Minutes:
63.1 Item 7C
Application DC/20/05763
Proposal Planning Application – Use of land for the siting of 4 ‘Off-Grid’ holiday units and erection of replacement stores/housekeeping building; installation of PV panels, upgrading of existing access and track; new low-impact parking area and foul drainage.
Site Location PALGRAVE – Land at, Ling Road, Palgrave, Suffolk
Applicant Mr W Hawes
63.2 A break was taken from 11:18am until 11:33am, after application number DC/21/03087 and before the commencement of application number DC/20/05763.
63.3 The Chair advised that as Ward Member for this application, Councillor David Burn would not take part in the debate or vote.
63.4 The Area Planning manager presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed use of the site, the position of the Parish boundaries in relation to the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.
63.5 The Area Planning Manager provided a verbal update to Members regarding a letter received from Suffolk Wildlife Trust which had been omitted from the tabled papers.
63.6 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: any potential loss of landscaping, the surface of the driveway and parking area, the protections in place for Special Landscape Areas (SLA), the significance on the application of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the proposed type of energy to be installed on site, and concern over the fragmentation of the biodiversity habitat corridor.
63.7 Members considered the representation from Val Pudney who spoke on behalf of Palgrave Parish Council.
63.8 Members considered the representation from Jane Jennifer who spoke on behalf of Roydon Parish Council.
63.9 The Parish Council representatives responded to questions from Members on issues including: the impact of the foul water drainage system and bore hole on the peat land, the lack of response from Environmental Agency, and the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) status of Roydon Fen.
63.10 The Principal Consultant Ecologist responded to questions from Members regarding ownership of the site and the relationship between South Norfolk Council, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the applicant.
63.11 Members considered the representation from Gareth Dalglish who spoke as an Objector.
63.12 The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the SSSI status of Roydon Fen.
63.13 Members considered the representation from Sarah Roberts who spoke as the Agent.
63.14 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: alternative plans for water supply to the site if the boor hole is unable to be used, the capability of the access road to withstand tanker lorries accessing the site, the possible requirement for an alternative energy supply, and the exceptional circumstances for the development as referred to in the NPPF.
63.15 Members considered the representation from Councillor David Burn who spoke as the Ward Member.
63.16 A break was taken from 12:38pm until 12:43pm to enable Members to read the contents of the tabled papers.
63.17 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members regarding which flood zones the site is located in and where development is permitted in relation to flood zones.
63.18 Members debated the application on issues including: the lack of information on which to base a decision, ecological issues, the foul water drainage impact, the potential for attracting tourism to the area, and the responses from consultees.
63.19 Councillor Hicks proposed that the application be deferred on the grounds that there is insufficient information to be able to make a decision.
63.20 The motion was seconded by Councillor Passmore.
63.21 By a vote of 3 votes for and 4 against, the motion was lost.
63.22 Councillor Warboys proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
The motion was seconded by Councillor Field.
63.23 By a vote of 5 votes for and 2 against
It was RESOLVED:
There is insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would by reason of its scale, location, and nature of use and range of activities not likely adversely damage the sensitive and valued landscape near and adjacent to a SSSI and nature reserves. Furthermore it would adversely harm and fragment the ecological value and connections of the area. Contrary to policies of CL8, CL9, RT19, RT16 and CL2 of the local plan 1988. CS5 of the Core Strategy and NPPF including section 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.
Supporting documents: