Minutes:
100.1 Item 1
Application DC/18/03547
Proposal Application for approval of Reserved Matters following Outline Planning Permission Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 – Layout, Scale, Appearance, and Landscaping pursuant to condition 3 of Outline Planning Permission 4963/16, for up to 250 dwellings, open space and associated infrastructure.
Site Location THURSTON- Land to the west of, Ixworth Road, Thurston.
Applicant Persimmon Homes (Suffolk)
100.1 The Case Officer presented the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers and the officer recommendation of approval with conditions.
100.2 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that the proposal did not include an upgrade to the Public Right of Way to a cycle path, that it was the desire of the Housing Enabling Officer that clusters of Affordable Housing did not exceed 15 but that this was not a formal policy, the location of the emergency exit to the site, that strategic housing objected to the proposal, the landscape assessment of the site and layout that included two and a half storey dwellings.
100.3 Members considered the representation from Richard Fawcett of Thurston Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
100.4 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current work that was being undertaken on the neighbourhood plan, and the connectivity from the site to the village.
100.5 Members considered the representation from Stuart McAdam and Matthew Wright; the applicants.
100.6 The Applicants responded to Members questions on issues including: that the attenuation basin would be an infiltration basin and that it would be empty unless there was excessive precipitation, the landscape buffer on the north and south of the site, that a cycleway had been proposed but had been objected to by Suffolk County Councils’ highways department.
100.7 The Applicants responded to further questions on issues including: the requirements of room sizes, the clustering of Affordable Housing, electric car charging points, the size of the gardens, and the dimensions of the garages.
100.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Derrick Haley, Ward Member.
100.9 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that Mid Suffolk District Council did not have a formal policy regarding space standards. He also advised that (as detailed in the tabled papers) Mid Suffolk District Council could demonstrate a five year housing land supply but that this was predicated on previously approved outline permissions such as the site that was before Members which had been approved at outline in 2017.
100.10 Members debated the application on the issues including: the design and layout of the proposal, the lack of cycle path across the site, the sustainability measures for the proposal, and the size of the homes.
100.11 The Area Planning Manager clarified that the outline planning permission that was granted allowed up to 250 dwellings on the site.
100.12 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: that Members did not feel that the design was satisfactory.
100.13 Councillor Roy Barker proposed that the application be minded to refuse on the basis as follows:
· Poor design and layout
· Inappropriate scale and mix of 2.5 storey (or 3 storey) development.
· Fails to respond to local character and local distinctiveness and neither conserves or enhances the area
· Contrary to NPPF paragraph 127 and 130 and Core Strategy FC1.1
Suggestions from members to note included need for more bungalow development, more hipped roofs and it was asked if a cycle route could be reviewed if possible.
100.14 Councillor John Matthissen seconded the motion.
100.15 By a unanimous vote
100.16 RESOLVED
Members resolved to be minded to Refuse the application at this time on the basis as follows:
· Poor design and layout
· Inappropriate scale and mix of 2.5 storey (or 3 storey) development.
· Fails to respond to local character and local distinctiveness and neither conserves or enhances the area
· Contrary to NPPF paragraph 127 and 130 and Core Strategy FC1.1
Suggestions from members to note included need for more bungalow development, more hipped roofs and it was asked if a cycle route could be reviewed if possible.
Supporting documents: