Minutes:
30.1 Item 7B
Application DC/21/06379
Proposal Full Planning Application - Erection of 19No dwellings (including 6No Affordable) and construction of new vehicular accesses.
Site Location Land East Of, Ashfield Road, Elmswell, Suffolk
Applicant Hartog Hutton Ltd
30.2 A short break was taken between 11:14am and 11:22am before the commencement of application number DC/21/06379
30.3 Councillor Mellen declared himself at the Suffolk County Council Member for Elmswell.
30.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including the location of the site, the constraints of the site, the location of the site in context to Elmswell, the site layout plan, the proposed elevations, and the Officer recommendation for refusal.
30.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proximity of Grove Farm to the proposed site.
30.6 Members considered the representation from Mr. Peter Dow who spoke on behalf of Elmswell Parish Council.
30.7 Members considered the representation from Mr. Phil Cobbold who spoke as the Agent.
30.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Sarah Mansel who spoke as the Ward Member.
30.9 Councillor Mansel read out a statement from Councillor Helen Geake who also spoke as the Ward Member.
30.10 Members debated the application on issues including: the lack of footpath connectivity to the site, the current housing supply, developments on the outskirts of settlement boundaries, the Parish Council’s comments, and the design of the proposal.
30.11 Councillor Muller proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
30.12 Councillor Warboys seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
(1) That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to REFUSE Planning Permission based on the following reasons and such other reasons as he considers fit:
1. The proposal is in a countryside location where the development of these 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 9 years and has taken steps to significantly boost 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 directed to more sustainable locations 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 significantly boost the supply of homes should be given reduced weight.
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 which are consistent for the purposes of this application with the objectives of the NPPF to secure planned development in more sustainable locations rather than piecemeal development in less sustainable locations. Those adverse and unacceptable impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of this development.
On this basis the proposal is not acceptable in principle, being contrary to paragraphs 8 and 11 of the NPPF (2021), saved 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. The site is an uncultivated grassed surrounded by hedges and being situated in the junction of Ashfield Rd and Grove Lane, it occupies a prominent position in the locality, therefore although it does not bear any significant vegetation or contains any mature trees, its openness together with its positioning immediately adjacent to the open playing field to the east, contributes positively to the natural landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area. The undeveloped area also marks the gradual transition into the open countryside and the fields beyond, the proposed development would close this gap and would have a significant urbanising impact upon semi-rural character of the site.
The negative visual harm upon the street scene would be significant, and the open character and attendant rural sense of place would be lost, and on this basis the proposal fails to protect or conserve intrinsic character of the countryside. As such the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of Policy CL8, T9, T10, GP1 of the adopted Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998), Policy CS5 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (2008), and chapter 15 of the NPPF (2018).
3. The application site is within Flood Zone 1 and partly within an area identified as at risk of surface water flooding. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails to adequately demonstrate the extent of flood risk affecting the site. Furthermore, the NPPF requires for all flood sources that a sequential approach to development is taken, whereby it must be demonstrated that there is no reasonably available alternative land at lower risk of flooding that could accommodate the development instead of the site proposed. The Council considers that there are reasonably available alternative sites across the district and there are no reasonable planning reasons to reduce the search area to this area or just the site. On this basis the sequential test has been failed.
Pursuant to the AMR data and recent permissions within Countryside Villages (as defined in Mid Suffolk Local Plan Policy CS1), the Council consider that there are reasonably available alternative sites as defined by the NPPF. On this basis the sequential test has been failed.
The proposal is contrary to Mid Suffolk's Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) policies FC1 and FC1.1, Core Strategy (2008) policy CS4 and paragraphs 159, 167 and 168 of the NPPF.
4. The proposal fails to provide a safe and secure access onto highways. Furthermore, the details provided fail to provide suitable visibility splays required to meet current highway standards/guidance. Suitable visibility splays that can be secured are essential to avoid significant risk of highway danger. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that reduced visibility splays can be accepted. On this basis there is a risk to highway safety and the proposal fails to meet policy T10 of the Local Plan 1998 and provisions of the NPPF in this regard.
5. The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to Grove Farmhouse a Grade II Listed Building and its appreciation and the setting of Buttonhaugh Green. On that basis the application would fail to enhance and preserve the significance of a designated heritage asset when great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation in accordance with paragraphs 196, 197, 199 and 202 and contrary to policies HB1 of the adopted Local Plan 1998 and CS5 of the adopted Core Strategy 2008.
(2) And the following informative notes as summarised and those as may be deemed necessary:
· Proactive working statement
Supporting documents: