Minutes:
Item 8b
Application DC/20/05572
Proposal Full Planning Application - Erection of 1 no dwelling on plot 1 including access and creation of separate access for plot 2 forming part of a phased development approved under Outline Planning Permission DC/19/00851
Site Location BACTON – The Bungalow, Church Road, Bacton, Stowmarket, Suffolk
Applicant Ms Jane Ottaway
50.1 A short break was taken between 17:06pm and 17:11pm, after the completion of DC/21/01930 but before the commencement of DC/20/05572.
50.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the proximity of the site to the listed buildings, the timescale for landscaping, the contents of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of approval as detailed in the committee report.
50.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: height restrictions on the site, the impact of the height of the buildings on listed buildings in the area, the proposed shape of the roof, and the landscaping on the site.
50.4 Members considered the representation from David Chambers who spoke on behalf of Bacton Parish Council.
50.5 Members considered representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Mellen.
50.6 Members debated the application on issues including: the effect of the dwelling on the listed building, loss of views, and traffic and parking issues.
50.7 Councillor Eburne proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
That Members were minded to refuse the application on the following to defend appeal on non-determination:
The massing and bulk of the proposal, with particular regards to the roof pitch and eaves and the width of the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality, failing to respond to the character of the site and relationship to surroundings and locality including listed buildings.
The proposal would also have an incongruous impact on the character of the locality as a result of the proposed close boarded fencing in this rural location.
As such the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policy H13 and HB1 and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 130 of the NPPF.
The massing and bulk of the proposal, with regard to the roof pitch and width, is assessed to lead to a low level of less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, identified as being the Grade I listed St. Marys church. It would impose itself on views of the designated heritage asset, obscuring part of the church and its tower when viewed from the west, without public benefits to outweigh this harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policy HB1, paragraph 202 of the NPPF as well as section 66(1) of the TCPA (LB&CA) Act 1990.
50.8 Councillor Passmore seconded the motion.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED:-
That Members were minded to refuse the application on the following to defend appeal on non-determination:
The massing and bulk of the proposal, with particular regards to the roof pitch and eaves and the width of the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality, failing to respond to the character of the site and relationship to surroundings and locality including listed buildings.
The proposal would also have an incongruous impact on the character of the locality as a result of the proposed close boarded fencing in this rural location.
As such the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policy H13 and HB1 and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 130 of the NPPF.
The massing and bulk of the proposal, with regard to the roof pitch and width, is assessed to lead to a low level of less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, identified as being the Grade I listed St. Marys church. It would impose itself on views of the designated heritage asset, obscuring part of the church and its tower when viewed from the west, without public benefits to outweigh this harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policy HB1, paragraph 202 of the NPPF as well as section 66(1) of the TCPA (LB&CA) Act 1990.
Supporting documents: