Minutes:
46.1 Item 7B
Application DC/20/04921
Proposal Outline Planning Application (access, layout and scale to be considered) – Residential Development of 14no dwellings (including 4no affordable dwellings) garaging, construction of access and associated parking.
Site Location WETHERINGSETT CUM BROCKFORD – Land East of, Hockey Hill, Wetheringsett Cum Brockford, Suffolk
Applicant D I Alston Will Trust Ltd
46.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.
46.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the response from the Heritage Officer, the current status of the agricultural track and whether there was any Public Right of Way, the current status of the Draft Joint Local plan and the current development plan and that this site did not feature in it, that there was no emergency vehicle access to the site, and that the garages were currently managed by MSDC.
46.4 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: what details would be included in any reserved matters application, the ownership of the site, and the provision of parking for existing residents.
46.5 Members considered the representation from Elizabeth Cain of Wetheringsett Cum Brockford Parish Council.
46.6 The Parish Council representative responded to Members questions on issues including: identified development in Brockford Street and the preferred location for future development in the Parish, the proposed associated parking on site and that the garages were currently being used by existing residents.
46.7 Members considered the representation from Mike Pease who spoke as an Objector.
46.8 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that there was no public transport in the area and the only busses were school transport and the Dial a ride service.
46.9 Members considered the representation from Sarah Hucklesby and Tony Alston who spoke as the Agent and Applicant respectively.
46.10 The Area Planning Manager clarified through the Agent that pylons did not cross the site but there was a drain that went through the site.
46.11 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Stringer.
46.12 Members debated the application on the issues including: the current development plan and Draft Joint Local Plan, the proposed location of the houses in the area, the comments and consultation response from the Parish Council, and the sustainability of the proposal.
46.13 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that the development plan consisted of policies from the 2008 core strategy review and that if members were minded to refuse the application on those grounds then it would be recommended that the application be dealt with by the Planning Referrals Committee. It was noted that the Area Planning Manager withdrew his comments regarding the Planning Referrals Committee later on in the meeting.
46.14 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the sustainability of the proposal, the provision of bungalows and Affordable Housing, the parking on site, paragraph 80 of the NPPF and the Councils current policies, and the emerging Draft Joint Local Plan.
46.15 Councillor Richard Meyer proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as follows:
- That Authority is delegated the Chief Planning Officer to refuse DC/20/04921 as:
1. The development would be located in a part of the Parish where it would not enhance or maintain the vitality of this rural community and would generate unsustainable traffic movements from future residents which will not support local services. On that basis the development would be contrary to para 79 of the NPPF 2021.
2. And for any further reasons that the Chief Planning Officer decides are appropriate.
46.16 Councillor Andrew Mellen seconded the motion.
46.17 By a unanimous vote.
46.18 RESOLVED
- That Authority is delegated the Chief Planning Officer to refuse DC/20/04921 as:
1. The development would be located in a part of the Parish where it would not enhance or maintain the vitality of this rural community and would generate unsustainable traffic movements from future residents which will not support local services. On that basis the development would be contrary to para 79 of the NPPF 2021.
2. And for any further reasons that the Chief Planning Officer decides are appropriate.
Supporting documents: