Minutes:
56.1 Item 7D
Application DC/22/03423
Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access to be considered) Erection of 1no 1.5 storey dwelling and construction of new vehicular access.
Site Location ELMSWELL – Land Adj 10 Crown Mill, Elmswell, IP30 9GF
Applicant Elmswell Parish Council
56.2 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, the reasons for the site being considered public open space, the current uses of the site by local residents, the requirements regarding open space detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework, alternative open space provision in the area, the visibility splay, the privacy provision for the existing dwelling adjacent to the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal.
56.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the ownership of the proposed development site.
56.4 The Chief Planning Officer and the Planning Lawyer provided clarification regarding a recent decision made by Mid Suffolk District Council Cabinet regarding development on an area of public open space in Elmswell, and advised that that decision would not have any effect on this application.
56.5 The Case Officer responded to further queries from Members on issues including: the previous plans by Elmswell Parish Council for a footbridge to be built on the land, whether the land had previously been designated as public open space, and the distance from the adjacent dwellings to the site.
56.6 Members considered the representation from Peter Dow who spoke on behalf of the applicant.
56.8 Members considered the representation from Ward Member Councillor Geake who spoke in support of the application.
56.9 Councillor Mansel left the meeting at 15:08pm.
56.10 Members debated the application on issues including: whether the site was a designated public open space, and the alternative public open space provision in the area.
56.11 Councillor Eburne proposed that the application be approved.
56.12 The Area Planning Manager and the Planning Lawyer confirmed to Members that the site had been designated as open space, and provided clarification of the distance from the site to the existing dwellings and the privacy of the dwellings, and whether consideration should be given to the wider impact of the development.
56.13 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the loss of open space, the existing use of the site by local residents, and the proximity of the site to existing dwellings.
56.14 Councillor Eburne withdrew her proposal of approval.
56.15 Councillor Meyer proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
56.16 Councillor Field seconded the motion.
56.17 The Chief Planning Officer provided clarification to Members regarding the principle of public open space and the requirements of paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
By a vote of 4 votes for and 1 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:-
1. The site subject of this proposal is an existing area of open space and should only be built on if the local authority is satisfied the requirements of paragraph 99 of the NPPF have been met. Insufficient information has been provided to determine whether the proposal accords with the requirements of paragraph 99 of the NPPF. The open space is an intrinsically important amenity space for local residents and community, thereby contributing to their well-being. Its loss demonstrably adversely affects the character and appearance of the settlement and open space which provide important facilities or amenities for the local community. The proposed development is considered to contravene Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998) Policies FC1, FC1.1, CS5, H3, H15, H16,SB2 and GP1 and paragraphs 8 and 99 of the NPPF.
2. The application site, and in particular the private amenity space of the proposed dwelling would be overlooked by first floor windows of neighbouring properties, detrimental to the privacy and amenity of the future residents. It is not considered that this issue could be remedied within any subsequent reserved matters application. As such the proposal fails to provide a high standard of amenity for future users, contrary to paragraph 130(f) of the NPPF.
Supporting documents: