Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

 

 

Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public

Minutes:

Schedule of Planning Applications

 

Application Number

Representations from

 

 

0195/16

Ray Studd (Parish Council)

 

Jackie Ward (Objector)

5024/16

Ray Studd (Parish Council)

 

Jackie Ward (Objector)

 

Item 1

Application          0195/16

Proposal             Outline application for residential development of up to 28 dwellings and a new vehicular access of the B1115.  All matters to be reserved with the exception of the main site access.

Site Location      STOWWPLAND – Land west of Thorney Green Road.

Applicant            Newhall Properties

 

The Planning Officer informed Members that the correct name of the Applicant was New Hall Properties (Eastern) Ltd.

 

The following corrections were made:

 

·       Paragraph 22, page 12, the Council adopted its Core Strategy in December 2012 and not February 2014

·       Paragraph 23, page 13, SHMA base supply for 2017 to 2022 = 3.9 years and not 4.0 years.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the two sites to be considered at the meeting were adjacent and that the funding from Section 106 contributions would cover both sites.

 

The Planning Officer began the presentation by referring Members to the tabled papers and said that no further third party representations had been received, which brought the total of objections to 139 and one of support. He said the tabled papers included responses from Suffolk County Council Highways and the Heritage Officer and that based on these responses two further conditions had been added to the recommendation.

 

Members queried the distance between Stowupland and the A14 bridge to Stowmarket and the Officer advised that currently it was approximately 300 metres but if the development was approved it would reduce to approximately 170 metres. 

 

Members requested clarification of the proposed improvements to the A1120 / B1115 junction and it was explained that Suffolk County Council Highways Department required mitigation and that a condition had been added to the recommendation to accommodate this.

 

Some Members felt that the proposed 20% affordable housing was not sufficient and the normal percentage for a rural development was up to 35%.

 

Ray Studd, said that the Parish Council objected on two main concerns.  Firstly, the number of dwellings would be overwhelming for a small rural community such as Stowupland.  If approved the total number of households in the village would increase by 20% and if current approved developments were taken into consideration together with planned applications the total increase of households could be up to 40%.  This was a huge expansion for a rural community such as Stowupland and the concern of the Parish Council was that the infrastructure would not be able to sustain the increase in residents.  Secondly the village would lose its character and identity especially as the proposed site would end the separation between Stowmarket and Stowupland.  He felt that it was important for Members to consider the loss of the rural character, impact on the surrounding countryside and the impact of the increase in traffic of this application on Stowupland.

 

Jackie Ward, an objector, said she spoke on behalf of many residents in Stowupland.  She said the village was close to completing a Neighbourhood Plan and some weight should be given to this.  Questionnaires completed during the Neighbourhood Planning process showed how important the separation of the village from Stowmarket was, and if approved this gap would be bridged.  It would also ruin the broad views across the countryside.  The pedestrian route from Stowmarket to the village was used by many children attending the High School and the increased traffic generated would severely impact on their safety.  She said that the indicative layout was an urban design and totally out of character to a rural village.   She urged the Committee to undertake a site visit.

 

In response to Members’ questions she explained how the footpaths connected the village with Stowmarket and said the footpaths and cycle ways were very busy.  She said many pupils travelled to Stowupland High School using these routes.

 

Councillor Keith Welham, Ward Member, said he was amazed that a site visit had not been scheduled for this application.  He requested that Members visited Stowupland to view this site and other sites planned for development as he felt that this application should not be decided in isolation. Councillor Welham reminded Members that there were policies within the Stowmarket Area Action Plan (SAAP) which referred to maintaining the separation between Stowmarket and Stowupland.  Also, the Neighbourhood Plan Landscaping Advisor had emphasised the need to maintain the separation.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required that developments retain sustainability within the community and this did not only include walking distance to shops or bus services, but also access to health, transport, social and educational needs.  He said that health provision was already at full capacity and that Stowupland High School was oversubscribed.  Councillor Welham said that the financial contributions such as Community Investment Levy (CIL) were no good if there was no scope for expansion.  The access point to the site was across the heavily used pedestrian and cycle path and up to 200 children would use the path on a regular basis.  The heavy flow of traffic on the B1115 created queues at junctions and would make access from the application site dangerous for pedestrians as they would be crossing the access to the site when using the path.  He disagreed with the assessment made by Suffolk County Council Highways and felt that the mitigation from the Gladman Development and this application would not be enough to make this junction safe. Councillor Welham continued to explain the complex traffic situation in Stowupland and requested Members to make a site visit to assess the situation.   He said that the separation between the town and village gave a sense of arriving somewhere different and that the views across the application site to the Gipping Valley would all be destroyed by the development. 

 

Members debated the application and the request for a site visit.  It was felt by many that this would be helpful and Councillors Jessica Fleming and Wendy Marchant proposed and seconded a motion for a site visit respectively.

 

By 4 votes to 2

 

Decision – Application deferred for a site visit.

 

Item 2

Application          5024/16

Proposal             Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of up to 85 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, open space, and surface water attenuation

Site Location      STOWUPLAND – Land west of Thorney Green Road.

Applicant            Newhall Properties

 

 

Members agreed that since the application was adjacent to application 0195/16 it should also be deferred pending a site visit.  This was proposed and seconded by Councillors Jessica Fleming and Wendy Marchant respectively.

 

By 4 votes to 2

 

Decision – Application deferred for a site visit, date and time to be agreed

 

 

……………………………………….

                                                                        Chairman

Supporting documents: