Planning Application
- (i) 1no. Dwelling (ii) Garage with
habitable space above and associated landscaping (resubmission of
DC/19/0270/FUL)
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel and in view of the support offered by Clare Town
Council which was in conflict with the Officer’s
recommendation of refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 94
of Report No DEV/WS/21/059.
Members were advised that the planning
application was a revised scheme from the previously refused
application (DC/19/0270/FUL - 1no. Dwelling (ii) Garage with
habitable space above and associated landscaping).
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the
main differences were that the dwelling now proposed had a reduced
footprint of 28 metres by 8 metres (previously 34m x 8.2m), a ridge
height of 10.2 metres (previously 11.2m) but would still be
externally finished with a Corten steel tree canopy frame which
‘enveloped’ the dwelling.
The reduction in footprint allowed for the
proposed dwelling to be moved slightly further away from the site
boundaries and in turn the garage was set further back within the
plot. The ridge height of the garage had also been reduced by 0.7
metres.
As with the previous application the
applicants claimed that the proposal should be considered as an
NPPF ‘Paragraph 79’ proposal and as such the comments
from the Suffolk Design Review Panel (SDRP) on the previous
application were considered to remain relevant.
The Committee was informed that since
publication of the agenda the applicants had submitted an
arboricultural impact
assessment. Whilst Officers had not had
time to fully assess the content of the documentation Member were
advised that the assessment could negate the need for refusal
reason number four.
Accordingly, Officers were continuing to
recommend that the application be refused for the reasons set out
in the report with delegated authority being sought to liaise with
the Chair with regard to the inclusion/removal of reason four, as
deemed necessary once the report had been considered by the
Council’s Tree Officer.
As part of his presentation the Officer
provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site
visit’.
Speakers: Anna Juhl & Robert Marshall
(neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application (neither
individual connected to the meeting to personally address the
Committee and instead opted to have the Democratic Services Officer
read out a pre-prepared submitted joint statement on their
behalf)
Craig Beech (agent) spoke in support of the application
During the debate some Members posed questions
with regard to the recently received
arboricultural impact assessment which
the Senior Planning Officer and Service Manager (Planning –
Development) responded to.
Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the
application be refused, as per the Officer
recommendation. This was duly seconded
by Councillor Mike Chester.
Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting
for the motion and 3 against, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be REFUSED for the
following reasons, with Delegated Authority given to Officers to
liaise with the Chair with regard to the
inclusion/removal of ...
view the full minutes text for item 95.