Minutes:
154.1 Item 7B
Application DC/21/06882
Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access to be considered, Appearance, Landscape, Layout and Scale to be reserved) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Erection of up to 279 No. dwellings (including 100 affordable) (re-submission of DC/20/05046).
Site Location NEEDHAM MARKET – Agricultural Land North of, Barking Road, Needham Market, Suffolk
Applicant Mr David Willis, Mrs Marlene Perry and Mr Michael Watson
154.2 A break was taken from 11:03am until 11:13am, after application number DC/21/06966 and before the commencement of application number DC/21/06882.
154.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: details of the previously refused applications at the site, the site location and layout, the special landscape area, the potential flood risk, access to the site including emergency access, the accommodation plan, connectivity to the town of Needham Market, the level of information in the proposal, and the officer recommendation of refusal.
154.4 Members considered the representation from Jason Parker and Magnus Magnusson who spoke as the agents.
154.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members regarding the response from the Rights of Way Officer, and whether this was an allocated site in the Joint Local Plan.
154.6 The Agents responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the applicants were the owners of the site at the time of the previous application, access to the site, the potential flood risk, and whether any consultation had taken place with the Needham Market Neighbourhood Plan group.
154.7 Members considered the representation from Councillor Norris who spoke as the Ward Member.
154.8 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the history of flooding in the area.
154.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the potential flood risk, the lack of pre-application advice and consultation with local residents, access to the site, and the compliance with the Needham Market Neighbourhood Plan.
154.10 Councillor Guthrie proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
154.11 Councillor Eburne seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote:
It was RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
i) The proposal strictly conflicts with the aims of the Needham Market Neighbourhood Plan and Mid Suffolk’s Core Strategy policies CS1 and CS2 and Local Plan policy H7, as it is located outside of the settlement boundary for Needham Market and is within the countryside. The development is not allocated and does not accord with the exceptional circumstances tests applied under policies CS2 and H7 and is not considered a countryside compatible development. The proposal would extend the urban edge of Needham Market into a sensitive countryside landscape gap, which would represent an incongruous and discordant growth on the western edge of Needham Market which would not be well integrated and would have minimal relationship with the existing settlement, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS5 and the aims of Needham Market Neighbourhood Plan.
ii) There is a single main access into the site along the southern boundary, which is inadequate to serve 279 dwellings and runs through an area at a high risk from pluvial and fluvial flooding. In the event of flooding there would be no means of safe and suitable access in or out of the site. The proposed emergency access onto The Drift (bridleway) north is wholly inappropriate for either irregular and regular/ widespread use and would pose a danger to and discourage users of the bridleway. Notwithstanding its unsuitability, insufficient information has been submitted relating to the how the emergency access would materialise. The submitted site location plan does not show how the emergency access point connects onto the highway. Moreover, the bridleway would need to be upgraded to a byway in order to be used by vehicles, for which separate consent is required prior to determination which has not been sought. Furthermore, insufficient information has been submitted in respect of sustainable transport means through the provision of a suitable travel plan. The Transport Assessment inadequately addresses and accounts for both committed development and planned growth within the area. The development does not offer any coherent or integrated connections to encourage and support active and sustainable travel to and from the site. Instead, the development proposes a short section of 1.8-metre-wide footway with an uncontrolled crossing point connecting to the substandard existing footway network. The site would therefore be poorly connected to Needham Market. The impacts on the highway network for existing residents and future residents on the site and within the locality would be significant and unacceptable contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy NM2 and NM10, Core Strategy policy CS4, Local Plan policies T10, T11, T12 and RT12 and paragraphs 8, 100, 104, 105, 110, 112, 113 and 130 of the NPPF.
iii) The application does not adequately assess the sensitivity and landscape qualities of the site and its surroundings, specifically noting the site partially falls within the Gipping Valley Special Landscape Area. Notwithstanding this, the landscape would be irreparably and detrimentally altered through its development. This area provides an important landscape buffer and gap between Needham Market and Barking, through the transition of an urban area to a rural area. The site slopes and is in a visually prominent and elevated position on the approach into Needham Market. The landscape quality of the area is notably sensitive providing a rural backdrop to Needham Market. Development of the site would represent the loss of very good (Grade 2) agricultural land without adequate justification. The proposal would stand in conflict with Neighbourhood Plan policy NM7, Core Strategy policy CS5, Local Plan policies CL2, CL11 and GP1 and paragraphs 120 and 174 of the NPPF, undermining the character and appreciation of the intrinsic value of the landscape in isolation and within its wider context.
iv) The site is vulnerable to both fluvial and pluvial forms of flooding. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would be safe for its lifetime and that it would not increase in flood risk elsewhere. The proposal fails to pass the sequential test. This is contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy NM2, Core Strategy policy CS4 and paragraphs 159, 162, 167 and 169 of the NPPF.
v) Insufficient information has been submitted to enable full and sufficient assessment of the ecological potential on site and thus any mitigation required as a result of the development, contrary to Core Strategy policies CS4 and CS5, Local Plan policy CL8 and paragraphs 174 and 180 of the NPPF.
vi) Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on air quality within the site and its surroundings from the significant vehicle movements resulting from the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy CS4, Local Plan policy H17 and paragraph 174 of the NPPF.
vii) Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that existing noise and light pollution from Needham Market Football ground and training pitch would not detrimentally affect future residents of the site on the basis of their location and proximity to the club. The proposal conflicts with Core Strategy policy CS4, Local Plan policy H17 and paragraphs 130 and 174 of the NPPF.
viii) Insufficient information has been submitted to determine the size of sand and gravel deposits and whether these minerals are economically viable to be extracted or used in the construction of the site. If they were economically viable, a separate consent would need to be secured (Suffolk County Council Minerals Extraction Permission) prior to determination. The proposal therefore conflicts with Suffolk Waste and Minerals Plan policy MP10 and paragraphs 209 and 211 of the NPPF.
ix) Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that land for an early years setting can be safely accommodated on site in a location that is suitable from a flood risk, highways, noise and topographical perspective. This is a requirement of the scheme owing to its scale and the pressure it will pose on existing infrastructure, as supported by paragraph 95 of the NPPF. In the absence of information, there is inadequate mitigation to accommodate the development without it resulting in undue pressure on school places within the locality.
In the event that an appeal against the refusal of planning permission is received, delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to defend that appeal for the reasons set out under (1) above, being amended and/or varied as may be required.
Supporting documents: