Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/20/043

Planning Application - 6no. dwellings (following demolition of existing dwelling)

Planning Application - 5no. dwellings (following demolition of existing dwelling)

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 8 July 2020 following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of Withersfield Parish Council having submitted objections to the scheme which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

The Committee resolved on 8 July that they were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation as the application was contrary to Policy CS4, drainage and flood risk, harm to the conservation area, impact on the setting of a listed building, impact on biodiversity and impact on neighbouring amenity.

Accordingly a Risk Assessment was produced for further consideration by the Committee which the Principal Planning Officer took Members through as part of his presentation, together with videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

A typographical error was highlighted in the description of the application within the report which referred to 6 dwellings and should have read 5; as the scheme had been amended since original submission.

Speakers:    Denis Elavia (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Terry Rich (Chairman, Withersfield Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Lee Frere (architect) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Peter Stevens commenced the debate as Ward Member for the application (Withersfield) and continued to raise concerns with the application, primarily in relation to flooding.

These concerns were echoed by a number of the Committee, irrespective of the condition proposed to mitigate this.

Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

However, further discussion took place with Members highlighting the need to give weight to the concerns raised by local residents and the Parish Council.

The Principal Planning Officer stressed the need to ensure reasonableness in relation to the scale of the development.  He added that Officers considered that the scheme would actually provide a betterment by way of the proposed drainage condition.

Councillor Mike Chester then addressed the meeting and formally withdrew as seconder of the approval motion. Councillor Ann Williamson then seconded the motion.

Following which, the Chair put the motion to the vote and with 6 voting for and 10 against the Chair declared the motion lost.

Councillor Peter Stevens then proposed that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 40 of the report.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Jason Crooks.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion and 5 against it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION for the following reasons:

1.           Without full details regarding the condition of the culvert and chamber to satisfy the highway authority that there will be no risk of highway flooding from surface water from the development, it is has not been demonstrated that a satisfactory drainage scheme is achievable on the site. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy Policy CS2, Joint Development Management Policy DM6 and paragraph 163 of the NPPF in this respect.

2.           Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings) Act 1990 requires the Local Planning Authority to have special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, Joint Development Management Policies DM17, DM1, DM2 and DM22, all of which, seek to protect heritage assets and ensure good design appropriate for the character and context of the site. The site is wholly within the Withersfield conservation area and in this case the courtyard style layout of a group of 5 dwellings, would depart from the mainly linear form of this part of the village harming its appearance. The loss of a significant tree on the frontage of the site is also considered to be harmful to the character of the conservation area as it forms part of a group of trees contributing to its amenity. The application does not therefore preserve or enhance the conservation area and does not accord with Joint Development Management Policies DM17, DM1 and DM2. Having regard to paragraph 196 of the NPPF, the less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (Withersfield conservation area) is not outweighed by any public benefit.

3.           Joint Development Management Policy DM12 states that for all development, measures should be included, as necessary and where appropriate, in the design for all developments for the protection of biodiversity and the mitigation of any adverse impacts. Additionally, enhancement for biodiversity should be included in all proposals, commensurate with the scale of the development. In this case scale of development proposed, 5 dwellings including hard-surfaced areas and parking, results in very space for new planting and biodiversity enhancements to replace the three trees and grassed areas being lost. The loss of trees also represents a loss of habitat for bats and birds. The proposed mitigation set out in the Design and Access Statement is not considered sufficient outweigh this harmful impact representing a net loss in biodiversity. The development does not therefore accord with Joint Development Management Policy DM12.

4.           Thistledown Cottage adjoining the site to the south currently has a relatively open aspect to its northern boundary, with ground floor windows to the gable end of the dwelling. The proposed development introduces a new dwelling of significant scale and form within 5 metres of the gable end. This is considered to be overbearing and harmful to the existing amenity of this dwelling. Furthermore, the Old Bakery to the north west of the site currently enjoys a relatively verdant boundary to Milton House. Proposed plot 6 would be sited close to this existing boundary resulting in the loss of existing vegetation and trees. A two-storey dwelling would be positioned within 5 metres of the existing boundary. This would result in harm to the amenity of the Old Bakery by virtue of over-bearing and additional noise disturbance. This would be contrary to Joint Development Management Policy DM2, which amongst other things, requires new development to avoid harm to existing residential amenity. 

(On conclusion of this item Councillor Andy Neal left the meeting at 2.24pm.)