Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/23/033

Reserved matters application - a. submission of details under DC/21/1950/OUT appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for plot 3 b. including details reserved by conditions 8 (cycle storage), 13 (biodiversity enhancement), 14 (hard and soft landscaping) and 15 (landscape management plan) of DC/21/1950/OUT

Reserved matters application - a. submission of details under DC/21/1950/OUT appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for plot 3 b. including details reserved by conditions 8 (cycle storage), 13 (biodiversity enhancement), 14 (hard and soft landscaping) and 15 (landscape management plan) of DC/21/1950/OUT

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Mildenhall Town Council had voiced support for the application which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation for refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 56 of Report No DEV/WS/23/033.

Members were advised that outline planning permission (all matters reserved) was granted on 7 September 2022 for residential development, comprising two detached dwellings on two separate plots. The application before the Committee considered development on one of those plots.

As part of his presentation to the meeting the Planning Officer provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speakers:    Councillor Ian Shipp (Ward Member: Mildenhall Kingsway and Market) spoke in support of the application

                   Craig Farrow (agent) spoke in support of the application

                   (Councillor Shipp was not present at the meeting in order to address the Committee, instead the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on his behalf)

Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones highlighted specific concerns with the insufficient information that had been submitted with the application in relation to the ecological context of the site, particularly noting the absence of surveys relating to bats and the potential impact of the proposed development on neighbouring trees.

Councillor Carol Bull asked if these elements could be conditioned, however, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the outstanding matters related to the suitability of the scheme and Officers therefore considered it necessary to have this information prior to determination.

The Planning Officer confirmed that extended discussions and negotiations had taken place with the agent in order to seek the information requested. However, Officers were advised that the applicant wished for the scheme to be assessed and determined. Hence, it came before the Committee with the Officer recommendation of refusal.

Councillor Diane Hind proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly second by Councillor Miller-Jones.

Councillor Andy Neal spoke in support of the application and proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, subject to receipt of the outstanding surveys and information.

The Chair advised Councillor Neal that there was already a motion on the table which would need to be voted on (unless withdrawn) prior to any alternative motion being taken.

Councillors Phil Wittam and Rachel Hood asked if the application could be deferred in order to allow a site visit to take place and to enable the applicant to have additional time in which to submit the required information.

The Chair again reminded the meeting that there was already a motion on the table which had been seconded.

Upon putting the motion to the vote and with 10 voting for the motion, 5 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that development reinforces local distinctiveness and has regard to local character, whilst Policies DM2 and DM22 require development to recognise and address the key features, characteristics, landscape character, local distinctiveness and special qualities of the area, including that the residential amenity of nearby properties is not adversely affected.

The application proposes a 1.5 storey dwelling, measuring 7.0 metres in total height, extended along the western boundary shared with 2 North Place which contains and in-built garage area. The western flank therefore appears overbearing and extends approximately 15 metres, within 2.7 metres of the western boundary. The dwelling also sits further north into the plot. Previously, the indicative layout illustrated a western (side) elevation that extended 7 metres, situated 4.4 metres from the boundary at a considerably lower overall height.

The building, together with its increased scale, length and orientation to 2 North Place to the west will result in material harm to the residential amenity of the aforementioned dwelling thus proving to be contrary to Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM2 and DM22 of the Joint Development Management Polices Document.

2.   Policy DM11 seeks to prevent development that would have an adverse effect on protected species. Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 states that:

“Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”

The Duty applies to all public authorities in England and Wales, including all local authorities. Conserving biodiversity includes restoring and enhancing species and populations and habitats, as well as protecting them.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2023) states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by… protecting and enhancing …sites of biodiversity or geological value…” and “minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity …” (paragraph 174).

Insufficient information has been submitted in relation to the ecological context of the site, particularly noting the absence of surveys relating to bats. Officers are therefore not content that there will be no adverse ecological impacts to bat habitats as a result of the proposed development and it is therefore not in accordance with policies DM11 and DM12, as well as the NERC Act and relevant paragraphs within the NPPF.

3.   Policy DM13 states development will be permitted where it will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character of the landscape, landscape features, wildlife, or amenity value.

The application contains insufficient information in assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on neighbouring trees bordering the site, by virtue of the increased size of the proposed development relative to the indicative details considered at the outline stage and the lack of updated information submitted in relation to arboricultural impacts.

The proposal as such would be contrary to the provisions of Policy DM2, Policy DM13 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015), Policy CS5 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy (2010) and the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to preserve important landscape characteristics which make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

(On conclusion of this item the Chair permitted a second short comfort break.)