Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/20/002

Planning Application - 2 no. dwellings (following demolition of existing work sheds) and associated works (as amended by email received 31.07.2019 to reduce the scheme from 3 dwellings to 2)

Planning Application - 2 no. dwellings (following demolition of existing work sheds) and associated works (as amended by email received 31.07.2019 to reduce the scheme from 3 dwellings to 2)

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee in December 2019 following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Both Pakenham Parish Council and the Ward Member (Pakenham and Troston) Councillor Simon Brown supported the application, which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting in December.

At the Committee meeting Members resolved that they were ‘minded to approve’ the application contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal. 

Accordingly, the Decision Making Protocol was invoked in order for a Risk Assessment to be produced for Members’ further consideration and as set out in the report before the Committee.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused, for the reason set out in Paragraph 16 of Report No DEV/WS/20/002.

Speaker:      James Platt (agent) spoke in support of the application

Whilst some of the Committee voiced support for the application, other Members spoke on the importance of rural employment sites and considered the application to be premature in light of the site currently being used by an existing business.

In response to a question posed, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the West Suffolk Local Plan was currently in infancy stage, therefore, no weight could be attributed towards it in respect of the site in question.

Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 7 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.    The site is in the open countryside in a location remote from services and facilities. Policy RV3 of the Rural Vision 2031 states that residential development will be permitted within housing settlement boundaries where it is not contrary to other policies in the plan. There are exceptions to allow for housing development in the countryside as set out under DM5 (affordable, rural workers dwellings, replacement dwellings and infill where there is a cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings), but this proposal does not satisfy any of these exceptions. The site is also not allocated for residential development in the Local Plan. West Suffolk can demonstrate a deliverable five year housing land supply and therefore the development plan can be considered up to date. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy RV3 of the Rural Vision 2031, Core Strategy policy CS1 and CS4 and Policy DM5 of the Joint Development Management Policies Local Plan and the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 11, 77 and 79 and is considered unacceptable as a matter of principle. Moreover the proposal would result in the loss of an existing employment site. Without sufficient justification the proposal is contrary to policy DM30. The limited social benefits from a financial contribution to affordable housing and marginal social and economic benefits from the provision of two market houses is not considered to outweigh the substantial harm by the proposal undermining the adopted spatial strategy for rural housing and employment in the development plan.

The Local Planning Authority does not consider that there are material factors that justify any other decision. The claims of a ‘fall back’ builder’s yard use by the applicant do not bear scrutiny. Firstly, the Authority is of the opinion that subsequent changes in the use of the site, including the change of use using permitted development rights of two buildings to dwellings started a new chapter in the planning history of the site. This would mean that any former builder’s yard use would have been extinguished at this point. If, and without prejudice, this argument is not accepted, then the facts of the situation, including the period of time and the extent of intervening uses, indicate very firmly that any builder’s yard use that might have existed, and may still have existed beyond the implementation of the prior notification approvals, has otherwise been abandoned. Even if this argument is not accepted, then the Authority would argue that the likelihood of any builder’s yard use recommencing is unlikely, significantly limiting the weight to be attached to such. Furthermore, even if such a use was shown to be extant, and however unlikely, it did recommence, the Authority is of the view that any such use would be preferable to the provision of two dwellings on the site, noting the clear harm arising from such. On this basis, the Authority is of the opinion that no weight can be attached to any claimed ‘fall-back’ arguments relating to the planning history of the site and that determination should be made in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and the Development Plan, both of which very clearly indicate refusal.