Minutes:
76.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/02956
Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access to be considered, all other matters reserved Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Erection of 44 dwellings, including bungalows, affordable housing, open space, landscaping; and associated infrastructure
Site Location ELMSWELL - Land East of Warren Lane, and West of Cresmedow Way, Elmswell, Suffolk
Applicant JD and RJ Baker Farms Ltd
76.2 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that an updated constraints map had been provided, and provided an update regarding the Elmswell Neighbourhood Plan which had progressed during the time of the application. The Area Planning Manager then presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the previous planning application history at the site, the housing land supply, and the Officer recommendation of refusal.
76.3 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the impact of the adjacent quarry on the development, the effect of the 10 year housing land supply on the application, the response from the minerals team regarding the quarry, the current occupants of the employment sites on Warren Lane, and the reasons for the amended Officer recommendation since the application was previously presented to Committee.
76.4 Members considered the representation from Peter Dow who spoke on behalf of Elmswell Parish Council.
76.5 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the part of the site allocated in the Joint Local Plan is proposed to be allocated in the Elmswell Neighbourhood Plan.
76.6 Members considered the representation from James Bailey who spoke as the Agent.
76.7 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proposed number of properties in the original application and whether extending the scheme improved the quality of the site, and the proposed housing mix.
76.8 The Area Planning Manager confirmed to Members the proposed number of properties detailed in the report.
76.9 The Agent responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the location of the proposed footpaths and existing public rights of way.
76.10 The Chair read out a statement from Ward Member, Councillor Geake, who was unable to attend the meeting, supporting the Officer recommendation.
76.11 Members considered the representation from Ward Member, Councillor Mansel, who spoke in support of the Officer recommendation.
76.12 Members debated the application on issues including: the density of the development, the boundary of the site and the existing Joint Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan, the sustainability of the site, and the adjacent quarry.
76.13 Councillor Stringer proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
76.14 Councillor Meyer seconded the proposal.
76.15 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the housing mix, and the locations of the site.
By a vote of 5 votes for and 1 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to REFUSE Planning Permission based on the following reasons and such other reasons as he considers fit:
The proposed form of development would intrude into the countryside, and would not add to the overall quality of the area but would foreseeably impact on the character and appearance of the rolling countryside location, having regard to the introduction of new buildings and activity on the valley side.
On this basis the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 126 and 130 of the NPPF and contrary to policyCS5 of the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to safeguard local distinctiveness. The development of this countryside location would moreover be contrary to policy H7 of the adopted Mid Suffolk Local Plan 1998which seeks to control development outside settlement boundaries in the Plan in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside.
Furthermore the proposal risks harm by reason of risk to pedestrian safety, and as such fails to comply with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 110 b) and 112 c).
By reason of harm resulting from the intrusion into the countryside, and harm to pedestrian safety, the proposal fails to fulfil the requirements of sustainable development. As such the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Core Strategy CS1 and CS2.
As such the proposal is not acceptable in principle, being contrary to paragraphs 8 and 11 of the NPPF(2021), Policy H7 and T10 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998), Policies CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008) and Policy FC1 and FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012). The harms identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the very modest benefits.
Supporting documents: