Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

76.1 A short comfort break was taken between 11:07 – 11:02 after the completion of DC/20/05596 but before the commencement of DC/20/04987.

 

76.2 Item 7C

 

Application               DC/20/04987                     

Proposal                  Application for Outline Planning Permission (some matters reserved, access to be considered). Town and Planning Act 1990 – Erection of up to 32 dwellings following demolition of existing buildings (resubmission of DC/19/04553).

Location                  KENTON – Anchor Storage, Eye Road, Kenton, Stowmarket Suffolk IP14 6JJ

Applicant                 Mr Stephen Britt

 

76.3 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification with regards to page 247, paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the report, and confirmed that the NPPF was not part of the Local Development Plan.

 

76.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee, outlining the location and layout of the site, comparisons with the previously considered and refused application in February 2020, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

 

76.5 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the potential flood risks and whether climate change maps were taken into consideration.

 

76.6 Members considered the representation from Chris Goldsmith who spoke on behalf of Kenton Parish Council.

 

76.7 Members considered the representation from Stephen Britt who spoke as the applicant.

 

76.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Kathie Guthrie who spoke as the Ward Member.

 

76.9 In response to a question from Councillor Humphreys the Case Officer confirmed that there was no pre application advice had been sought for this application.

 

76.10 Members debated the application on issues including: the number of concerns from statutory consultees, whether the site is brownfield, sustainability of the site, the potential for flooding, and the viability of affordable housing on site.

 

76.11 Councillor Mellen proposed that the application be refused as per the officer recommendation.

 

76.12 Councillor Meyer seconded the proposal.

 

76.13 By a unanimous vote

 

76.14 It was RESOLVED:

 

That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development, remote from local services and lacking accessible sustainable transport modes, will result in a high level of car dependency for future occupants. The density and scale of the development would result in landscape harm. The identified adverse impacts outweigh the scheme’s public benefits, and therefore the proposal does not constitute sustainable development, contrary to Development Plan Policies FC1 and FC1_1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2. The proposal would also lead to the loss of employment land, with no significant benefit or alternative schemes provided, contrary to the directions of Saved Local Plan policy E4 and E6.

 

3. Paragraph 165 of the NPPF requires major developments to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, including taking advice from the lead local flood authority (LLFA). The LLFA have advised that insufficient detail has been provided within the surface water drainage strategy submitted with the application and as such the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal would not result in harm with regards increased flood risk to existing and future occupants. The application fails to take account the advice from the lead local flood authority, contrary to paragraph 165 of the NPPF.

 

4. Paragraph 157 of the NPPF requires a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development - taking into account the current and future impacts of climate change - so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property. NPPF paragraph 158 requires the sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding. The applicant has failed to carry out a sequential test with regards the surface water drainage attenuation basin area, as indicated, and has not demonstrated that the proposed surface water attenuation infrastructure would function adequately in a flood event. Furthermore, the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application has not taken into account Environmental Agency Flood Zone 2, with additional allowance for climate change data. As such, the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development would be sufficiently flood resilient and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

 

5. Development plan policy H4 provides that the LPA will seek to secure affordable housing of up to 35% of the total provision of housing, on such sites, for such proposals, in such locations. Furthermore, NPPF paragraph 62 states that where a need for affordable housing is identified the need should be met on-site unless: a) off-site provision or an appropriate financial contribution in lieu can be robustly justified; and b) the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. The applicant has not proposed on-site provision of affordable housing and proposes a financial contribution towards affordable housing provision elsewhere in the District. It is not considered that the financial contribution offered by the applicant is robustly justified at the current time and it is not considered that the applicant’s proposed approach would contribute to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to development plan policy H4 and NPPF paragraph 62.

 

6. While it is acknowledged that the removal of the existing buildings from the site would be read as a benefit to the setting of the Grade II Listed Sycamore Farmhouse, the replacement of these buildings would still result in harm to its setting. This harm has been identified as being less than substantial when read against the NPPF and the public benefits offered by the site are insufficient to outweigh this harm due to the adverse impacts arising from the location of the scheme. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to paragraph 196 of the NPPF and to the provisions of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

 

7. The application has failed to demonstrate that the site is suitable for housing in the context of potential impact on Ecology, Biodiversity, and protected and priority species. The Ecological Survey submitted with the application is of significant age and does not follow standing advice with regards the lifespan of ecology reports and surveys provided by the CIEEM. The development proposal is not, therefore, suitably informed with regards up to date Ecology survey information, and proposed mitigation, and in the absence of such the development poses significant risk of harm to protected and priority species, contrary to the requirements of Development Plan Policy CL08 and paragraphs 174 to 177 of the NPPF.

 

8. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF seeks to secure a high standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and NPPF Paragraph 180 provides that planning decisions should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development - and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the amenities of future occupants of the proposed development would not be adversely affected from noise and disturbance emanating from existing adjacent land uses.

 

9. Development Plan Policy CS5 provides that developments shall be of a high quality design that maintain and enhance the environment and respect, retain and enhance the local distinctiveness and character and appearance of the area. Policy H13 provides that new housing development will be expected to achieve a high standard of design and layout and be of a scale and density appropriate to the site and its surroundings. Furthermore policy H15 provides that new housing should be consistent with the pattern and form of development in the area, the character of its setting, particular site constraints such as access and drainage, and the configuration of the site, including natural features. The application has failed to demonstrate that the maximum number of dwellings proposed can be accommodated on the site, with a realistic expectation of a good standard of: design; layout; landscaping; amenity for existing and future occupants, and a safe and suitable environment ultimately being achievable and deliverable. As such the current proposal is considered contrary to the aforementioned planning policies.

 

Supporting documents: