Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/18/017

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling with garage and access

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling with garage and access

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and because the Parish Council supported the scheme which was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 49 of Report No DEV/SE/18/017.

The Senior Planning Officer, as part of her presentation, advised the Committee which trees would be removed to accommodate the development (following questions with regard to this matter at the site visit).

Attention was also drawn to the ‘late papers’ issued after agenda publication which outlined details of late representations received in relation to the application.

Speakers:    Mr Guy Holland-Bosworth (neighbour) spoke against the application

                   Mrs Jessamy Saltmarsh (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Alaric Pugh spoke in support of the Officer recommendation and the policy reasoning for refusal and moved that the application be refused.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 4 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.   Policies CS1 and CS4 between them establish the spatial strategy and the settlement hierarchy for development within St. Edmundsbury. Both seek to resist, in conformity with the provisions of Para. 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), residential development outside of settlement boundaries in otherwise unsustainable areas. Furthermore, Policy DM5 states that areas designated as countryside will be protected from unsustainable development and Policy DM27 sets out the circumstances where dwellings will be permitted outside of settlement boundaries. Ousden is a lower order settlement and the provision of a dwelling outside of the designated settlement boundary represents an unsustainable form of development. The proposal does not meet the provisions of policy DM27 in that it is not within a cluster and neither is it considered to be a small undeveloped plot within an otherwise continuous built up frontage. There are no material considerations that outweigh this significant conflict with the Development Plan.

2.   Policy DM2 (Creating Places – Development Principles and Local Distinctiveness) states that proposals should recognise and address key features, characteristics and landscape of the area, and Policy CS4 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely affect the setting of a settlement.

The proposal would create an encroachment to the countryside, distinctively separate from the housing settlement boundary. The proposal would harmfully erode the important green gap between clustered settlements within the parish of Ousden. A dwelling, plus garage and driveway in this location, as well as associated curtilage and paraphernalia, would significantly and materially adversely alter the landscape character of this area to its detriment. The proposal would create a visual intrusiveness in this otherwise presently attractive rural location and create a significant impact such as to cause harm to the surrounding landscape, to the significant material detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy DM2, Policy DM13 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).