Minutes:
73.1 A short comfort break was taken between 10:39-10:48
73.2Item 2
Application DC/18/02316
Proposal Planning Application – Residential Development comprising 42 dwellings, incorporating 35% affordable homes, creation of new vehicular access and public open space
Site Location ELMSETT- Land on the south side of Whatfield Road, Elmsett, Suffolk
Applicant Mr C Course
73.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, the layout of the site and the Officer Recommendation of Approval with conditions.
73.4 Members considered the representation from the Parish Council representative, Alan Newman.
73.5 The Parish Council representative responded to Members questions on issues including: that there were spaces in the local Primary school but not in the Secondary school.
73.6 The Case Officer advised Members that the significance of the setting of the listed building and the surrounding area had been lowered but that there was some identified harm to the listed building.
73.7 Members considered the representation from the Objector, Ian Poole.
73.8 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the allocated sites within the Draft Neighbourhood Plan.
73.9 Members considered the representation from the Applicant, Charles Course.
73.10 Immediately after the applicant spoke, Councillor Clive Arthey advised Members that he had not, until this point, been aware of the applicants identity, and that he was a personal friend. As such Councillor Arthey chose to leave the meeting for the rest of application DC/18/02316 and did not take part in the debate and vote.
73.11 The Applicant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that the shape of the site compared to the allocation was due to a more detailed design being provided, and the facilities in the village.
73.12 Councillor Alan Ferguson, Ward Member, chose to reserve his comments for the debate on the application.
73.13 Members debated the application on the issues including: the cumulative impact on the village when referencing other applications that had been recently approved, the relation of the proposal and locally identified need, that the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHEELA) identified the site for 20 houses, and the impact on the listed heritage asset.
73.14 The Case Officer advised Members that there was a conflict between local need and Core Strategy Policy CS11 and outlined that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) did not place a ceiling on growth.
73.15 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the balance of the public benefit and the harm of the proposal, the impact that the approval of the development would have on the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, and the local housing need.
73.16 Councillor Simon Barrett Proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer Recommendation. Councillor Jennie Jenkins seconded the motion.
73.17 The motion was lost.
73.18 Councillor Alan Ferguson Proposed that the application be refused on the reasons as detailed below:
(1) The proposal does not represent a well designed development of an appropriate size, scale, layout and character in relation to its setting and to the village contrary to policy CS11(i) and (ii) and the locational context of the site and the proposed development which fails to respect the adjacent heritage asset (The Chequers) CS15(i).
(2) The proposal also fails to demonstrate locally identified housing need contrary to policy CS11 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 77 of the NPPF.
(3) The proposed development results in a moderate level of less than substantial harm which is not outweighed by public benefit and the development is therefore contrary to policies CN06 and CS11 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF.
73.19 Councillor Michael Holt Seconded the motion.
73.20 RESOLVED
That the application be refused planning permission for the following reasons:
(1) The proposal does not represent a well designed development of an appropriate size, scale, layout and character in relation to its setting and to the village contrary to policy CS11(i) and (ii) and the locational context of the site and the proposed development which fails to respect the adjacent heritage asset (The Chequers) CS15(i).
(2) The proposal also fails to demonstrate locally identified housing need contrary to policy CS11 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 77 of the NPPF.
(3) The proposed development results in a moderate level of less than substantial harm which is not outweighed by public benefit and the development is therefore contrary to policies CN06 and CS11 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF.
Supporting documents: