Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
Minutes:
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
Planning Application Number |
Representations from |
0460/17
|
William Sargeant (Botesdale Parish Council Phil Cobbold (Agent) |
0030/17 |
Dina Bedwell (Debenham Parish Council) John Garrard (Objector) Martin Price (Agent) Jeff Horner (Flooding Consultant) |
Item 1
Application Number: 0460/17
Proposal: Application for Outline Planning Permission (with all matters other than means of access reserved) for residential development of 40 dwellings with associated improvements to public footpaths, creation of open space and provision of woodland for use by primary school.
Site Location: BOTESDALE – Land at Back Hills, Botesdale
Applicant: Burgess Homes Ltd
The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee and outlined an additional condition to the Officers Recommendation to include a provision for Superfast Broadband to be provided.
Members’ raised questions around the provision of the woodland and possible access to the school, the size and composition of the footpath for possible cycle use and that no response had been received from the Planning Policy Team as well as the designation of the land in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
William Sargeant, Botesdale Parish Council said that the application site had been included in the initial SHLAA but that in the updated Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) it was discounted for development as it would result in the loss of open space. He continued by saying that other sites were available in Botesdale that would be potentially suitable to development instead of the proposed application.
The Senior Development Management Planning Officer said that the SHELAA was currently being consulted upon but that as it was still in a draft form it could only be afforded limited weight.
Phil Cobbold, Agent, said that the development would provide significant economic benefits to the area as well as an improved footpath and significant Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution. He said that the development was sustainable and that none of the statutory consultees had raised any objections to the development.
The agent responded to Members’ questions that the possible link to the primary school through the woodland would require staffing but this would be brought forward at the reserved matters stage.
Councillor Derek Osborne, Ward Member, said that he had concerns over the access to the site due to it being in the de-restricted speed limit zone and that the passing places along Back Hills bordering the site were inadequate.
Councillor Jessica Fleming, Ward Member, said that she shared the same concerns as Councillor Osborne over the access to the site and that better cycling access should be provided on the site. She outlined how the SHELAA set aside the land as a public open space and asked that the design of the site include open space.
The Ward Members and Case Officer responded to questions on whether there was any paving on Back Hills, that there was no formal access onto Back Hills from the application site and whether the footpath could be widened to accommodate shared Cycle access.
During the debate members raised concerns about the amount of traffic that was using Hall Lane and that it had become a rat run to Redgrave and that the access onto Hall Lane was concerning being within the de-restricted speed limit area.
Councillor Derrick Haley proposed that Planning Permission be granted with the addition that an informative note was sent to Suffolk County Councils Highways Department to ask that the 30 MPH speed limit zone be extended beyond the proposed access to the application site on Hall Lane.
Members’ continued to discuss the application looking at the impact of the loss of Grassland and the ecological impact on Skylark nesting areas and what mitigation could be brought forward.
Councillor John Field said that the site was well related to the village and that the potential link to the school was reasonable and seconded the proposal from Councillor Haley with the added condition that ecological mitigation including Skylark mitigation be conditioned, to which the proposer agreed.
Members’ continued by discussing the role of cycling access and Councillor Sarah Mansel asked that an additional condition be added to allow a scheme of cycle access which was subsequently agreed by the proposer and seconder.
By a unanimous vote
Decision –
1. That the Corporate Manager for Growth and Sustainable Planning be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, on terms to his satisfaction, to provide: -
· 35% Affordable Housing
· The widening of the public footpath between Nurses House and The Limes
· Gifting of three identified areas of woodland for use by Botesdale and Rickinghall Pre-School (Areas 1&2), and Area 3 to be offered for use to the Botesdale and Rickinghall Community Woodlands as a wildlife woodland
· Scheme of cycle access to the Diss Road and Back Hills to include surfacing and suitability improvements to enable better public cycle access to the development from those highways to be agreed.
