Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

24.1 Item 8B

 

           Application               DC/21/01188

Proposal                  Planning Application. Erection of 1no dwelling and associated ancillary accommodation. Change of use of land from agricultural to residential use.

Site Location           BACTON- Land on the south east side of, The Street, Bacton, Suffolk

           Applicant                 Mr M MacAusland

 

24.1 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the differences between this application and DC/21/00248 which had just been heard and the officer recommendation of approval.

 

24.2 Members considered the representation from David Chambers of Bacton Parish Council who spoke against the application.

 

24.3 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Mellen, who spoke against the application.

 

24.4 Councillor Sarah Mansel proposed that the application be refused for the same reasons as application DC/21/00248 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.

 

24.5 Councillor Dave Muller seconded the proposal.

 

24.6 by a unanimous vote.

 

24.7 RESOLVED

 

That application DC/21/01188 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.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: