89.1 Item 1
Proposal Outline planning permission (all matters reserved) except the access point for the demolition of existing industrial buildings and construction of 149 dwellings, provision of public open space including playing fields, village greens, green corridors, community orchard, landscaping and surface water attenuation and associated works.
Site Location HAUGHLEY- Former Poultry Processing Plant, Haughley Park, Haughley, Stowmarket, IP14 3JY
Applicant Amber REI Holdings Ltd
89.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, the layout of the site, the tabled papers before Members, and the Officer Recommendation of refusal.
89.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the consultee response from Anglian Water, that the original industrial site was built in the 1960s, the projected traffic movements in the area, the limited planning weight that could be given to the loss of employment land, and that the trigger for 2 accesses was 150 dwellings.
89.4 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members’ on issues including: that the site was encircled by private land without access to public footpaths, and the response that had been received from the Education Authority.
89.5 Members considered the representation from Robert Williams (resident of Haughley Hall) who spoke as an objector.
89.6 The Objector responded to a question from the Committee that when the site had been in industrial use, vehicle movements had frequently taken place early in the morning.
89.7 Members considered the representation from David Onions who spoke as the applicant.
89.8 The Applicant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: whether the two accesses to the site were considered.
89.9 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Rachel Eburne.
89.10 Members debated the application on the issues including: that the proposal was deemed as unsustainable.
89.11 Councillor Sarah Mansel Proposed that the application be Refused as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.
89.12 Councillor Derrick Haley Seconded the motion.
89.13 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the sustainability of the site, the access to the site, the impact on the listed building, that in the tabled papers the response from Suffolk County Council outlined that the proposal would cause adverse social harm, and that there was minimal infrastructure in the area.
89.14 By a unanimous vote
That authority be delegated to the Acting Chief Planning Officer to Refuse Planning Permission for the following reasons:
1) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies that the basis for determining development proposals is the adopted Development Plan. In addition, the NPPF reinforces the need for development proposals to be sustainable in nature. Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (September 2008) identify the Council’s intention to direct new housing development to identified settlements and define developments that are appropriate in rural locations. In addition, policies FC 1 and FC 1.1 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy Focused Review (December 2012) underpin the Council’s positive approach to sustainable development proposals within the district. Lastly, policy H7 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (September 1998) identifies the Council’s aim to restrict housing development in the countryside. The application site is located in the countryside outside of a settlement boundary as defined in the adopted Local Plan. The Council considers that the proposed redevelopment of the identified site for residential purposes represents an unsustainable form of development in the countryside for which there is no essential justification. The provision of a significant number of new dwellings in this location, which is remote from essential facilities and has limited provision of alternative modes of access, would create a development, the occupiers of which in all likelihood would be significantly reliant on the use of the private motor car. The distance of the proposed development from essential services is significant resulting in increased motor vehicle use, with less integrated communities leading to poor social cohesion and failure to take opportunities to design for functional communities. Services to ensure sustainable development are also unavailable by reason of lack of lit footways leading to potential conflict with traffic. There is insufficient access to public transport alternatives available within short walking distance from the site to otherwise outweigh the considerations of the location and poor access to services outlined. Public benefit of the development is not considered to outweigh the harm of the development identified and furthermore, the development would lead to the loss of an employment site and create a significant burden on school infrastructure that at this time can not be mitigated. This unsustainable development of this scale in the Council’s view creates a clear conflict with the aims of the identified policies and the requirements of the NPPF.