2. That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above , that the Corporate Manager for Growth and Sustainable Planning be authorised to grant Planning Permission subject to conditions including:-
· Time limit for reserved matters (standard)
· Definition of reserved matters
· Approved plans
· Quantum of residential development fixed to a maximum of 40 no. dwellings
· Details of external facing and materials details
· Details of surface water drainage scheme
· Details of implementation, maintenance, and management of surface water drainage scheme
· Details of sustainable urban drainage system components and piped networks
· Details of construction surface water management
· Programme of archaeological investigation and post investigation assessment
· External lighting details
· Fire Hydrant provision details
· Details of ecology enhancement measures
· Development to be completed in accordance with ecology details
· Hard landscaping scheme (including boundary treatments and screen/ fencing details)
· Soft landscaping scheme (including identification of existing trees and planting and tree protection measures)
· Details of the estate roads and footpaths
· Provision of visibility splays in accordance with submitted plan
· Construction of carriageways and footpaths prior to occupation
· Parking, manoeuvring, and cycle storage details
· Details of a construction management plan
· Details of the areas to be provided for storage of refuse/recycling
· Scheme of Superfast Broadband TBA
· Scheme of ecology enhancement measures TBA which shall include measures to mitigate and compensate for likely impacts on Skylarks from the development.
3. That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured the Planning Lead – Growth and Sustainable Planning be authorised to refuse Planning Permission, for reason(s) including:-
· Inadequate provision of infrastructure contributions which would fail to provide compensatory benefits to the sustainability of the development and its wider impacts, contrary to the development plan and national planning policy.
4. Informative:
· The local planning authority will invite Suffolk County Council to revisit the Traffic Regulation Order to consider extending the 30MPH zone to the north of the site to promote vehicular safety and access onto Hall Road.
5. That the Corporate Manager be instructed to make a related comment and invitation to SCC regarding the extension of the Traffic Regulation Order 30MPH zone to the north along Hall Road.
Item 2
Application Number: 0030/17
Proposal: Use of land for the erection of up to 25 Dwellings. Formation of Vehicular Access to Little London Hill (revised proposal).
Site Location: DEBENHAM – Land bounded by Derry Brook Lane and Little London Hill, Debenham
Applicant: Park Properties (Anglia) Ltd.
The Case Officer presented the application to the committee with the revised recommendations contained within the late papers.
The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions that Suffolk County Council Highways Authority had proposed that the road be widened and that footways would be provided on the access point of the site. The Case Officer continued by responding to questions on the existing bridge and proposed pedestrian access on the site and clarified that Suffolk County Council as the statutory consultee on flooding were satisfied with the proposal as per the specified conditions.
Dina Campbell, Debenham Parish Council, said that the Parish Council strongly opposed the application citing that the proposed conditions would not mitigate the severe traffic issues. She continued by outlining that the site was not sustainable, that the proximity of the site to the Primary School would increase safety risks and that other sites had been identified in the village by Mid Suffolk District Council and in the Neighbourhood Plan. She concluded that healthcare capacity in the area was full and asked that if a site visit was requested that this happen in school term time.
The Parish Councillor responded to Members’ questions on the access to the school in Debenham and that the Neighbourhood plan was currently in a draft form.
John Garrard, Objector and resident on Little London Hill, said that the summary of representations did not convey the seriousness of the issues and that the access from the application site was dangerous and would make the situation worse. He said that he understood the 5 year land supply situation but this site would cause more problems and asked that the application be refused as it is an inappropriate location.
Martin Price, Applicant, and Jeff Horner, Flooding consultant, said that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year land supply and that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 49 should be triggered and that the development should be granted permission without delay. He said that the 25 houses would not have an impact on the landscape and that the problems with flooding had been discussed at great length and no objections from the statutory authority had been raised. He concluded that highways had raised no objections and that the development would bring local benefits with the high-quality development.
The applicant responded to Members’ questions on the proposed bridge and the availability for cyclists to use the link.
Councillor Kathie Guthrie, Ward Member, said that the applicant had engaged with the Parish Council and the Ward Member and said that the proposed development looks good adjoining the settlement boundary. She said that the Officers report contained no mention of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and Local Plan and outlined how comments within the report had been categorised as neutral. Councillor Guthrie said that the river Deben had flooded and that the underground tank suggested by the Case Officer had not been included in the proposal. She said that there were concerns over the traffic using Little London Hill and asked that the application be refused or if a site inspection was agreed then this should take place during the school term.
During the debate Members raised concerns around the impact on the highways and the surrounding area as well as concerns about flooding. Councillor Derrick Haley proposed that the application be deferred so as to examine further the Highways impact on Little London Hill. The motion was seconded by Councillor John Matthissen.
By 9 votes to 1
Decision- Applicationdeferred
That the safety of the highway users and traffic conflict in Little London Hill be examined further by Officers in consultation with Suffolk County Council Highways Officers and reported back to Development Control Committee with appropriate advice.
Supporting documents: