Resolution status:Carried
Minded to refuse (and deferral for advice)
That Committee are minded to refuse the application on the grounds that the development would fail to represent good design, would not create a better place in which to live and work for the whole community of the area and would not improve the character and quality of the area.
The site is clearly visible from public vantage points and moreover the public are able regularly to be present on the Stonham Barns site to use and experience its facilities and environment. Having regard to this visibility the lodges proposed are uniform in design and spacing, the layout is linear and the development extends into open countryside that is flat and lacks topographical relief. The landscaped bunds look manmade as though they are trying to segregate rather than assimilate the site into its landscape setting and the landscape planting has yet to have any measurable impact upon views of the proposal. The lodges would be viewed as a stark man made addition to the open and rural character of this countryside setting that would harm the character and appearance of the landscape.
On this basis the development would be contrary to policies GP1 and RT17 of the MSDC LP 1998 and contrary to paragraph 124, 127 and 160 of the NPPF February 2019.
And that the Chief Planning Officer be instructed to review and risk assess the proposed reason for refusal and concurrently seek independent landscape and design advice on the following matters and to report his further advice to Committee ;
[a] the visual impact of the development upon the landscape character and appearance of the proposal in its context having regard go to policies GP1 and RT17 of the Local Plan and
[b] the extent to which the design and layout of the proposal takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions having regard to paragraphs 127 and 130 of NPPF
Vote | Councillors | Count |
---|---|---|
For | John Field, Matthew Hicks, Sarah Mansel, John Matthissen, Richard Meyer, Dave Muller, Timothy Passmore and Andrew Stringer | 8 |
Against | None | 0 |
Abstain | None | 0 |
Conflict Of Interests | None | 0 |