Minutes:
Application DC/20/03116
Proposal Planning Application – Erection of new workshop building with the existing access to the site from the A1141 upgraded.
Site Location COCKFIELD – Land to the East of, Sudbury Road, Cockfield, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP30 0LN
Applicant Firstgrade Recycling Systems Limited
134.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the previous planning applications at the site, the location and layout of the site, proposed access to the site, the proposed drainage design and landscaping plans, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the tables papers.
134.3 The Case Officer and the Chief Planning Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the response received from Suffolk County Council Highways, the suitability of the location for a business, alternative sites in the area, the reasons for the change in recommendation since the application was previously presented to Committee, and the previous decision made by Committee and the outcomes of the subsequent judicial review.
134.4 Members considered the representation from Ian Levett who spoke on behalf of Cockfield Parish Council.
134.5 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: any consultation between the Applicant and the Parish Council, and the hours of operation at the site.
134.6 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the action which could be taken if planning conditions were breached at an application site.
134.7 Members considered the representation from Steven Hopkins who spoke on behalf of the Objector.
134.8 The Planning Lawyer and the Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the outcome of the judicial review of the application previously presented to Committee, and the application of Planning Policies.
134.9 Members considered the representation from Alan Valentine who spoke as the Applicant.
134.10 The Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including: any alternative sites considered, the plans in place for the existing operating site, the reason for the lack of consultation with the Parish Council, whether any pre-application planning advice had been sought, the design and appearance of the properties, any proposed plans for highway improvements, the potential increase in the number of vehicle movements at the site, the operating hours of the site, and the planned timescale for works to commence should planning permission be approved.
134.11 A break was taken from 10:55am until 11:14am.
134.12 Members considered the representation from Councillor Arthey who spoke as the Ward Member.
134.13 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: how long the location had been in employment or industrial use.
134.14 The Case Officer provided clarification to Members regarding the location of the machinery storage area and the red line plan shown in the presentation.
134.15 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the location shown would be considered as agricultural land or open countryside.
134.16 Members debated the application on issues including: the principle of development, the need to support economic growth and productivity, the application of the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework,
134.17 The Chief Planning Officer provided clarification to Members regarding the application of the policies within the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
134.18 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the location of the site, and the suitability of the land for employment use.
134.19 Councillor McCraw proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation contained in the tabled papers.
134.20 Councillor Owen seconded the proposal.
By a vote of 6 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission/ for the following reasons: -
The proposed employment site is unsustainably located in the countryside, outside of any Built-Up Area Boundary and outside of any allocated site for such a use, where development such as this would not normally be approved.
At its closest point, the built-up area boundary of Cross Green is approximately 400 metres from the site, separated by agricultural fields and the ponds and moat of Cross Green Farm. There are no pedestrian or cycle routes from the site into Cross Green. Moreover, the A1141 that links the site and Cross Green is a national speed limit road that lacks any lighting. Additionally, the site’s relationship with the other settlements of Cockfield is further removed, at 4.6km to Great Green, 1.8km to Windsor Green and 3km to Crowbrook. For these reasons, the site is not adjacent to or well related to the existing patterns of development for any hinterland village or core village. There is no proven local need within the proposal that is associated with Cross Green or the other settlements that make up Cockfield and any additional employment opportunities are minimal and delayed.
The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policies CS2, CS11 and CS15 and no satisfactory justification, even within the context of adopted employment policies, has been provided to depart from these policies.