Minutes:
10.1 Item 7B
Application DC/21/04476
Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access to be considered) – Erection of 14 no. dwellings comprising: 5 no. two bedroom units; 7 no. three bedroom units; and 2 no. four bedroom units
Site Location WETHERINGSETT SUM BROCKFORD – Land, Norwich Road, Wetheringsett Cum Brockford, Part in the Parish of Stoke Ash and Thwaite, Suffolk
Applicant Pryde Homes Ltd
10.2 Councillor Eburne left the meeting at 12:35pm before the commencement of application number DC/21/04476.
10.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the location and layout of the site, the previous extant planning permission granted in October 2020, the increased number of proposed dwellings at the site compared to the previous application, the content of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of approval as detailed in the committee report.
10.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether officers were made aware when the previous permission was granted that there may be an increased number of dwellings at the site and how this increase would relate to the affordable housing requirement.
10.5 Members considered the representation from Chris Collins who spoke as the applicant.
10.6 The Case Officer and the Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including the insufficient flood risk information.
10.7 The Chair read out statements from Ward Members Councillor Burn and Councillor Stringer who were unable to attend the meeting.
10.8 Councillor Field proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
10.9 Members debated the application on issues including: road safety concerns, sustainability and the layout of the site.
10.10 Councillor Passmore seconded the proposal.
10.11 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the lack of drainage and flood risk information, and the increase in the proposed number of dwellings.
10.12 The Area Planning Manager provided details to Members on some minor amendments to the officer recommendation.
By a unanimous vote:
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused planning permission for the following reasons:
1. REASON FOR REFUSAL - UNSUSTAINABLE LOCATION
The proposal is located in the countryside where the development of the new dwellings would not materially enhance or maintain the vitality of the rural community. Future occupants will, moreover, be likely to be reliant upon the private car to access services, facilities and employment. The District Council has an evidenced supply of land for housing in excess of 9years and has taken steps to boost significantly the supply of homes in sustainable locations. On this basis the proposal would not promote sustainable development and would be contrary to the adopted policies of the development plan which seek to direct the majority of new development to towns and key service centres listed in the Core Strategy 2008 with some provision to meet local needs in primary and secondary villages under policy CS1. In the countryside development is to be restricted having regard to policy CS2 and it is considered that in the circumstances of this application the direction of new housing development to more sustainable locations is of greater weight than the delivery of these additional dwellings in a less sustainable location. Having regard to the significant supply of land for homes in the District it is considered that the objectives of paragraph 60 of the NPPF are being secured and that on the considerations of this application the objective to boost significantly the supply of homes should be given reduced weight. Whilst the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development is applicable to the application it is considered that the development of this site would cause adverse impacts to the proper planning of the District having regard to the above-mentioned development plan objectives to secure planned development in more sustainable locations rather than piecemeal development in less sustainable locations which significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of this development. As such the proposal is not acceptable in principle, being contrary to paragraphs 8 and 11 of the NPPF (2021), Policy H7 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998), Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Core Strategy (2008) and Policy FC1 and FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012).
2. REASON FOR REFUSAL - INSUFFICIENT FLOOD RISK INFORMATION PROVIDED
The applicant has not provided sufficient flood risk and surface water treatment and disposal information with the application, to the satisfaction of the Lead Local Flood Authority and Local Planning Authority. The current proposal, therefore, presents a flood risk contrary to the provisions of section 14 of the NPPF.
Supporting documents: