Minutes:
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
Schedule of Applications
Application Number |
Representations From |
1856/17 |
Edward Burrows (Barham Parish Council) Graham Welham (Objector) Graham Bloomfield (Agent) |
70.1 Item 1
Application 1856/17
Proposal Re-advertisement outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for access and spine road) for phased development for the erection of up to 300 homes, including 7 self-build plots and affordable housing, together with associated access and spine road including works to Church Lane, Doctors surgery site, amenity space including an extension to Church Grounds, reserved site for Pre-school and Primary School and all other works and infrastructure (amended description).
Site Location BARHAM AND CLAYDON – Land off Norwich Road, Barham and Claydon
Applicant Pigeon investment management Ltd and Mr John Cutting
70.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the site, the proposal and the extra conditions added to the Officer Recommendation.
70.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions regarding the road structure and highways response, the schooling provision, the response from NHS England, the settlement boundary, and the distance of the proposed housing to the heritage asset.
70.4 Members considered the representations from the Parish Council, Objector, Agent and Ward Member.
70.5 Members debated the application on the issues including: the loss of agricultural land, the response from Suffolk County Council’s Highways Department, potential harm, the ecological value of the site, archaeological value of the site, and the amount of information provided.
70.6 Councillor Jessica Fleming proposed that the application be refused on Ecological grounds. Councillor Sarah Mansel seconded the proposal.
70.6 The Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning clarified that the statutory consultee responses contained professional advice and that there had been no professional advice that supported refusal of the application on Ecological Grounds. In addition to this the Corporate Manager reminded Members to be mindful of the consequences of the reasons for refusal if an appeal was sought.
70.7 Members continued to debate the application with some members feeling that deferment and/or a site visit would be a better option than refusal of the application.
70.8 Councillor Jessica Fleming amended her proposal to be minded to refuse and that further information be provided on the ecological and landscape evaluation, archaeological and heritage impacts, and highways advice, which was agreed with by the seconder.
70.9 By 14 to 0 with 1 abstention.
70.10 RESOLVED
Minded to refuse:
“The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a significant and demonstrable adverse impact upon the natural and local environment including biodiversity contrary to paragraph 109 and 118 NPPF and the heritage interest in the site, including archaeological interests contrary to paragraph 131 and 134 NPPF”
And that
The Committee are concerned that the information presently to hand is insufficient to determine the application in its present form. Instruct the Corporate Manager to report back on :
· Adequacy and content of ecological and landscape evaluation
· Adequacy and content of the archaeological information and impact upon heritage interests
· Adequacy and content of highways advice
With appropriate further advice as relevant and that the application be reported back in due course.
Supporting documents: