Minutes:
98.1 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
98.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal to Members, the updates to the application from the last time it was reported to Committee, the updated consultee comments, the status of the Neighbourhood Plan, the tabled papers before members, and the officer recommendation of approval with conditions.
98.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the identical application that had been submitted and that the appeal regarding the other application would be withdrawn if the proposal before Members was approved, the material weight of the Neighbourhood Plan, the updated Highways consultation response, and the number of dwellings that would be using the access.
98.4 The Planning Lawyer advised Members that the Eye Neighbourhood Plan was at the post examination draft stage, some weight had to be given to the plan but cautioned Members with regards to any resolution of refusal regarding the prematurity of the Neighbourhood Plan.
98.5 Members considered the representation from Andy Robinson of Eye Town Council, who objected to the proposal.
98.6 The Town Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the visibility splays associated with the access, the proposed increase in traffic, the impact on the neighbourhood plan, the practicality of the site, and other brownfield sites that were in the area.
98.7 Members considered the representation from Jon Betts who spoke as an objector.
98.8 Members considered the representation from Joe O Sullivan who spoke as the Agent on behalf of the Applicant.
98.9 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the engagement with the Town Council.
98.10 Members considered the representation from Councillor Nick Gowrley who spoke as the Ward Member in place of the late Councillor Michael Burke.
98.11 A short comfort break was taken between 10:50-11:05.
98.12 After the break the Area Planning Manager and Senior Development Management Engineer from Suffolk County Councils Highways Department confirmed and reported to the Committee that:
· That the updated visibility splays as shown by the Case Officer and their amendment was standard practice from the Highways Department.
· That in the recommendation with regards to the buffer zone that if Members were minded to approve that this would be included within the Section 106 agreement.
98.13 Members debated the application on the issues including: the highways considerations and response from the Highways Authority, the status of the neighbourhood plan and the material weight that could be attributed to it, the connectivity of the proposal, and the harm to the listed buildings.
98.14 Councillor Derrick Haley proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as listed below:
1) The development, if approved, would due to the maximum scale sought and location of access likely cause significant increase in traffic to local residential roads to the detriment of amenity of existing residents given the character of the local road network. The application has failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the level of traffic and impact. On this basis the development is contrary to Local Plan T10, H16, GP1, Focused Review FC01 and FC01_1 and Section 9 of the NPPF
2) The site lies within the Special Landscape Area and outside the settlement boundary of Eye. The proposed scale of development and site area if approved will push urbanising impacts out into the surrounding rural countryside of an open character. It is considered the application fails to demonstrate how development in this location can ensure a suitable development of a rural character and scale to be in keeping. On this basis the development is considered contrary to CS1, Cs2, Cs5 of the Core Strat, Focused Review FC01 and FC01_1, Local Plan H7, H15, CL02 and provisions of the NPPF on design and rural character.
3) The proposed development at the scale proposed would likely cause less than substantial harm on nearby heritage assets changing their rural setting and the experience of these assets. This harm is not considered to be outweighed sufficiently by the public benefit of the development for the harm to be set aside and on this basis the development is considered contrary to Policy HB1 and provisions of the NPPF section 16.
94.15 Councillor David Burn seconded the motion.
94.16 Five votes were cast for the resolution and Five votes were cast against.
94.17 The Chair used his casting vote to carry the motion.
94.18 RESOLVED
The Application was refused for the reasons as detailed below:
1) The development, if approved, would due to the maximum scale sought and location of access likely cause significant increase in traffic to local residential roads to the detriment of amenity of existing residents given the character of the local road network. The application has failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the level of traffic and impact. On this basis the development is contrary to Local Plan T10, H16, GP1, Focused Review FC01 and FC01_1 and Section 9 of the NPPF
2) The site lies within the Special Landscape Area and outside the settlement boundary of Eye. The proposed scale of development and site area if approved will push urbanising impacts out into the surrounding rural countryside of an open character. It is considered the application fails to demonstrate how development in this location can ensure a suitable development of a rural character and scale to be in keeping. On this basis the development is considered contrary to CS1, Cs2, Cs5 of the Core Strat, Focused Review FC01 and FC01_1, Local Plan H7, H15, CL02 and provisions of the NPPF on design and rural character.
3) The proposed development at the scale proposed would likely cause less than substantial harm on nearby heritage assets changing their rural setting and the experience of these assets. This harm is not considered to be outweighed sufficiently by the public benefit of the development for the harm to be set aside and on this basis the development is considered contrary to Policy HB1 and provisions of the NPPF section 16.
Supporting documents: