Agenda item - Planning Application DC/20/1849/FUL - Boyton Hall, Anne Sucklings Lane, Little Wratting (Report No: DEV/WS/21/010)

Agenda item

Planning Application DC/20/1849/FUL - Boyton Hall, Anne Sucklings Lane, Little Wratting (Report No: DEV/WS/21/010)

Report No: DEV/WS/21/010

 

Planning application - a. Sixty-six bed care home for the elderly including car park, bicycle, refuse and garden stores b. new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Anne Suckling Road (following demolition of existing house)

Minutes:

(Councillor David Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he had taken part in Haverhill Town Council’s consideration of the application.  However, Councillor Smith stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

 

Planning application - a. Sixty-six bed care home for the elderly including car park, bicycle, refuse and garden stores b. new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Anne Suckling Road (following demolition of existing house)

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following a call-in request from one of the local Ward Members Councillor Joe Mason (Haverhill North).

 

As part of her detailed presentation to the meeting the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to a typographical error in Paragraph 166 of Report No DEV/WS/21/010.

 

Reference was also made to the supplementary ‘late papers’ that had been circulated after publication of the agenda and which included the following information:

        A paper from the applicant responding to the Committee report;

        An indicative amended site plan showing 40 parking spaces; and

        A zone report providing information on existing care homes in a five-mile radius.

 

The written response and amended site plan sought to address the concerns raised by the Highway Authority in respect of the number of parking spaces, the width of the access road and the required visibility splays. However, the Committee was informed that the content of the late papers had resulted in no change to the assessment and recommendations made in the Officer’s report.

 

Lastly, Members were advised that since the late papers were produced additional neighbour objections had been received in respect of the application raising concerns previously covered in other representations.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 173 of Report No DEV/WS/21/010.

 

Speakers:    Ian Sheppard (neighbouring objector, also speaking on behalf of fellow resident objectors Bill Reynolds, Brad Strachan, Mike Ford and Julie Goodwin) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Elaine McManus (Ward Member: Haverhill North) spoke against the application

                   Tracey Spencer (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

A number of Members spoke on the application, largely voicing support for the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.

 

In response to a question regarding the need for care homes, the Principal Planning Officer explained that a parcel of land had been allocated for such a development as part of the Great Wilsey Park masterplan.

 

Following comments made concerning the removal of trees that would be required to facilitate the development, the Chair invited the Council’s Arboricultural Officer to address the meeting.

 

Councillor Jason Crooks spoke on the impact the development would have on the character and identity of the area. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Johns Burns.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and 1 against, it was resolved that:

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

Reason 1

The proposed three storey care home would be significantly greater in scale than the surrounding buildings with large areas of hard landscaping. It would appear as an incongruous and intrusive form of development and would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area.  This adverse effect would be exacerbated by the loss of garden and associated landscape features and through the demolition of the existing building, both of which currently make a positive contribution to the character of the area. The development would therefore be contrary points a, b, d, and j of policy DM2 of the Joint Development Management Policies document and policy CS3 of the Core Strategy.

 

Reason 2

The size and nature of the proposed building is such that it would create long elevations containing numerous windows, many of which would be in an elevated position. The development would have an oppressive impact on the outlook from the neighbouring properties The Willows and 1 Boyton Woods. The development would also have an adverse effect on the level of private amenity currently enjoyed by the neighbour 1 Boyton Woods through a significant increase in the level of actual and perceived overlooking. The development would therefore be contrary to policy DM2 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document which states proposals should not adversely affect residential amenities of adjacent areas.

 

Reason 3

There are a number of trees currently on the site, some of which are covered by tree preservation orders. Collectively, these trees contribute to the landscape setting of Ann Suckling Road and are an important part of its character.

Several trees would be removed to facilitate the development including a group of Silver Birch to the front of the site. The development would also result in harm to the retained Horse chestnut tree(T1) which is an important landscape feature. The feasibility of the tree’s short- and long-term retention has not been sufficiently demonstrated, and it is anticipated that it is likely to be subject to significant post development resentment pressure, which would jeopardise its long-term retention.  The development would therefore be contrary to policy DM13  of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015 as it would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on landscape features.

 

Reason 4

The application does not provide an adequate number of parking spaces or suitable cycle storage for staff and visitors. As such the development would be likely to lead to an unacceptable risk of obstructive on-street parking which would impact on highway safety. Additionally, the access is below the required 5.5 metres in width and it appears that the layout may conflict with the required visibility splays. As such the access arrangement introduces a risk of a severe impact on the safety of all users. The development is therefore contrary to policy DM2 (l) and DM 46 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document as it fails to deliver a design in accordance with standards that maintains or enhances the safety of the highway network.

 

Reason 5

The development would give rise to impacts on the local library and local primary healthcare provision in the area and financial contributions are required to mitigate these impacts. A S106 agreement to secure the necessary contributions has not been secured and as such the development does not comply with policy CS14 of the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy which requires all new proposals for development to secure the necessary on and off-site infrastructure required to support the development and to mitigate the impact of it on existing infrastructure.

 

(Councillor Roger Dicker left the meeting at 10.36am during the Officer’s presentation of this item.)

 

Supporting documents:

 

In this section