Minutes:
76.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/00662
Proposal Outline Planning Application (access to be considered) – erection of 9.no dwellings and construction of vehicular access and pedestrian links ( re-submission of DC/20/04429).
Site Location NORTON - Land off Hawes Lane, Norton, Bury St Edmunds, IP31 3LS
Applicant Ash Property Consortium Ltd
76.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the site layout, the proposed increase to the road width, the proposed addition of passing bays, the pedestrian links to the existing bridleway, the proposed access, and the officer recommendation of approval.
76.3 The Case Officer responded to Member’s questions on issues including: the increased road width, the capacity of facilities in Norton and the visibility splays of the footpath.
76.4 Members considered the representation from the Parish Council representative David Etchells-Butler.
76.5 The Parish Council Representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the use of the main road, whether a housing needs survey had been conducted, the location of the facilities in Norton, and the current number of houses in Norton.
76.6 Members considered the representation from the Objector Andrew Sedgewick.
76.7 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues such as: the pedestrian links, sewage and water issues, and the impact on the highways network.
76.8 Members considered the representation from the Supporter Steve Bean.
76.9 Members considered the representation from the Agent Philip Cobbold.
76.10 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues such as: the mix of housing, the footpath and access, and whether the site was in the emerging Joint Local Plan.
76.11 Members considered the representation from Ward Members Councillor Wendy Turner and Councillor Harry Richardson, who spoke against the
application.
76.12 The Ward Members responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the local transport links and the current use of the lane.
76.13 Members debated the application on issues including: the urbanisation of a rural area, the sewage system, the traffic along the A1088, the traffic impact on the country lane and the impact the development would have on the character in the village.
76.14 Councillor John Field Proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
1. Notwithstanding the highways improvements proposed, the proposed development accessing Hawes lane would, if approved, likely result in a significant conflict between cars and pedestrians by construction traffic and during the lifetime of the development and given the design and character of the lane would be detrimental to highway safety and amenity for existing and future residents.
Furthermore, wear and tear as well as the highways improvements proposed would be visually detrimental to the character of the rural lane due to increased traffic including cars and larger vehicles and urbanisation of the lane.
On this basis it is contrary to Policies T10, GP1 and H16 of the Local Plan, FC1.1 of the Focus Review and NPPF including section 12, and Paras 108 and 110.
76.15 Councillor Richard Meyer seconded the motion.
76.16 By 7 votes to 1
76.17 It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. Notwithstanding the highways improvements proposed, the proposed development accessing Hawes lane would, if approved, likely result in a significant conflict between cars and pedestrians by construction traffic and during the lifetime of the development and given the design and character of the lane would be detrimental to highway safety and amenity for existing and future residents.
Furthermore, wear and tear as well as the highways improvements proposed would be visually detrimental to the character of the rural lane due to increased traffic including cars and larger vehicles and urbanisation of the lane.
On this basis it is contrary to Policies T10, GP1 and H16 of the Local Plan, FC1.1 of the Focus Review and NPPF including section 12, and Paras 108 and 110.
Supporting documents: