Minutes:
75.1 Item 6A
Application DC/20/01904
Proposal Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved, access to be considered) – Erection of up to 166 residential dwellings, a purpose built care home for up to 60 bedrooms, and associated infrastructure including landscaping, public open-space, car parking and means of access off Church Field Road
Site Location CHILTON – Land On The North Side Of, Church Field Road, Chilton Industrial Estate, Chilton, Suffolk
Applicant Caverswall Enterprises Ltd and West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
75.2 Councillor Osborne left the meeting at 09:49am.
75.3 Councillor Maybury confirmed that she would be speaking as a Ward Member for the application and would therefore not be taking part in the debate or the vote.
75.4 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, the planning constraints of the site, the vehicular access and pedestrian connectivity to the site, proposed ecology mitigation and landscaping plans, the proposed height of the buildings, proposed highways improvements, the loss of existing designated employment land, and the assessment of heritage harm. The Case Officer outlined the contents of the tabled papers including the amendment to the proposal received from the applicants, and the additional reason for refusal which forms part of the Officers recommendation for refusal as detailed in the officer report.
75.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the definition of a nitrate vulnerable zone, the landscaping plans, whether there was an identified housing need in the area, whether there was a relationship between the applicants and the proposed care home and medical centre including the ownership of the site, the viability of the site in relation to the land allocation, and the potential heritage harm.
75.6 Members considered the representation from Christine Hagan who spoke on behalf of Chilton Parish Council.
75.7 Members considered the representation from Jan Osborne and Lady Val Hart of Chilton who spoke as Objectors.
75.8 Members considered the representation from Jamie Dempster who spoke on behalf of the Agent.
75.9 The Agent, and Guy Marsden, Highbridge Properties, responded to questions from Members on issues including: the viability of the site, and the regulations regarding care homes.
75.10 Members considered the representation from Suffolk County Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton.
75.11 Members considered the representations from Ward Members Councillor Clive Arthey and Councillor Margaret Maybury.
75.12 Members debated the application on issues including: the designated employment of the site and lack of marketing of the employment land, the potential heritage harm, the site location outside of the settlement boundary, and the details of the independent reports.
75.13 Councillor McCraw proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation, and including the additional reason for refusal as detailed in the tabled papers.
75.14 Councillor Ayres seconded the motion.
75.15 Members considered to debate the application on issues including: the suitability of the location of the care home, and heritage issues.
By a vote of 9 votes for
It was RESOLVED:
1. That the application be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:-
i. The application proposes residential development in the countryside where contrary to policy CS2 the circumstances of the application are not exceptional and there is no proven justifiable need for the development proposed.
Furthermore, the application proposes the development of land safeguarded for employment purposes, where no sustained marketing campaign has been undertaken at a realistic asking price, and where the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the land is inherently unsuitable or not viable for all forms of employment related use, contrary to policy EM24.
ii. The proposed development would lead to a considerable level of harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets at Chilton Hall (comprising Grade II* Chilton Hall, Grade II Garden Wall to East of Chilton Hall, and Grade II Chilton Hall registered park and garden) and a level of harm to the significance of the Grade I Church of St Mary that would be not far short of substantial.
The development would not respect the features that contribute positively to the setting and significance of those assets, contrary to policies CN06, CN14, and CS15. Furthermore, the public benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified, making the proposal contrary to the heritage policies of the NPPF and independently providing a clear reason for refusal on this ground.
iii. In the absence of a signed s106 Agreement or similar undertaking to provide for appropriate obligations, there would be an unacceptable impact on local infrastructure and lack of affordable housing, contrary to policies CS19 and CS21.
iv. In the absence of a revised air quality assessment to consider the impact on proposed residential receptors of operational phase emissions from the consented Sudbury Standby Generating Facility under application DC/21/00357, an assessment cannot be made as to whether an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers can be achieved in terms of air quality as required under paragraph 130(f) of the NPPF 2021.
v. The application development conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.
2. In the event that an appeal against the refusal of planning permission is received, delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to defend that appeal for the reasons set out under 1. above, being amended and/or varied as may be required.
Supporting documents: