Agenda item

Planning application - Entry Level exception site for 2no affordable dwellings and ancillary access arrangements (partly retrospective)

Planning Application - Entry Level exception site for 2no affordable dwellings and ancillary access arrangements (partly retrospective)

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 22 July 2020 following consideration by the Delegation Panel at the request of the Ward Member (Chedburgh & Chevington) Councillor Mike Chester.

The Delegation Panel subsequently recommended that the application be heard before the Development Control Committee due to the site’s (enforcement) history and the degree of public interest generated by the proposal.

Furthermore, Dalham Parish Council had raised objections to the scheme which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

However, the item was withdrawn from the 22 July 2020 Development Control Committee agenda following a third party representation which suggested that the application as submitted ought not be determined by the Local Planning Authority on the basis that planning application DC/16/1735/FUL had already been refused on the 17 February 2017.

The representation asserted that based on the advice contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance, a further application could not be submitted pursuant to S.70c of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act.

In response to this claim, legal advice was sought which confirmed that there were no material or legal reasons for the Local Planning Authority to refuse to determine this planning application, accordingly, it was returned to the Committee on 2 September 2020 for deliberation.

At the September meeting Members resolved that they were minded to refuse planning permission due to advice contained within the 2015 Written Ministerial Statement which relates to intentional unauthorised development and over concerns that the dwellings proposed are not affordable.

Accordingly, a Risk Assessment was produced for further consideration by the Committee which the Senior Planning Officer took Members through as part of his presentation.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting and drew attention to the supplementary ‘late papers’, that had been issued following publication of the agenda, and the subsequent email that had also been sent out to the Committee which summarised additional representations received from third parties.

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer made reference to the revised visibility splay and the third-party comments received in relation to this. He advised the Committee that the comments had been forwarded on to Suffolk County Council Highways who, in response, confirmed that they continued to be content with the scheme as proposed.

Officers continued to recommend that the application be approved subject to a S106 Agreement and conditions as set out in Working Paper 1 (with an updated drawing number for visibility splay, amended plan received 22 September 2020).

Speakers:    Rachel Mack-Smith (resident objector & on behalf of fellow neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

                   Councillor John Riddell (Dalham Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Mike Chester (Ward Member: Chedburgh & Chevington) spoke on the application

Philip Kratz (agent) spoke in support of the application (the agent had opted not to connect to the meeting to address the Committee and had instead asked the Democratic Services Officer to read out a pre-prepared submitted statement)

During the debate a number of the Committee continued to voice reservations with the application and the Senior Planning Officer responded on matters relating to; the S106 Agreement, the specifics surrounding the difference between rural and entry level exception sites, and considerations that could be given in the event of an appeal.

Councillor Andy Drummond addressed the meeting as Suffolk County Councillor for Dalham and endorsed the reason for refusal as set out in Paragraph 37 of the report. 

In addition, he cited further reasons for refusal concerning the impact the scheme would have on the character of the area and the Conservation Area, together with its un-neighbourliness.  He referenced polices CS3, CS5, DM2, DM17 and DM22.

Councillor Drummond then moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, for the reason with the report and those he verbally added.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

(During the debate both Councillors John Burns and Ian Houlder lost connection to the meeting, hence they were advised that they were unable to take part in the vote on this item.)

Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting for the motion and with 3 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

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

1.   This application seeks to retain two dwellings which are subject to an extant enforcement notice, as upheld through planning appeal APP/H3510/C/14/3000236. The development as a whole is therefore unauthorised. The application represents an attempt to retain unauthorised development which the Local Planning Authority has deemed to be unacceptable previously and this remains the case, despite the proposal now being for 2 affordable units as opposed to open market dwellings. Section 70c of the 1990 Town and Country Act is specifically designed to prevent Planning and Regulatory Services, West Suffolk Council, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 3YU repeated attempts to retain development which has already been considered as unacceptable by the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore, the Written Ministerial Statement (UIN HCWS423) Entitled "Green Belt protection and intentional unauthorised development" advises that where development is intentionally undertaken without the benefit of planning permission, this is a factor which must weigh against the proposal in the overall planning balance. In this instance, whilst the affordable status of the two dwellings is noted, this is not considered sufficient to outweigh the intentionally unauthorised nature of the development.

2.   In conjunction with policy CS5 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy (2010), policy DM2 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015 provides that proposals for development should recognise and address the key features, characteristics of the locality within which they are proposed. This is further supported by Policy DM22 which further requires that all residential development proposals should maintain or create a sense of place and/or character by basing design on an analysis of existing buildings and landscape and utilising the characteristics of the locality to create buildings and spaces that have a strong sense of place and distinctiveness. In this instance, the area benefits from a relatively loose grain owing to its location on the periphery of the settlement of Dalham. This is reflected by modestly scaled dwellings which, for the most part, share a strong linear relationship with the highway. The pattern of development in this area is generally linear in form and does not incorporate a significant number of dwellings positioned behind those already in situ. The proposed development of two dwellings would be at odds with this built form as the two units would be set behind the existing cottages which front onto Stores Hill in an unsympathetic suburban back land arrangement and result in additional, visually jarring buildings on a site that provides an important transition between this small village cluster and the wider countryside beyond to the west of the village. It would also intensify the concentration of development on the western outskirts of the village where the settlement form currently thins out. As a consequence, the proposed development would be discordant and harmful to the established character of the area. The introduction of additional built form, domestic paraphernalia and a formalised access will appear out of character and visually inappropriate. Further, the siting of two relatively large dwellings to the rear of existing modestly sized properties, notwithstanding the proposed alterations to upper level fenestration is also judged to adversely compromise existing levels of amenity through the introduction of additional built form which appears unneighbourly and dominating from the existing private amenity space associated with the cottages which front onto Stores Hill. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policies CS5 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy (2010) and policies DM2, DM22 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015). Consequently, the Planning and Regulatory Services, West Suffolk Council, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 3YU proposal is also judged to represent a material conflict with the advice contained with paragraph 12 of the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework.

3.   The application site lies within the Dalham Conservation Area. Policy CS3 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy (2010) Document advises that the historic environment shall be protected, conserved and, where possible, enhanced. Where applicable, proposals for development should therefore take into account the local distinctiveness and sensitivity to change of distinctive landscape character types, and historic assets and their settings. Accordingly, Policy DM17 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document requires developments within the conservation area to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation area. However, by virtue of the proposal's modern finishes and external design features which are not sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area, the scheme fails to satisfy policies CS3 and DM17. This is a significant and material factor which weighs against the scheme as both policies CS3 and DM17 seek to ensure that the historic environment is preserved for future generations and the scheme fails to meet this requirement. As a result of the conflict with policies CS5 and DM17, the proposal also conflicts with the advice set out within chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and in particular, given the minimal public benefit arising, paragraph 196 of the Framework.

4.   The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus development in sustainable locations. Local Planning Authorities should avoid new homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. The affordable nature of the proposed dwellings is noted however, paragraph 2.5.14 of the Core Strategy recognise Dalham as a small village with no settlement boundary and policy DM5 (Development within the Countryside) states that areas designated as countryside will be protected from unsustainable development. As a result of the site's location outside any of the Authority's defined settlements, the development would require future occupiers of the proposed dwellings to travel to nearby villages and beyond to access shopping, education, employment, recreation, and social facilities. The majority of these journeys would inevitably be by private motor vehicle due to the limited public transport provisions available. Accordingly, the proposal for two new dwellings in this countryside location therefore represents an unsustainable form of development in an unsustainable location which is contrary to chapter 9 of the 2019 NPPF.