Minutes:
144.1 Item 8B
Application DC/22/00225
Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access point to be considered, Appearance, Landscape, Layout and Scale to be reserved) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Erection of up to 5 no. dwellings and construction of new access (following demolition of existing dwelling).
Site Location STONHAM ASPAL – Land to the rear of the Leas, Quoits Meadow, Stonham Aspal, Suffolk
Applicant Mr R Tydeman
144.1 The Case Officer presented the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed access, the previously refused applications at the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal.
144.2 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the reference in the officer report to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the housing land supply.
144.3 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the previous applications at the site, the indicative plan of the site, and whether any pre-application advice was provided.
144.4 Members considered the representation from Beverly Brady who spoke as an objector.
144.5 The Chair read out a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Morley, who was unable to attend the meeting.
144.6 Members debated the application on issues including: the lack of an indicative plan of the site, and the proximity of the site to the adjacent listed building.
144.7 Councillor Mansel proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
144.8 Councillor Field seconded the motion.
144.9 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the lack of detail contained in the application, and the response from the heritage team.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:-
1) REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL – PRINCIPLE
The proposed development site lies outside of the village settlement boundary, as defined in the current adopted development plan. The principle of new housing development on the site is not then automatically supported, as a point of principle, by the current plan.
The Local Planning Authority is able to demonstrate a housing land supply, in significant excess of the five-year minimum required by the NPPF. The tilted balance is not, therefore, engaged.
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires planning decisions to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development and, for decision-taking, in instances such as this where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.
In weighting the scheme against the strands of sustainable development, as set out in the NPPF, a low level of overall social benefit is noted, and a long term low level of economic benefit is also noted. Counter to this is an overall moderate to high level of environmental harm. In particular the proposal is considered to result in harm to the character, setting and significance of a heritage asset, the nearby Grade II Listed Orchard Farmhouse, and would result in harm to the to the rural character of the site and its surroundings.
The adverse impacts of the proposal are, therefore, considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and not to represent sustainable development when considered against the provisions of the NPPF, taken as a whole.
2) REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL - IMPACT ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HERITAGE ASSET
Development plan policy CS5 requires all development proposals to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the built historic environment. Development Plan Policy HB1 requires that all such proposals should protect the character and appearance of all buildings of architectural or historic interest. Furthermore, the NPPF provides that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
The erection of a residential development on the site would result in erosion of the remaining historically rural character of the setting of the Grade II Listed Orchard Farmhouse and harm its character. The proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm to the character, setting and significance of this heritage asset. Having assessed the development proposal against the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, as required by the NPPF, the public benefits of the proposal are not considered to outweigh the levelof harm identified. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the aforementioned planning policies for these reasons.
Supporting documents: