Minutes:
119.1 Item 7B
Application DC/23/05045
Proposal Full Planning Application - Erection of 2No detached dwellings and associated parking including landscaping, utilising public house access
Site Location Six Bells Inn, Church Road, Felsham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP30 0PJ
Applicant Cordage 44 Ltd
119.2 A break was taken from 12:39pm until 13:30pm, after application number DC/23/01323 and before the commencement of application number DC/23/05045.
119.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the content of the tabled papers, the location of the site, the site constraints including potential impact on heritage assets, the proposed block plan including parking, the proposed Electric Vehicle charging bays, access to the site, the proposed plans and elevations, the existing access to the public house and the layout of the existing outbuildings, the history of planning applications at the site including appeal decisions, the previously proposed layouts and elevations, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the tabled papers.
119.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the previous decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the potential harm to the boundary wall, and the harm to the setting and conservation area.
119.5 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the previous reasons for refusals considered by the Planning Inspectorate at previous appeals, and confirmed that the amendments contained in the current proposal and policy changes could be considered however the Inspectors decision stands.
119.6 In response to a question from Members, the Planning Lawyer provided confirmation of the legal situation regarding the current appeal submitted for non-determination, and how the outcome of the decision today would be affected by that appeal decision.
119.7 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including; the number of car parking spaces per dwelling, the number of trees to be removed and plans for replanting, any proposed plans for resurfacing of the access area, the surface of the driveways, the housing density of the site, and highway visibility.
119.8 Members considered the representation from Simon Garrod Felsham Parish Council.
119.9 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: the community use of the adjacent green space, the ownership of the adjacent Public House, and the community use of the adjacent meadow.
119.10 The Case officer confirmed to the Committee that the car park forms part of the site however the Public House is not included within the red line.
119.11Members considered the representation from Nicholas Panayi who spoke as an Objector.
119.12 The Objector responded to questions from Members regarding whether the Public House has an outdoor area.
119.13 The Area Planning Manager responded to Members questions regarding the comments received from Suffolk County Council Highways and the various comments and objections received in respect of each application.
119.14 Members considered the representation from Councillor Nicky Wilshere who spoke as the Ward Member.
119.15 The Ward Member and the Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the history of the Public House ownership, the area defined as an Asset of Community Value, and the estimated vehicle movements at the site.
119.16 Members debated the application on issues including: the previous applications and appeal decisions, the potential harm to the conservation area and heritage assets, and the proposed reasons for refusal.
119.17 The Area Planning Manager confirmed the response received from the Heritage Team and advised that as there had been no objection to this application, conservation area harm had not been included as a reason for refusal.
119.18 Members continued to debate the potential harm to the conservation area including the listed buildings and green spaces, the loss of landscaping and trees, and highways issues.
119.19 Councillor Rowland proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation contained in the tabled papers.
119.20 Members debated the application further on issues including: the comments received from the Heritage Team and how this varied from the comments received on the previous applications, the planning inspectorate’s decision regarding heritage harm, and the potential loss of community amenities.
119.21 The Area Planning Manager and the Planning Lawyer provided clarification to Members regarding the reasons for refusal, and which additional reasons could be added and defended in the event of an appeal.
119.22 Councillor Matthissen proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation, and additionally authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to seek further advice regarding heritage, highways and loss of facilities.
119.23 Councillor Warboys seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to either: REFUSE planning permission; or, in the event that the appeal has begun, agree putative reasons for refusal, for the following reasons, or for reasons as required by the Chief Planning Officer: -
The current proposal would involve the erection of 2 no. substantial, detached dwellings, with relatively large built footprints, set in relatively small plots, positioned close together, at the head of a new proposed access road, on existing undeveloped land and space, noted for its spacious quality, within the Felsham Conservation Area.
Although set back from the street scene, there would be glimpsed views of the proposed dwellings through the access drive and through gaps in the vegetation from Church Road and through gaps between buildings on Bury Road. The proposed dwellings would also be widely visible from the properties which surround the application site, including the retained outdoor space associated with the Six Bells Public House.
The proposal would noticeably introduce a significant bulk of compact modern development into this current undeveloped area of important visual space, being significantly harmful to its existing character and quality and positive contribution to the existing built environment of the village. The proposal would also result in an overall basic, bulky and cramped appearance which would conflict with the spaciously arranged variation of traditional buildings within the locality.
The site currently forms part of a pleasant green undeveloped space in a prominent location within the village settlement and Conservation Area and, through the proposed development, the spacious quality of the site would be significantly eroded and a conflicting and incongruous form of development would be introduced. It is, therefore, considered that the proposed development would result in demonstrable harm to, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and quality, and visual amenity, of the village’s built environment.
It is, therefore, concluded that the current proposal conflicts with paragraphs 128, 131, 135, 137 and 139 of the NPPF and fails to accord with the provisions of current adopted development plan policy LP24, which taken together seek to ensure well-designed and beautiful, attractive and healthy places and the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting.
And in addition, that authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, to seek further heritage advice and with regards to loss of facility contrary to policy LP28, and to re-assess the highways advice, and if expedient then add putative reason(s) for refusal.
Supporting documents: