Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/19/047

Hybrid Planning Application - (i) Full Planning permission - Demolition of 3no. existing dwellings and (ii) Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - for up to 5no. Dwellings as amended by the drawings received 30.11.2018

Hybrid Planning Application - (i) Full Planning permission - Demolition of 3no. existing dwellings and (ii) Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - for up to 5no. Dwellings as amended by the drawings received 30.11.2018

This application had been originally referred to the Development Control Committee of (the now dissolved) St Edmundsbury Borough Council in January 2019 at the request of the Assistant Director (Planning and Regulatory Services) on behalf of Councillor John Griffiths (Ward Member: Ixworth).

At the January meeting the Committee resolved that they were ‘minded to approve’ the application contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal.  The Decision Making Protocol was invoked and a Risk Assessment was produced, as set out in Report No DEV/WS/19/047.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting for the West Suffolk Committee.  The Parish Council supported the proposal.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused for the reason set out in Paragraph 36 of the report.

Speakers:    Councillor Ben Lord (Chairman, Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council) spoke in support of the application

                   Councillor Andrew Smith (neighbouring Ward Member of Bardwell) read out a statement in support of the application on behalf of Ward Member (Ixworth) Councillor John Griffiths

                   Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application

In response to comments made by the Committee during the debate, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) made reference to Policy DM27 and asked Members to give particular consideration to those recent appeal decisions made in connection with this policy.

The Committee was also advised that Ixworth was currently in the process of developing its Neighbourhood Plan; small developments such as the application site could be addressed as part of the Plan’s development as well as having the potential to be put forward as part of the consultation on the emerging West Suffolk Local Plan.

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

Upon being put to the vote and with 4 voting for the motion and 12 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

Councillor Roger Dicker then proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Jason Crooks.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion, 3 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The broad overall aim of paragraphs 77 and 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to promote sustainable development in rural areas by locating housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, by supporting its three dimensions - economic, social and environmental. This approach is also set out in the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy (CS), and the Joint Development Management (DM) Policy DM1 and DM5 which aims to protect the countryside from unsustainable and unjustified housing. In addition to this the Council's settlement strategy is derived from a detailed understanding of the character of the district and the requirement to accommodate growth sustainably.

The proposal is for dwellings outside the settlement boundary and would therefore fall within the remit of policies DM5 and DM27. It is not an infill plot within a cluster, being sited generally within a very loose collection of dwellings, and therefore, as a result of its conflict with Policies DM5 and DM27 cannot be supported as a matter of principle. 

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.

The application site lies outside of the defined Housing Settlement Boundaries and is therefore classified as countryside where rural area policies of restraint apply. There is a presumption against residential development in such locations as set out in Policies CS4, CS13 and DM5.

Given the remote location of the site it follows that the occupiers of the proposed dwellings would have to travel by car to access shopping, education, recreation, and social facilities. The dwellings would also create demand for additional trips by visitors and service vehicles. There are no local shops, services or other facilities within a reasonable walking distance of the site that would appropriately cater for the day to day needs of any future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The nearest reasonable range of day to day facilities are in Ixworth or Honington Airfield, both of which are over 2.5km from the site. In view of the limited options for travel other than by private car, which is exacerbated by the lack of a continuous formal pedestrian foot path linking the site to those settlements, the proposal would not contribute to sustainable travel patterns.

Policy DM5 states that areas designated as countryside will be protected from unsustainable development. Residential development within the countryside is only permitted where it is for affordable housing for local needs, a dwelling for a key worker essential to the operation of agriculture in accordance with the requirements of Policy DM26, infill development within existing clusters in accordance with Policy DM27, or the replacement of an existing dwelling on a one for one basis. 

The NPPF represents up-to-date Government planning policy and is a material consideration when determining planning applications. The Framework reiterates that proposals that conflict with the development plan should be refused permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy DM2 requires development proposals to recognise the character and appearance of the area in which they are proposed. By reason of the location, but in particular from the expansive layout, the regular spacing of the buildings, and the visually prominent frontage car parking and driveway, the proposal would create a visual intrusion, having an unwelcome and highly urbanising effect on public views of the locality, creating a significant impact so as to cause material harm to the surrounding loosely grained rural character, contrary to the provisions of Policy DM2.

The proposal would not provide any substantial contributions to the locality in terms of economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The proposal would be contrary to the pattern of development established in the Core Strategy, and would not respect the character and context of the countryside setting.

The proposal therefore fails to accord with policies DM2, DM5, DM13, DM27, DM33 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015, policies CS2, CS3, CS4 and CS13 of the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy 2010 and paragraphs 77 and 78 in particular of the NPPF, which seek to tightly constrain development in the countryside to that which supports local services and is in appropriate locations. The proposal is in clear and significant conflict with local and national policies.