Minutes:
70.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/02924
Proposal Planning Application – Erection of 2 No detached dwellings, associated parking and landscaping.
Site Location FELSHAM – Land Rear of The Six Bells, Church Road, Felsham, Suffolk.
Applicant Cordage 13 Limited
70.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the access to the site, the previous applications on the site including an application at appeal, and the officer recommendation of approval as detailed in the Committee Report.
70.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including the responses from Suffolk County Council’s Highways Department on pages 55 and 65 of the report regarding where the edge of the carriageway was, that in previous iterations of the applications white lines had been proposed in the highway but had been removed due to local opposition, and that the previous Heritage issues on the site had been resolved.
70.4 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the Ecology Report that had been received but that the delegation within the recommendation was still included so that conditions could be added as necessary, and that the details of external lighting had been conditioned.
70.5 Members considered the representation from Hayley Nunn, of Felsham Parish Council who spoke against the proposal.
70.6 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that the pictures included in the Parish consultation response were from 2013/2014.
70.7 Members considered the representation from Nicolas Panayi who spoke as an Objector.
70.8 The Area Planning Manager advised Members and the Objector that if there were any issues with regards to the handling of the application then a formal complaint could be made to the Council or if there were any comments regarding previous decisions then these should be addressed to the Planning Inspectorate.
70.9 Members considered the representation from the Jeremy Heppel who spoke as the Agent.
70.10 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the location of the plot and its relationship to Maple Cottage, that the dwellings would be heated by air source heat pumps, that the stable doors did open outwards but this had been taken into account as the pavement was not raised, and the proposed access to the site.
70.11 The Planning Lawyer confirmed to Members that Air Source Heat Pumps were classed as Permitted Development Rights.
70.12 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Penny Otton who spoke against the proposal.
70.13 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that the land behind the Six Bells Pub was not Public Open Space, that deliveries were made to the Community Shop as and when required, and that they did not have a record of crashes in the immediate area.
70.14 The Area Planning Manager advised Members of the proposed location where bins would be collected from the site.
70.15 Members debated the application on the issues including: that there had been no reported road traffic or pedestrian accidents in the immediate area, that the access was already in place and being used by the Six Bells Pub, paraph 79 and 126 of the NPPF promoting sustainable development, the boundary of where the Highway started, and the loss of residential amenity for Plot 1 from overlooking at Maple Cottage.
70.16 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the placement of the bin storage area and collection point, the vibration of more vehicles travelling causing harm to the heritage asset, the scale and mass of the proposal compared to the existing dwellings in the village, the visibility splays and at which point they had been measured, the safety of residents, and the setting of the listed building.
70.17 The Chair reminded Members that there was currently an Appeal lodged with the Planning Inspectorate for a previous application on the site, that there was an existing access on the site, that the land was private and not for public use and that there were no windows from Maple Cottage overlooking plot 1.
70.18 Councillor Dave Muller proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Kathie Guthrie seconded the motion.
70.19 Members debated the motion on the issues including: the distances from the bin collection to the dwellings, the highways proposals, the design of plot 1 and the proposed dwellings were not in keeping with the surroundings.
70.20 By 2 Votes to 6.
The motion was lost.
70.21 Councillor Andrew Stringer proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development would use an existing access that is not in accord with current standards for highway access and would lead to further intensification of the access increasing the risk of accidents occurring. Sufficient improvement of the access is not possible to adequately outweigh this risk given the restrictions of a Listed Wall to the west of the access and so can not be conditioned. Contrary to T10, H3 and NPPF para 111.
2) The proposed development for two houses would, if approved, result in development out of keeping and contrary to the character of the surrounding existing properties and Conservation Area by reason of mass, scale and appearance and further distracts from the setting of the Listed Public House. The proposal is not considered to enhance, preserve, and/or add to the significance of the area. On this basis the proposal is considered contrary to GP1, HB8, H3, CS5 and NPPF include section 12 on design and section 16 on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
3) The proposed development by reason of orientation and siting of Plot 1 would, if approved, result in poor amenity being enjoyed by the occupiers of the plot due to overlooking from existing dwelling, Maple Cottage. This is poor design and fails to meet the NPPF, including section 12 on design and para 130f.
70.22 Councillor Rowland Warboys seconded the motion.
70.23 By 6 votes to 2
70.24 RESOLVED
That Application DC/21/02924 be refused for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development would use an existing access that is not in accord with current standards for highway access and would lead to further intensification of the access increasing the risk of accidents occurring. Sufficient improvement of the access is not possible to adequately outweigh this risk given the restrictions of a Listed Wall to the west of the access and so can not be conditioned. Contrary to T10, H3 and NPPF para 111.
2) The proposed development for two houses would, if approved, result in development out of keeping and contrary to the character of the surrounding existing properties and Conservation Area by reason of mass, scale and appearance and further distracts from the setting of the Listed Public House. The proposal is not considered to enhance, preserve, and/or add to the significance of the area. On this basis the proposal is considered contrary to GP1, HB8, H3, CS5 and NPPF include section 12 on design and section 16 on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
3) The proposed development by reason of orientation and siting of Plot 1 would, if approved, result in poor amenity being enjoyed by the occupiers of the plot due to overlooking from existing dwelling, Maple Cottage. This is poor design and fails to meet the NPPF, including section 12 on design and para 130f.
Supporting documents: