Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/18/012

Planning Application - 7no. dwellings and 28no. parking spaces (following demolition of 39 garages)

Planning Application - 7no. dwellings and 28no. parking spaces (following demolition of 39 garages)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was one of five applications across five sites, totalling 41 dwellings, which had raised issues of significant concern to local residents.

Mildenhall Parish Council objected to the proposal and Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 75 of Report No: DEV/FH/18/012.

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the supplement issued as an addendum to the agenda (following publication of the revised NPPF), however, this had not resulted in an amendment to the recommendations in respect of this report. 

In his presentation the Case Officer included proposed elevations and street scenes of the development alongside photographs which illustrated the degree of layby and on-street parking which took place in Newnham Close.

Whilst the dis-benefits of the scheme (loss of trees and impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings) were recognised, Officers did not consider that these outweighed the benefits of the development these being; contribution towards housing supply, potential for job creation and enhanced local expenditure. 

Furthermore, the applicant had demonstrated that the development could provide for sufficient off-street parking to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact on the highway network, hence, the Highways Authority had not objected to the scheme subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions.

Speakers:    Russell Richards (resident) spoke against the application

Nicole Wright (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Ruth Bowman opened the debate on the application and spoke against the proposal due to:

     i.        The loss of trees proposed; and

    ii.        The design and layout of the scheme which was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

On balance, Councillor Bowman considered that the application should be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, and she formally proposed this as a motion.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Ridgwell.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the reasons proposed for refusal could have the relevant policy appended to them and the decision making protocol need not be invoked in this case.

Councillor Carol Lynch proposed that instead of refusing the application, that consideration of the item be deferred into order to allow a Member site visit to take place.  However, this amendment failed to be seconded.

Upon putting the motion for refusal to the vote, and with 9 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF REFUSAL, for the following reasons:

·         The scale and design of plots 1 & 2 and 6 & 7 are out-of-keeping with the existing adjoining development, which results in an awkward relationship harmful to the appearance of the street scene;

·         The proposal results in the loss of 4 street trees that have a public amenity value and contribute towards the character of the area.  Their loss without replacement contributes to a less visually attractive street scene devoid of landscaping and is not in the interests of good design;

·         The proposal is therefore contrary to Joint Development Management Policies DM2 and DM22 and paragraphs 124 & 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

(Councillor Brian Harvey left the meeting at 6.55pm on the conclusion of this item.)