Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/17/007

Residential development of up to 110 dwellings, as amended

Councillors David Bowman and Ruth Bowman both declared non-pecuniary interests in this item as they were an acquaintance of one of the applicants.  They were advised by the Service Manager (Shared Legal) that they could remain in the meeting but were not to take part.

Planning Application DC/14/2042/FUL - Residential development of up to 110 dwellings, as amended.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was a proposal for ‘major’ development and it raised complex planning issues of national and international importance.  The planning application had been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 283 of Report No: DEV/FH/17/007.

Firstly, the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects explained that the application site had been amended slightly as a result of one of the land owners no longer wishing to be part of the development.  The Committee were shown the parcel of land that ceased to be a part of the scheme.

The Officer then tabled three documents to the meeting which had been received since publication of the agenda and provided explanation on each:

·         A letter from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MoD): objecting to the application before Members with detailed reasoning as to why;

·         An email from Natural England: explaining that unless a warden was provided for Maidscross Hill SSSI in perpetuity then they would not be in a position to remove their objection to the application; and

·         A letter from the agents acting on behalf of Elveden Farms Ltd (the applicants for two other major applications pending for Lakenheath) drawing attention to perceived ‘flaws’ in the supporting data in respect of the application before Members.

Lastly, the Officer drew attention to two changes to the Officer assessment in respect of the cumulative highways impact and the prematurity to the emerging Site Allocations Development Plan.  Accordingly, the recommendation within Paragraph 283 was now amended to reflect these changes, in that:

1.   The reference to “highway safety (cumulative impacts)” within Paragraph 283 (ii.) be removed; and

2.   Paragraph 283 (iv.) (which referred to the Site Allocation Development Plan) be removed in its entirety.

Councillor Simon Cole moved that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the amendments as outlined above and this was duly seconded by Councillor Louise Marston.

With 10 voting for the motion and with 2 abstentions, it was resolved that:

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons (summarised):

(i)                  The proposed development is unacceptable in principal and is contrary to the settlement policies set out in both adopted and emerging Development Plan documents;

(ii)                 The proposals are also contrary to a number of other important Development Plan policies, including those relating to design, ecology (the SSSI), SW drainage, tree retention, education and the impact of aircraft noise.

(iii)                There are no material considerations which indicate the development should be determined other than in accordance with the Development Plan; the proposals represent an unsustainable form of development as defined by the NPPF.

(iv)               The absence of a completed Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking under S106 of the Town and County Planning Act to secure the following:

•        Affordable housing

•        Primary Education

•        Pre-school education

•        Health

•        Public Open Space

•        Libraries

•        Wardening of the SSSI.

Speakers:    Councillor Hermione Brown (Lakenheath Parish Council) spoke against the application; and

                   Mr Andrew Ellis (agent) spoke in favour of the application.