Minutes:
72.1 Item 1
Application DC/18/00606
Proposal Outline Planning Application (means of access to be considered) – erection of up to 150 dwellings with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system and a vehicular access point.
Site Location LONG MELFORD – Land to the East of Station Road, Long Melford, Sudbury, CO10 9HP
Applicant Gladman Developments Ltd
72.1 Before the presentation of the application to the Committee, the Acting Chief Planning Officer advised Members that an email had been received from the Save Our Skylarks (SOS) Campaign Group and Planning Direct (of which Members had a copy of) which outlined how the reasons for refusal could be stronger.
72.2 The Acting Chief Planning Officer responded to the points contained within the email outlining that from the perspective of Officers, the reasons that were recommended to Members were appropriate.
72.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining that the application had been submitted for non-determination appeal and as such the Officer Recommendation was to formally confirm that Members would have refused permission had the appeal not been lodged, and to confirm the reasons for refusal that Members would have chosen.
72.4 The Case Officer presented the layout of the site, the late papers that were before the Committee, and the Officer Recommendation.
72.5 Members considered the representation from the Parish Council representative, Liz Malvisi.
72.6 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: whether the Parish Council had supported other development sites. The Parish Council responded that they had not supported them.
72.7 Members considered the representation from the Objector, Lisa Tipper.
72.8 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the flooding within the local area, the setup and structure of the SOS Group and their objectives.
72.9 In response to a comment regarding the ecology on the site, the Case Officer advised Members that a breeding survey (of the Skylarks) had taken place in the summer (2018) but that the information had not been submitted to Officers from the Applicant. The Case Officer advised that this had not been added as reason for refusal as it was likely that this reason would fall away if the information was provided by the applicant.
72.10 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor John Nunn.
72.11 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of dwellings in the village, and the access onto the site.
72.12 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Richard Kemp.
72.13 The Ward Member responded to questions from the Committee on issues including: flooding that had been previously recorded in the village.
72.14 Members debated the application on the issues including: the vehicle movements in the area, the gradient and landscaping of the site, that the site was rejected from the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA), and the negative impact on the townscape.
72.15 Councillor Simon Barrett Proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer Recommendation with the amendment to reason 1 that after “countryside” the wording “…beyond a well established landscape boundary feature of the former railway line and would fail to respect the local context and character and…” . In addition to this that a reason be added for refusal relating to drainage.
72.16 Councillor Peter Beer seconded the motion.
72.17 RESOLVED
That Members formally confirm that they would have refused permission, had a non-determination appeal not been lodged, and that such refusal would have been for the following reasons:
1. That proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and location, would cause significant harm to the open countryside beyond a well established landscape boundary feature of the former railway line and would fail to respect the local context and character and the rural setting of Long Melford, contrary to Policy CS11 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. The application fails to adequately demonstrate how the proposal responds to a locally identified housing need, contrary to Policy CS11 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and Para 77 of the NPPF, which requires development in rural areas to be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs.
3. The proposal fails to adequately demonstrate that the development will not have an adverse impact on protected and/or priority species, contrary to Policy CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014)
4. Drainage
Supporting documents: