Minutes:
78.1 Item 1
Application DC/18/05021
Proposal Outline planning application (some matters reserved) – residential development for up to 126 dwellings and associated infrastructure including access.
Site Location EYE- Land Adjoining Tuffs Road and Maple Way, Eye
Applicant Peter, Sylvia, and Andrew West & Future Habitats Ltd
78.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the tabled papers before Members and the Officer Recommendation of Approval. The Officer clarified that there was a duplicate application (DC/18/01777) that had been submitted to the Council and that the Applicant was currently in the process of applying for a non-determination appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
78.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current position of the Eye Neighbourhood Plan and that no weight could be given to the Plan as it had not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and that this was clearly stated in the NPPF and NPPG.
78.4 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members’ on issues including: the connectivity of the site via cycle routes, the estimated walking times to the Town Centre and the school, the heritage impact of the proposal, and the footpath adjoining the site.
78.5 At the request of the Committee, the Case Officer advised Members of the weight of the planning documents relevant to the application.
78.6 The Senior Development Management Engineer from Suffolk County Council’s Highways Department responded to Members questions on issues including: that an updated travel plan had not been submitted but that this could be submitted in a reserved matters application if Members were minded to approve.
78.7 The Case Officer responded to further questions on issues including: the withdrawal of Permitted Development rights (PD) from the proposal, and that archaeological services were satisfied.
78.8 Members considered the representation from the Parish Council representative, Tom Morris.
78.9 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: how the Applicant had not engaged with the Parish Council.
78.10 Members considered the representation from the Objector, Jon Betts.
78.11 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the footpath and cycle routes on the roads surrounding the application site.
78.12 Members considered the representation from the Agent, Joe O’ Sullivan.
78.13 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that engagement had not been conducted on the outline proposal, and that the detailed design and orientation of the houses would be submitted at the reserved matters stage.
78.14 The Senior Development Management Highways Engineer from Suffolk County Council outlined the response that the Highways Authority had provided.
78.15 The Highways Engineer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the access through Oak Crescent to the site, and that the accesses would have to be built to the Highways Authority Standard.
78.16 Members considered the representation from Councillor Nick Gowrley who was temporarily representing the Ward on behalf of the Late Councillor Michael Burke.
78.17 Members debated the application on the issues including: what options were available in terms of providing further information regarding the highways accesses and the possibility of a second opinion, the lack of engagement from the applicant, and the possibility of the proposal having an emergency access.
78.18 Councillor John Field Proposed that the application be Deferred for the following reasons:
1. Members are not assured that impacts from the development, capacity and safety can be mitigated to an acceptable degree. Details also not sufficient to understand amalgamated impact on Oak Crescent. To ensure principles of NPPF paras 108b and c, 109 and 110c are upheld officers are asked to seek a further opinion on the scheme from Suffolk County Council.
2. On receipt of further opinion, the application is to return to either Referrals or Development Control at the Chair’s choice for consideration.
3. It was also expressed that the removal/reduction of use in respect of the Maple Way (southern access) for vehicular use should be explored without being prejudicial to any decision on the application. Should any amendment of the application take place on this basis, consultation will need to take place with all parties and neighbours prior to any presentation of case to members.
78.19 Councillor John Matthissen Seconded the motion.
78.20 By 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.
78.21 RESOLVED
The application was deferred for the following reasons:
1. Members are not assured that impacts from the development, capacity and safety can be mitigated to an acceptable degree. Details also not sufficient to understand amalgamated impact on Oak Crescent. To ensure principles of NPPF paras 108b and c, 109 and 110c are upheld officers are asked to seek a further opinion on the scheme from Suffolk County Council.
2. On receipt of further opinion, the application is to return to either Referrals or Development Control at the Chair’s choice for consideration.
3. It was also expressed that the removal/reduction of use in respect of the Maple Way (southern access) for vehicular use should be explored without being prejudicial to any decision on the application. Should any amendment of the application take place on this basis, consultation will need to take place with all parties and neighbours prior to any presentation of case to members.
Supporting documents: