through the provision of a suitable travel plan. The existing footway and cycleway network, together with the proposed 3-metre-wide southerly connection has not been coherently and holistically integrated in the proposal, resulting in poor connectivity from the site into Needham Market, whilst simultaneously acting as a deterrent to active and sustainable travel and increasing dangers to pedestrians walking along the southern boundary of the site. The Transport Assessment inadequately addresses and accounts for both committed development and planned growth within the area. The impacts on the highway network for existing and future occupants on the site and within the locality would be significant and unacceptable, contrary to Local Plan policies T10, T11, T12 and RT12 and paragraphs 98, 102, 103, 108, 109, 111 and 127 of the NPPF.

 

iii)             The landscape would be irreparably and detrimentally altered through its development. This area provides an important landscape buffer and gap between Needham Market and Barking, through the transition of an urban area to a rural area. The site slopes and is in a visually prominent and elevated position on the approach into Needham Market. The landscape quality of the area is notably sensitive providing a rural backdrop to Needham Market and its development would undermine the character and appreciation of the intrinsic value of the landscape in isolation and within its wider context. Development of the site would result in the loss of very good (Grade 2) agricultural land without adequate justification. The landscape harm arising from the proposal would stand in conflict with Core Strategy policy CS5, Local Plan policies CL2 and CL11 and paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

 

iv) Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the site could be safely developed from the perspective of flood risk. Therefore, it is not certain whether the development would be safe for its lifetime, nor whether it would increase flood risk elsewhere. This is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS4 and paragraphs 155, 163 and 165 of the NPPF.

 

iv)             Insufficient information has been submitted to enable full and sufficient assessment of the ecology of the site, potential ecological impacts and the necessary mitigation required as a result of the development. This is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS5, Local Plan policy CL8 and paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF.

 

v)              Insufficient information has been submitted to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on air quality within the site and its surroundings, from significant vehicle movements as a result of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy CS4, Local Plan policy H17 and paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

 

vi)             Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that existing noise and light pollution from Needham Market Football ground and training pitch would not detrimentally affect future occupants of the site on the basis of their location and proximity to the club. The proposal therefore conflicts with Local Plan policy H17 and paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

 

vii)           Insufficient information has been submitted to determine what type of minerals are located on site and whether these minerals are economically viable and thus need to be extracted from the site. The proposal therefore conflicts with Suffolk Waste and Minerals Plan policy MP10 and paragraphs 203 and 204 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) 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: