80.1 Item 5
Erection of 6 affordable housing units and 8 open market housing units and a Parish Meeting Room/ Community Building.
WILLISHAM- Unit 1 Willisham Hall, Willisham Hall Road, Willisham, Ipswich.
Mr Paul Chaplin
80.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layoff the site and the Officer Recommendation of refusal of the application.
80.3 In response to Members questions it was established that the site was a brownfield land and that there was an extant permission for development of business units on the adjacent commercial site.
80.4 Members considered the representation from the Sheona Warnes from Offton and Willisham Parish Council.
80.5 Members raised several questions including that Willisham was served by Offton village hall. It was clarified that a survey had been conducted ten years ago and that a new consultation was required for the need of a village hall.
80.6 The Parish Council had been approached by the applicants directly.
80.7 Members considered the representation from a supporter Keith Earl.
80.8 He responded to questions and said that a previous survey in the village had indicated a need for affordable housing and that the development was considered a suitable option. That there was a bus service available from the village. However, none was available to the nearest school which was in Ringshall.
80.9 The Area Planning Manager reminded Members that the village of Willisham was in the countryside and was not a settlement village. The location of the application was not in sustainable area as there were 2 km to Ringshall.
80.10 Members considered the representation from the applicants Paul Chapman and Andrew Chapman.
80.11 It was clarified that there was no footpath to the Willisham from the site.
80.12 The Chair read the representation from the Ward Member Councillor Anne Killett, who was unable to be present at the meeting.
80.13 Members debated the application and some Members felt that the application had some merits as it was an inactive farmyard and that the application was supported by the community. The site was not in an isolated location, as here was dwellings nearby and the redevelopment of the site would be an enhancement to the landscape.
80.14 Councillor John Matthissen proposed the refusal of the application as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.
80.15 The Committee debated the existing outstanding proposal for commercial units on the adjacent site and that the development would be a mixed development with 35% affordable housing.
80.16 Members continued to debate and that the application was against planning policy.
80.17 Councillor Kathie Guthrie seconded the motion.
80.18 By 5 votes to 1, 2 abstentions
That the Acting Chief Planning Officer be authorised to refuse outline planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is not considered to form sustainable development by reasons of its relationship to the existing built settlement, offering an uncharacteristic intrusion into the countryside, with poor connectivity to services, facilities and amenities which is not conducive for day to day living and working. Furthermore, the proposal lacks demonstrable social, economic and environmental benefits, and undermines the essence of the NPPF further through no justifiable need or mitigating measures. No exceptional circumstances or other material considerations have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm identified. The proposed development is isolated and none of the exceptional circumstances listed at Paragraph 79 apply. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS2 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (2008), Policies GP1 and H7 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998) and policies FC1 and FC1.1 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy Focused Review (2012).
2. The development would result in the unjustified loss of existing employment land. The provision of the B1 unit does not form part of the application and there is no connection between the development of the proposed dwellings and the provision of the employment use. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the NPPF, Policy E6 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998) and policies FC1 and FC1.1 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy Focused Review (2012).
3. The application as submitted fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would not increase the risk of flooding off-site through adequate mitigation measures compliant with national or local standards. As such the proposal conflicts with the aims of Paragraph 107 of the NPPF and Paragraph 107 of the associated Planning Practice Guidance, Policy CS4 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (2008) and Policies FC1 and FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012).
4. The proposal would make inadequate provision/contributions for community and other facilities/services for the occupants of the dwellings. The applicants have not entered in to the necessary legal agreement, which is required to ensure the following are provided:
· The provision of 35% of the dwellings as on-site Affordable Housing
· Contribution to RAMS mitigation
· The adoption of the access to the site and estate road within the site
· Management Plan to deal with the provision and maintenance of open space / amenity area
The Proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF, saved Policy CS6 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (2008), Policy FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) and saved Altered Policy H4 of the adopted Mid Suffolk Local Plan First Alteration.