Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

76.1Item 1

 

Application           DC/18/04049      

Proposal              Full Planning Application -  Erection of 6 single storey dwellings and associated outbuildings, improvements to existing vehicular access and highways improvements. As amended by agent’s email dated 17/8/17 and amended drawings numbered 17/60/02A, 03A and 12A showing changes to proposed footpath arrangement. Further amended drawings received 9/11/17 numbered 17/60/02B, 03B, 04A, 05A, 06A, 07A, 08A, 09A, 10A, 11A, 12B, and 14B showing changes to layout and form of dwellings.

Site Location       HARTEST- The Paddocks, Lawshall Road, Hartest, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP29 4DR  

Applicant             Lewis Morgan Ltd.

 

76.1 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, the layout of the site, the history of the application before committee, and the updates in the report that Members had undertaken a site visit and that  in paragraph 4.33 of the report it should state that “there are no sequentially preferable sites within Hartest.” The Case Officer concluded that the Officer Recommendation was for Refusal.

 

76.2 Officers clarified the distance from the Built up area boundary and how this distance may have been derived by the previous case officer. Members were shown the relationship on the presentation so they could understand the relationship. Officers advised the precise distance was not a determinative factor in the consideration of the application.

 

 

76.3 Members considered the representation from the Parish Council representative, Jo Pask.

 

76.4 Members considered the representation from the Objector, Ralph Carpenter.

 

76.5 The Objector responded to Members questions on issues including: the current stage that the Neighbourhood plan was at (currently looking at allocating sites), and the impact of the development compared to the currently existing development, the sustainability of the properties in Green View.

 

76.6 Members considered the representation from the Agent, Dean Pearce.

 

76.7 The agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the impact of the closure of the Doctors Surgery.

 

76.7 Members debated the application on issues including: the sustainability of the proposal compared to the existing properties in the area, the relevance of paragraph 77 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and paragraph 4.5 of the officer report which outlined that the Draft Neighbourhood Plan included the need for smaller homes.

 

76.8 The Case Officer advised Members to be mindful of the applications location within a special landscape and conservation area and that if approved it would effect the rural edge of the village and that there were landscaping issues that still needed to be addressed as set out in the first reason for refusal and that weight could not be given to the Neighbourhood Plan as it was currently still a draft.

 

76.9 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the impact on the village, the balance when considering the identified need, the harm that would be caused by the proposal, the issues of building within the countryside, the relevance of Paragraph 78, 8 of the NPPF (2018), the consistency of decisions that were made by the Planning Committee and the previous decision of item in February 2018.

 

76.10 At the request of the Chair, the Governance Support Officer read out the minutes of the meeting from 7th February 2018 regarding application DC/17/04049 in full.

 

76.11 The Case Officer advised Members to take into account the fact that the previous decision was taken in a different policy context, namely that the Council could not then demonstrate a five year land supply and accordingly the ‘tilted balance’ was engaged. By contrast now, the Council could demonstrate a five-year supply of housing.

 

76.12 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the local need in the village and the response from the Parish Council, that Members had now visited the site and seen the access, and noted paragraph 77 of the NPPF (2018) which encouraged planning decisions to support housing developments that reflected local needs.

 

76.13 Councillor Simon Barrett proposed that the application be approved against the Officer Recommendation on the grounds that, as before, the proposal represented sustainable development which would support existing services and that there would be benefits to this hinterland village because of the type and scale of housing proposed, particularly those wishing to downsize. Councillor Barrett relied upon Paragraphs 78,77, 117 and 124 of the NPPF (2018) to say that greater weight should be afforded to CS11 and less weight to CS2 and that the issue concerning CS2, which was the subject of the Judge’s permission decision, was now of less relevance because of the advice of officers (which he accepted) to afford limited weight to a conflict with CS2 for the reasons set out in the officer’s report. 

 

76.14 Steven Stroud advised the Committee that members needed to look at the officer’s recommendation to refuse permission and decide whether (i) they disagreed with the judgments on landscape and character and connectivity or (ii), if they agreed with them, whether those conflicts carried less weight than the benefits of the scheme.

 

76.15 In response, Councillor Barrett explained he disagreed with the officer’s judgment that there was harm to the character and appearance of the area. He pointed to the relationship of the site with Green View, and suggested that the single storey nature of the proposal, the layout and the farm-type design of the development meant there was no harm. Upon being prompted to consider the second suggested reason for refusal, Councillor Barrett pointed out that expectations of sustainability differ in a rural as opposed to an urban context. It followed that the planning balance fell in favour of delivering 3-4 bedroom housing identified as being needed in Hartest. 

 

76.16 Councillor Alan Ferguson Seconded the motion.

 

76.17 RESOLVED

 

That the Acting Chief Planning Officer is authorised to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions including:

 

  • Standard Time limit
  • Approved Plans and Documents
  • Materials
  • Hard and Soft Landscaping
  • Environmental Health
  • Lighting
  • Sustainability
  • Archaeology
  • Levels
  • Ecology
  • As required by Highways Authority
  • As required by Heritage Team

 

Supporting documents: