Minutes:
77.1 7A
Application DC/23/00305
Proposal Full Planning Application – Change of use of land for grazing of horses, and erection of stables with new vehicular access
Site Location Land Adjacent to, 17 Brockford Road, Mendlesham, IP14 5SG
Applicant Moss and Humphreys
77.2 The Case Officer provided details to Members of the content of the Tabled Papers. An additional email received from the Heritage Team was circulated to Members to read. The Case Officer explained to Members how the comments from Heritage impacted the application.
77.3 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, the site constraints, the Mendlesham Neighbourhood Plan (NP), the layout and proposed block plan of the site, the boundary treatments, the proposed landscaping scheme, existing access to the site, the location of adjacent dwellings and the view of the site, and the recommendation of approval subject to conditions as details in the Officer report.
77.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: access to the site by larger vehicles, the previous planning applications at the site, the weight which should be given the Neighbourhood Plan, and the allocation of the site as visually important.
77.5 The Chief Planning Officer provided clarification to Members regarding the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework and how this should be considered.
77.6 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the location of the heritage assets, the size of the site, the boundary between the site and the adjacent cemetery, the Heritage comments regarding the orientation of the stable block, the existing pedestrian access to the site, and the changes made to this area in the revised 2022 Neighbourhood Plan.
77.7 Members considered the representation from Paul Allen who spoke on behalf of Mendlesham Parish Council.
77.8 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues regarding the effects of the recent flooding in the village.
77.9 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members and advised that the age or condition of the horses was not a material planning consideration.
77.10 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the different types of outbuildings and applicable permitted developments rights.
77.11 Members considered the representation from Ben Elvin who spoke as the Agent.
77.12 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the permeability of the hardstanding for the parking area, the proposed lighting plans, the potential for the stable to be relocated as suggested by the Heritage team, and the potential for future development at the site.
77.13 The Chief Planning Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members regarding the conditions which could be applied to the application to restrict use to non-commercial only.
77.14 Members considered the representation from Councillor Andrew Stringer who spoke as the Ward Member.
77.15 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of objections, and the inclusion of the view in the revised Neighbourhood Plan.
77.16 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the recent appeal decision in respect of the adjacent site, and the level of heritage harm and if a level of public benefit was required.
77.17 The Agent responded to a question regarding the heritage harm and commented on the late response from the Heritage team.
77.18 Members debated the application on issues including the importance of neighbourhood plans, the preservation of heritage assets, the lack of accessible bridleways near the site, the lateness of the response from the Heritage team, and the benefits of deferring the application to enable further consideration of the details contained in the response.
77.19 Members debated the benefits of a site inspection to enable a better understanding of the impact of the development on the heritage views.
77.20 Councillor Hadingham proposed that the application be deferred to enable a site inspection to be undertaken. Councillor Davies seconded the proposal.
77.21 Members continued to debate the application on issues including the neighbourhood plan, the heritage view, the advice received from the Heritage team, potential biodiversity net gain, the layout of the site, and the reasons for the site visit.
By a vote of 7 votes for and 1 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be deferred to enable a site inspection to be carried out to review the size and siting of the stable building, with regards to the heritage harm and view 10, and the application to return to Committee.
Supporting documents: