16.1 A short comfort break was taken between 11:40-11:54 after the completion of application DC/19/00881 but before the commencement of application DC/19/01712

16.2 Item 3

Application          DC/19/01712                      

Proposal             Planning Application. Erection of 2no. dwellings, associated outbuildings, improved vehicular access and landscaping. PV array to serve the two dwellings.          

Site Location       HINTLESHAM- Rosslyn House, Duke Street, Hintlesham, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP8 3QP

Applicant             Mr and Mrs Whyman

16.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

16.4 Members considered the representation from David Marsh who spoke on behalf of Chattisham and Hintlesham Parish Council.

16.5 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: allocations for housing within the parish.

16.6 Members considered the representation from Roger Balmer, who spoke as the Agent on behalf of the Applicant.

16.7 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed ecological measures on the site, and the possible adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

16.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor David Busby who spoke as the Ward Member. Councillor Busby left the meeting for the remainder of the item at 12:20 before the debate started.

16.9 Members debated the application on the issues including: the current state of the 5-year housing land supply, the tilted balance being in favour of sustainable development, the unique and innovative design that was being proposed, and the public benefits of the proposed ecological measures.

16.10 Councillor Melanie Barrett proposed that the application be approved against the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

·       The development would not be out of character with its surroundings and the design is responsive to its context with positive ecological and environmental features. The development would meet a local need. The development would not set a precedent in light of the individual circumstances of the application. The development would pose minimal disruption to the amenity afforded to neighbouring occupants with an adequate degree of separation and noting the limited intensification of an existing access.

·       The development would be consistent with policies CS1, CS11, and CS15.

·       The identified harm would not outweigh the public benefits in allowing development to proceed.

Grant planning permission subject to ‘standard’ conditions, including:

-          Time limit

-          Approved plans

-          Construction management plan

16.11 Councillor Derek Davis seconded the motion.

16.12 RESOLVED

Approved contrary to Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

The development would not be out of character with its surroundings and the design is responsive to its context with positive ecological and environmental features. The development would meet a local need. The development would not set a precedent in light of the individual circumstances of the application. The development would pose minimal disruption to the amenity afforded to neighbouring occupants with an adequate degree of separation and noting the limited intensification of an existing access.

The development would be consistent with policies CS1, CS11, and CS15.

The identified harm would not outweigh the public benefits in allowing development to proceed.

Grant planning permission subject to ‘standard’ conditions, including:

-          Time limit

-          Approved plans

-          Construction management plan