Minutes:
23.1 Item 8A
Application DC/21/00248
Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 1no. dwelling and associated ancillary accommodation. Change of use of agricultural land to residential use.
Site Location BACTON- Land on the South East side of, The Street, Bacton, Suffolk
Applicant Mr M MacAusland
23.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the tabled papers before Members, and the officer recommendation of approval.
23.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including the previous appeal on the site, and how the application related to DC/21/01188 and its emphasis on paragraph 79 of the NPPF, the positioning of the property, the impact on the countryside, other developments in the area, and that the site was within flood zone 1.
23.4 Members considered the representation from David Chambers of Bacton Parish Council who spoke against the application.
23.5 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Mellen, who spoke against the application.
23.6 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the visibility splay and the current use of the land.
23.7 Members debated the application on the issues including: the differences between the application before members and the previously appealed application, that there was no public benefit from the proposal, that it did not enhance the characteristics of the area, the distance of the site from the proposed access point, the proposed design of the building.
23.8 Councillor Rachel Eburne proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:
- The site and the surrounding area are within the countryside outside any settlement boundary as defined by Mid Suffolk's Local Plan 1998 and as amended by the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008. Policy H7 of Local Plan 1998 and Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008 as reviewed under the Core Strategy Focus Review 2012 aim to protect the landscape quality and character of the countryside for its own sake by restricting development in the countryside to that which is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, forestry and appropriate recreation. New residential development is directed to normally take the form of infilling within settlement limit area boundaries. In this case it is considered that there is no proven agricultural, horticultural or forestry need for any new dwelling or other exceptional reason and so any residential development of any kind would be contrary to adopted policy and does not enhance the surrounding area.
- Some services to ensure sustainable development is supported are within 2km of the site, however the route to access these services is not suitable by reason of lack of lit footways leading to potential conflict with traffic and likely reliance of private motor vehicle use, increase in traffic and less integrated communities. The rural character of the area is considered and in some instances walking along unlit area or areas without footways is accept, the route to services in this case would lead to travel along roads not suitable for such travel given road speeds and nature of the road network. There is insufficient access to public transport alternatives available within short walking distance from the site to otherwise outweigh other considerations of the location and poor access to services outlined. In conclusion the site would not provide an appropriate location for new housing in relation to its connectivity to nearby facilities and services. It would therefore fail to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 11, 78, 79 and 102 of the NPPF. As such it is considered that the proposal represents unsustainable development, contrary to the NPPF, policies of the Development as referenced above and Policy FC1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) and its public benefit is not considered to outweigh the harm identified.
23.9 Councillor Muller seconded the motion.
23.10 By a unanimous vote.
23.11 RESOLVED
That application DC/21/00248 be refused for the reasons as follows:
- The site and the surrounding area are within the countryside outside any settlement boundary as defined by Mid Suffolk's Local Plan 1998 and as amended by the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008. Policy H7 of Local Plan 1998 and Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008 as reviewed under the Core Strategy Focus Review 2012 aim to protect the landscape quality and character of the countryside for its own sake by restricting development in the countryside to that which is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, forestry and appropriate recreation. New residential development is directed to normally take the form of infilling within settlement limit area boundaries. In this case it is considered that there is no proven agricultural, horticultural or forestry need for any new dwelling or other exceptional reason and so any residential development of any kind would be contrary to adopted policy and does not enhance the surrounding area.
- Some services to ensure sustainable development is supported are within 2km of the site, however the route to access these services is not suitable by reason of lack of lit footways leading to potential conflict with traffic and likely reliance of private motor vehicle use, increase in traffic and less integrated communities. The rural character of the area is considered and in some instances walking along unlit area or areas without footways is accept, the route to services in this case would lead to travel along roads not suitable for such travel given road speeds and nature of the road network. There is insufficient access to public transport alternatives available within short walking distance from the site to otherwise outweigh other considerations of the location and poor access to services outlined. In conclusion the site would not provide an appropriate location for new housing in relation to its connectivity to nearby facilities and services. It would therefore fail to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 11, 78, 79 and 102 of the NPPF. As such it is considered that the proposal represents unsustainable development, contrary to the NPPF, policies of the Development as referenced above and Policy FC1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) and its public benefit is not considered to outweigh the harm identified.
Supporting documents: