Minutes:
80.1 Item 7A
Application DC/20/05587
Proposal Planning Application- Change of use of land for the siting of 69 mobile homes (following demolition of existing buildings)
Site Location GREAT BRICETT- Great Bricett Business Park, The Street, Great Bricett, Suffolk, IP7 7DZ
Applicant Birch’s Park Homes
80.2 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.
80.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that CIL would be applied to the site, that the land was defined as previously developed land and that there was an extant permission for 51 dwellings, that the site was allocated in the Draft Joint Local Plan, and that there had been no objection from Anglian Water.
80.4 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members’ on issues including: electric vehicle charging could be secured via condition, that there was no emergency access, and the sustainability of the proposal.
80.5 Members considered the representation from David Payne of Great Bricett Parish Council who spoke against the proposal.
80.6 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the bus services available in the area.
80.7 Members considered the representation from Chris Payne who spoke as an Objector.
80.8 Members considered the representation from the Agent, Richard Boother.
80.9 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that electric vehicle charging points could be conditioned, that the occupancy of these sites were usually for the older age group, that the units were manufactured to the highest possible environmental standards, that the lifespan of a unit was 70 years and could be recycled.
80.10 The Agent responded to further questions from Members on issues including: that the units would be marketed to the over 50s but would be no formal restriction, that the properties would be mortgageable and have LPG tanks for heating, and that the units could be adapted for accessibility needs.
80.11 The Governance Officer read out a Statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Daniel Pratt.
80.12 The Planning Lawyer advised Members that if planning permission were to be granted age restrictions could be imposed on the site by way of section 106 planning obligations if it were considered that this was necessary for planning purposes.
80.13 Members debated the application on the issues including: the ability for people to downsize, that sites like these were high call areas for Ambulances, that the site was previously developed land, and that CIL could be used to draw down extra funding to healthcare needs.
80.14 The Area Planning Manager responded to a question that had been raised earlier in the meeting and confirmed that the proposed units would not be counted towards any Housing Supply Numbers for the Draft Joint Local Plan.
80.15 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the sustainability of the units and the site, the heating of the units, the lighting for the proposal, and why the extant permission had never been built.
80.16 Councillor Andrew Stringer proposed that the application be refused as the proposal was unsustainable development, contradicted the Councils policies and the site was required for general needs housing as identified in the Draft Joint Local Plan.
80.17 Councillor Mike Norris seconded the motion.
80.18 Members debated the reasons for refusal and whether they were defensible of the application was appealed.
80.19 The Planning Lawyer advised Members that if Members were concerned regarding the reasons for refusal then they could request a risk assessment by officers having resolved that they were minded to refuse the application.
80.20 Councillors Andrew Stringer and Mike Norris withdrew their proposal for refusal and instead proposed and seconded that:
The Committee are minded to Refuse the application, subject to a risk assessment as the proposal fails to deliver housing with an appropriate mixture of tenure and sizes, with particular regards to the impact as a result of the neighbouring properties.
80.21 By a unanimous vote.
80.22 RESOLVED
That the Committee are minded to Refuse DC/20/05587 subject to a risk assessment as the proposal fails to deliver housing with an appropriate mixture of tenure and sizes, with particular regards to the impact as a result of the neighbouring properties.
Supporting documents: