Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

14.1 Item 1

 

Application          DC/18/01526                      

Proposal             Outline Planning Application (Access and Landscaping to be considered). Residential development consisting of 101 new dwellings and 35 retirement living apartments (as revised by drawings received 04.03.2019). 

Site Location       GLEMSFORD- Land West of Low Street, Glemsford, Suffolk

Applicant             EJL Landholdings Ltd     

 

14.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation for refusal.

 

14.3 Members considered the representation from Brian Stephens of Glemsford Parish Council, who spoke against the application.

 

14.4 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current status of the Glemsford Local Plan, and that the village had conducted a village needs survey.

 

14.5 Members considered the representation from Sharon Smith who spoke as an Objector.

 

14.6 Members considered the representation from Craig Western and Andrew Crutchley, who spoke as the Agents.

 

14.7 The Agents responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the archaeological report for the site, the impact on the heritage asset, the connectivity of the site, the height of the proposed development, that the identified need was based on data at the District level, and the proposed access to the site.

 

14.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Michael Holt, who spoke as the Ward Member.

 

14.9 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current health provision in the area, the availability of employment in Glemsford. It was noted that Councillor Stephen Plumb chose not to speak as the Ward Member, but to take part in the debate and vote.

 

14.10 The Case Officer advised Members that due to possible flooding, one property in the revised drawings had been removed.

 

14.11 Members debated the application on the issues including: the impact on the heritage assets and, the archaeological survey.

 

14.12 Councillor Adrian Osborne proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Sue Ayres seconded the motion.

 

14.13 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: possible further reasons for refusal, that the proposed development did not outweigh the public benefit.

 

14.14 RESOLVED

 

 That authority be delegated to Corporate Manager - Growth & Sustainable Planning to refuse outline planning permission for reasons including:

 

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and location, would cause significant harm to a Valued Landscape and Special Landscape Area, contrary to Policies CS11 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and Policy CR04 the Babergh Local Plan (2006) and paragraphs 127 and 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and location, would fail to preserve or enhance the Glemsford Conservation Area and cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed St Marys Church and Monks Hall and this harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the development, contrary to Policies CS11 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and Policy CN06 and CN08 the Babergh Local Plan (2006) and paragraphs 193 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework

 

3. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and the lack of capacity of Glemsford Primary Academy to expand would result in unsustainable commuting to alternative primary schools for children within the village, which CIL funding cannot compensate for, contrary to Policy CS21 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraph 94 of National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4. In the absence of an archaeological evaluation there is insufficient information to assess the impact the development will have on in situ archaeology. This is contrary to Policy CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

5. In the absence of a Land Contamination Appraisal the application has failed to submit the minimum requirements of para 178 of the National Planning Policy Framework to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed end use contrary to Policy CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraph 178 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6. In the absence of a signed s.106 agreement there is no mechanism to ensure the delivery of affordable housing and measures to improve the footpath network within and adjacent to the site contrary to Policies CS19 and CS15 Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraphs 63 and 65 and 108 and 110 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Supporting documents: