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:
Schedule of Planning Applications
Application Number |
Representations from |
DC/17/05423 |
Richard Peaty (Bacton Parish Council) James Manvers (Objector) David Chambers (Objector) Rob Barber (Agent) |
DC/17/05488 |
Janine Swan (Objector) |
61.1 Item 1
Application DC/17/05423
Proposal Outline planning application (all matters reserved except access) for development of up to 81 dwellings.
Site Location BACTON – Land to the North of, Church Road, Bacton, Suffolk.
Applicant Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd
61.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee noting a change in the recommendations to include hardstanding capacity for fire hydrants.
61.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions regarding the response from Suffolk County Council Floods Team, the proposed car park on the indicative plan, the access to the site, the listing of the Heritage Asset, the connectivity of the site and the Affordable Housing provision.
61.4 Richard Peaty, Bacton Parish Council, outlined that the development would change the residing nature of the Heritage Asset and that the owner of Bacton Manor had challenged this on the harm caused. He continued by outlining concerns over congestion, that the development would have a detrimental impact on the area, and that the amount of housing would be an unfair burden on the village.
61.5 The Parish Council representative responded to Members questions regarding the increase in housing and the current number of dwellings in the village.
61.6 James Manders, Objector, outlined that as a resident he had bought his property for privacy and the proposal would mean a loss of amenity, and that the methods used for cataloguing protected species fell short of best practice.
61.7 David Chambers, Objector outlined that the proposal jeopardised the setting of Bacton Manor, that the importance could not be understated, that English Heritage opposed the application, that they were the custodians of the manor and that the Committee were the custodians of the setting, and that if approved the setting of the Manor would be lost.
61.8 The Objector, David Chambers, responded to Members’ questions that the manor was a private residence.
61.9 Rob Barber, Agent, outlined the location and connectivity of the site, that the proposal was designed to have a low impact on the setting, that affordable homes would be provided, that a play area, wild flower meadow and green open would be provided, that the ecology survey had found some protected species, that they had consulted with the community, and that walking routes had been provided.
61.10 The Agent responded to Members’ questions regarding the consideration of other accesses and cycle links.
61.11 Councillor Jill Wilshaw, Ward Member outlined that Bacton was a key service centre, that the village had many listed buildings, that developers should not build up to the boundary of Bacton Manor, that there were concerns over the highways proposals, that if approved Superfast broadband be conditioned, the impact on the schools, and would have a significant impact on the size of the village.
61.12 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions regarding green open space in the village.
61.13 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions regarding the density on the site, the current education provision, the heritage impact, that the Council did not have a policy for the maximum development in a village.
61.14 The Parish Council responded to a question from the Committee regarding their neighbourhood plan.
61.15 The Committee debated the application on the issues including: the extra housing in the village, the harm caused to the listed building, traffic movements, the sustainability of the development, the cumulative effect on the community and the current infrastructure.
61.16 Councillor Sarah Mansel proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the development fails to demonstrate that housing in principle could be achieved on site without harm to the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings, including Bacton Manor that is Grade II*, and removal of open space that serves as part of the local character and amenity for the village. The benefits that the scheme offers do not outweigh the risk and extent of harm identified. Contrary to policies GP1, HB1, H16 of the Local Plan, CS5 of the Core Strategy, FC1.1 of the Focus Review and paras 6, 7, 14, 17,, 64, 65 and 131 to 134 of the NPPF.
61.17 Councillor David Whybrow seconded the motion.
61.18 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including the sustainability of the site and the heritage issues.
61.19 RESOLVED
Planning Permission Refused for the following reason:-
The development fails to demonstrate that housing in principle could be achieved on site without harm to the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings, including Bacton Manor that is Grade II*, and removal of open space that serves as part of the local character and amenity for the village. The benefits that the scheme offers do not outweigh the risk and extent of harm identified. Contrary to policies GP1, HB1, H16 of the Local Plan, CS5 of the Core Strategy, FC1.1 of the Focus Review and paras 6, 7, 14, 17, 64, 65 and 131 to 134 of the NPPF.
61.20 Councillors Brewster and Mayes left the meeting at 10:49 before the start of application DC/17/05488
61.21 Item 2
Application DC/17/05488
Proposal Householder Planning Application – Erection of single-storey rear and side extension, first floor extension and loft conversion.
Site Location STOWMARKET – 1 Eliot Way, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 1RG
Applicant Mr and Mrs Kerrie
61.22 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee advising Members that the application did not include a garage conversion.
61.23 The Case Officer responded to Members questions regarding the ownership of Highways land.
61.24 Janine Swan, Objector, representing 8 neighbours, outlined that the extension does not meet policy guidelines, that the development would not be in keeping with the street, that the application was overdevelopment, that there would be a loss of amenity for neighbours, that there were drainage issues and that it would remove sanitation amenity on the first storey.
61.25 The Objector responded to Members’ questions regarding the surrounding properties.
61.26 The Chair read out an email from Councillor Gary Green, Ward Member, which outlined his objections that the application would be out of character with the area, that the proposal was overdevelopment, that residential amenity would be affected, that parking on the road is difficult and that there are existing drainage issues in the area.
61.27 The Chair read out an email from Councillor Dave Muller, Ward Member, outlining that he was in total agreement with the comments made by Councillor Gary Green and asked that the application be refused.
61.28 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions regarding the methodology behind the analysis of light and what other extensions there were in the area.
61.29 Members debated the application on the issues including the possibility of an opaque window being conditioned, the surface water drainage, that there were already clear lines of sight into other properties gardens, that the development would create more shaded areas in the gardens and the distance between the properties.
61.30 Councillor David Whybrow proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer Recommendation with the additional conditions of:
- Notwithstanding details submitted, no window to rear of 1st floor extension
- Drainage scheme to ensure no increase in local flood risk
- Garage for vehicular use only
61.31 Councillor John Field seconded the motion.
61.32 RESOLVED
That authority be delegated to Corporate Manager – Growth & Sustainable Planning to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out below:
· Standard time limit
· To be in accordance with submitted documents and drawings.
· Remove Permitted Development rights to convert the double bay garage to preserve the existing parking spaces.
· Notwithstanding details submitted, no window to rear of 1st floor extension
· Drainage scheme to ensure no increase in local flood risk
· Garage for vehicular use only
Supporting documents: