Minutes:
34.1 Item 6A
Application DC/20/03083
Proposal Full Planning Application – Conversion, repair, and extension of existing farm buildings to form 5no. dwellings, erection of garage, the demolition of buildings (including the metal clad barn), provision of new vehicular access to The Street and associated landscaping.
Site Location ERWARTON – Erwarton Hall Farm Yard, The Street, Erwarton, Ipswich, Suffolk IP9 1LQ
Proposer JRH Veenbaas And Co
34.2 Councillor Davis confirmed that he would remain on the Committee for the item, and would not speak as Ward Member.
34.3 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed access and parking plans, the potential heritage impact of the development, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the report.
34.4 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the reasons for the recommendation of refusal, the level of heritage harm detailed in the various consultee comments, the proposed glazing, local education and healthcare provisions, public transport links, the proposed weatherboarding, and the pre-application advice provided.
34.5 Members considered the representation from William Wrinch who spoke on behalf of Erwarton Parish Meeting.
34.6 Members considered the representation from Mark Best who spoke as an Objector.
34.7 The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the location of the application in the area which had recently been refused by the Planning Inspectorate.
34.8 Members considered the representation from John Fell-Clark who spoke as a Supporter.
34.9 The Supporter responded to questions from Members on issues including: the suitability of the proposed materials.
34.10 Members considered the representation from Elizabeth Beighton who spoke as the Agent.
34.11 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether any agricultural activities would take place on the development site, the number of access points, whether the access would be shared with agricultural vehicles, and the pre-application advice provided to them.
34.12 The Planning Lawyer provided clarification to Members that pre-application advice was understood to be without prejudice and subject to consultation.
34.13 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members regarding the size of the development and whether there would be any increase in the height of the existing buildings.
34.14 Members debated the application on issues including: the reason for the application being referred to Committee, the pre-application advise provided to the applicant, the heritage impact of the development, the proposed design of the dwellings including the glazing, the differing responses from professional consultees, the safety of agricultural vehicles operating in close proximity to residential dwellings, and the sustainability of the location.
34.15 Councillor Davis proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
34.16 Councillor McCraw seconded the motion.
34.17 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to further questions from Members on issues including: permitted development rights in respect of agricultural buildings, and whether the planning policies being applied were applicable to new building schemes or conversions.
34.18 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the potential heritage harm and the benefit of the development to the public.
By a vote of 6 votes for and 5 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the character, setting and significance of the Grade II* Erwarton Hall, its Grade I Gatehouse and the undesignated heritage asset barns through the fundamental change of use from a working farmyard to residential dwellings.
The proposed unsympathetic glazing and inappropriate materiality as well as the removal of hedgerow and the proposed access track across an existing paddock would create harm to these assets as well as to the AONB landscape.
The proposal site is in an unsustainable location, isolated from services, with poor pedestrian access, causing a heavy reliance on the use of private motor vehicles.
The application fails to secure a contribution towards affordable housing provision, this is contrary to Local Plan policy HS09.
The application has also failed to secure a proportionate financial contribution towards visitor management measures for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries as per the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).
The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to Policies CR02, CN01, CR19 and CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006), as well as Policies CS2, CS15 and CS19 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraphs 80, 176, 177, 199, 202 and 203 of the NPPF (2021).
Supporting documents: