Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/19/004

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and at the request of Ward Members (Severals) Councillors Andrew Appleby and Ruth Allen.  Newmarket Town Council had also submitted objections to the proposal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  A supplementary document relating to the application had been circulated by way of ‘late papers’ issued after publication of the agenda.

Officers were recommending that the application be refused, for the reason set out in Paragraph 35 of Report No DEV/FH/19/004.

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer made reference to:

·         Site maps of a previously approved (in 2013) scheme;

·         A map of protected trees; and

·         A shade analysis.

The Officer also advised Members of the following corrections:

·         Paragraph 34 of Report No DEV/FH/19/004 should read “In conclusion, the detail of the development…” (not principle); and

·         Paragraph 5 of the supplementary late papers incorrectly referred to ‘Paragraph 32’ and it should have read Paragraph 25.

Speaker:      Meghan Bonner (architect) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Andrew Appleby spoke in support of the scheme and objected to the reason for refusal in relation to the Beech Tree (T013).

He moved that the application be approved, contrary to the recommendation for refusal, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

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.

Other Members spoke in support of the Officer recommendation and the impact the tree in question was likely to have on the amenity of future occupants as well as concern about the impact the development itself would have on the tree.

Accordingly, Councillor David Bowman proposed that the application be refused and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Ridgwell.  However, he was advised by the Solicitor that the amendment was not valid; in that it was a direct negative of the substantive motion.

The Chairman then put the motion for minded to approve to the vote and with 3 voting for the motion and with 8 against, the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Councillor David Bowman then proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Ridgwell. 

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 1 against and with 2 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.       The position of the large Beech Tree (detailed as T013), which is a prominent category A1 specimen, would lead to a significant loss of sunlight hours that the proposed dwelling would otherwise enjoy and be a burdensome seasonal nuisance due to leaf drop and other detritus. The presence of the Beech tree is also the likely to lead to a heightened perception of risk from falling branches to future occupants due to the size and age of the tree in such close proximity to the dwelling. Consequently, these matters are all likely to lead to future pressure to lop or fell the Beech tree. Should this occur, the significant contribution that the tree does and could continue to make to the overall character and appearance of the conservation area would be lost. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with policies DM2, DM13 and DM17 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015, Policy CS5 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy 2010 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 which seek to maintain local character and require new development to address key features and characteristics of an area.