Minutes:
132.1 Item 8F
Application DC/20/05587
Proposal Revised Planning Application - Change of use of land for the siting of 69 mobile homes (following demolition of existing buildings) and associated facilities
Site Location GREAT BRICETT – Great Bricett Business Park, The Street, Great Bricett, Suffolk, IP7 7DZ
Applicant Birch’s Park Homes
132.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the amendments made to the proposal since the application was deferred in May 2021, the additional consultee responses received, the location and layout of the site, public transport links to the site, the housing mix, proposed parking and landscaping plans, heating systems, and the recommendation of refusal.
132.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the housing mix, the type of affordable housing accepted by the Strategic Housing Team, the existing use of the site, and whether the proposed type of dwelling counts towards the Authorities housing land supply numbers.
132.4 Members considered the representation from David Payne who spoke on behalf of Great Bricett Parish Council.
132.5 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of dwellings located in the village of Great Bricett.
132.6 Members considered the representation from Christopher Payne who spoke as an objector.
132.7 Members considered the representation from Richard Boother who spoke as the Agent.
132.8 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on whether the 69 proposed homes would contribute to the housing land supply.
132.9 The Chair read out a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Daniel Pratt, who was unable to attend the meeting.
132.10 Members debated the proposal on issues including: the location and type of housing and whether it met the needs of the local community.
132.11 Councillor Eburne proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
132.12 Councillor Matthissen seconded the proposal.
132.13 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the housing mix,
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
(1)The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
While the Council accepts that the proposed 69 park homes may add to consumer choice in respect of the type of new residential accommodation available for purchase in the District, they do not appropriately address the need for affordable housing across the District in a way that meets Adopted Local Plan Policy H4 and Draft Joint Local Plan Policy SP02.
The Council through the above policies and its Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Assessment expects residential developments of this scale to include a 35% component of on-site affordable housing comprising predominantly affordable rented accommodation with some affordable shared ownership. 35% of 69 is an affordable housing content of 17.8 dwellings.
In determining this application the Council has had regard to the applicant’s offer contained in a signed unilateral undertaking to provide a financial contribution of £168,00 and latterly increased to 200,000 outside that Unilateral Undertaking towards off-site delivery of such affordable housing by the Council but finds it does not adequately outweigh the harm that will result from a short fall of some15 such dwellings with a policy compliant solution.
The Council having approved outline planning permission for a 51 dwelling development comprising 35% affordable housing by way of S106 Agreement] under reference DC/17/03568on 7 January 2019 reasonably expects 35% affordable housing delivery on this site. The fact that a valid reserved matters submission for that 51 dwelling development was received by the Council in December 2021 indicates that it is reasonable for the Council to reject the park home proposal on the ground that fails to make adequate provision for the delivery of affordable dwellings. The Reserved Matters application represents a choate alternative that accords with Adopted Council Policy. Its delivery will be prejudiced by permission for a park home development
It is the Council’s opinion that being able to demonstrate that it has a 5-year housing land supply that does not rely on the inclusion of park home sites it is not imperative to approve this application in order to meet a deficiency in housing supply/delivery within the District. No overriding case for the need for park homes within the District in general and this site in particular has been provided and therefore the Council is of the opinion that there is no overriding justification to support this departure from Adopted policy.
If the extant planning permission has no realistic prospect of being delivered (and if the current proposal is assessed purely on its own merits) then the application is objectionable for the above reasons and also on account of its countryside location contrary to the spatial strategy in the development plan (inc. policies CS1, CS2, H7) and where material considerations do not outweigh the direction to refuse planning permission. Taken in the round, and accounting for the specific circumstances of the application, the most important policies for its determination are considered to be up to date in so far as they are applicable. However even if the “tilted balance” were to apply, the harms significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. However assessed, the application remains unacceptable and does not represent sustainable development.
Supporting documents: