Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/19/013

Planning Application - 5no. dwellings with 5no. garages and new vehicular access (following demolition of existing industrial buildings)

Planning Application - 5no. dwellings with 5no. garages and new vehicular access (following demolition of existing industrial buildings)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee in October 2018 following consideration by the Delegation Panel, the item had been referred to the Panel at the request of the Ward Member Councillor Mary Evans (Hundon).

A Member site visit was held prior to the October meeting; at which Officers recommended that the application be refused.

At the October Committee Members resolved to defer consideration of the application in order to allow time in which for Officers to explore the potential retention of the site for employment use with the applicant, by way of a marketing exercise as required by Policy DM30 of the Joint Development Management Policies 2015.

Since the October meeting the applicants had submitted a report produced by Birchall Steel which provided the likely commercial demand for the existing land, together with an assessment as to the viability of a commercial redevelopment of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the site had not been marketed and that the report was not a marketing assessment and was instead simply a report which looked at the location, quality and repairs required for the site to be considered for a viable commercial use. 

The Birchall Steel report concluded that redevelopment of the site for B1 (business) use was unviable, however, this conclusion had not been reached with the site first having been offered to the market as was otherwise required by Policy DM30.

Accordingly, Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 11.1 of Report No DEV/SE/19/013.

Speakers:    Councillor Mary Evans (Ward Member: Hundon) spoke in support of the application

                   Ben Elvin (on behalf of the applicant/agent) spoke in support of the application

Considerable debate then ensued with Members of the Committee expressing both support and objection to the application.

Comments were made with regard to Brockley Green being a separate small settlement outside the village boundary of Hundon which already contained properties similar to those proposed in the scheme.

Other Members raised caution with going against policy without evidence having been submitted by the applicant to support doing so.

Councillor Peter Stevens spoke in support of the proposal which he considered to be both sustainable and an enhancement to the setting.  He moved that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, and this was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised that if Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then the decision making protocol would be invoked and a risk assessment would be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting.

Upon being put to the vote and with 6 voting for the motion, 8 against and with 1 abstention the Chairman declared the motion for ‘minded to approve’ lost.

Councillor Terry Clements then moved that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 6 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, residential development outside of settlement boundaries. Furthermore, Policy DM5 (Development within the Countryside) 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, with Policy DM29 setting out the circumstances where a rural exception site will be permitted. The site is considered to be locationally unsustainable and isolated in direct conflict with the provisions of paragraph 79 of the NPPF. Furthermore, the proposal does not meet the provisions of any of these Development Plan policies and there are no material considerations that outweigh this very significant conflict with the Development Plan.

2. Policy DM30 seeks to protect employment sites and to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on employment generation if a site is to be considered for a non-employment use. Insufficient evidence has been submitted in respect of policy DM30 for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that there will be no impact from the loss of the employment use.

3. Policy DM2 states that proposals should recognise and address key features, characteristics and landscape of the area. The provision of 5no. dwellings would intrude into this open countryside setting to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would create a visual intrusiveness in this attractive rural location and create a significant impact as to cause harm to the surrounding landscape character proving contrary to the provisions of Policy DM2 and to those of the NPPF relating to good design.

(Councillor Robert Everitt had indicated, prior either votes being taken, that he would abstain from voting on the item having been out of the room for part of the debate on this application.)

(On conclusion of this item the Chairman permitted a short comfort break.)