7
The Committee received report ES/0460 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/20/1909/FUL.
The application sought full planning permission on land to the west of Bealings Holt, Martlesham Road, Little Bealings. The site was located in the countryside, more than 150 metres from the nearest settlement boundary on a road with no pavement, so the proposed dwelling would not meet the current local plan policy relating to dwellings in clusters in the countryside (policy DM4).
A dwelling had previously been granted on this site under NPPF paragraph 55 (now paragraph 79), and that consent remained extant. However, the current scheme was not proposed under paragraph 79, but under emerging Local Planning Policy SCLP5.4 (Housing in clusters in the countryside).
As the recommendation was contrary to the current Local Plan, the application was before the Committee for determination in accordance with the Council's Scheme of Delegation.
The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Principal Planner, who was acting as the case officer. The site's location was outlined, and it's relationship with neighbouring properties Marchwood and Bealings Cottage was established.
Images from Google Earth were displayed showing views of the site from the north, south, east and west.
The Principal Planner outlined the extant planning permission on the site. The proposed access for the new application was unchanged from that approved previously.
The Committee was in receipt of photographs that showed a view of the site from road and the site boundary with Marchwood.
An aerial photograph of the site and the proposed block plan were displayed. The Principal Planner also displayed a copy of the proposed block plan that indicated the distances between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties. Officers were of the view that the scheme was acceptable in terms of residential amenity.
Details of the completed tree survey were outlined, which detailed the trees that would be protected during construction.
The proposed floor plans and elevations were displayed, as well as a computer-generated image of what the completed development would look like.
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as the principle of development, landscape and visual impact, impacts upon trees, on-site ecology, off-site ecology, highway safety and residential amenity, and permitted development rights.
The Principal Planner said that it was considered that the emerging policy SCLP5.4 could be given significant weight, as the proposed main modifications to the policy did not affect the principle of this proposal, and the examination process was nearing completion. The Principal Planner advised that the proposed dwelling complied with policy SCLP5.4 and was acceptable in terms of all other relevant planning policies and material planning considerations.
The recommendation to approve, as set out in the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 2.47pm to allow the Chairman to address the connection issues that she was experiencing. The meeting was reconvened at 2.50pm.
The Chairman invited questions to the Planning Officers.
A member of the Committee asked how many times in the previous three months had a similar application of policies been applied to planning applications. The Principal Planner stated that she was unable to comment on this and that any similar situations would have needed to come to the Committee as per the Council's Scheme of Delegation.
The Chairman invited Mr Ransome, representing Little Bealings Parish Council, to address the Committee.
Mr Ransome said that Little Bealings Parish Council felt very strongly about the application and considered that it was not within the designated settlement boundary of the village. He noted that the application site was within a Special Landscape Area (SLA) and that this should be the prime driver for the Committee in determining the application.
It was noted by Mr Ransome that a previous application for a two-storey dwelling on the site had been refused and considered that the application before the Committee should also be refused as it was not in accordance with the existing Development Plan.
Mr Ransome asked what weight should be given to emerging policy SCLP5.4 and if it was appropriate for it to be interpreted in a way that allows for approval of an unsustainable development in an SLA. Mr Ransome said that the Parish Council did not comply with policy and considered that if approval was given, no care would have been exercised in terms of the policy. He added that approval of the scheme would significantly alter the character of the area and leave the Council with no grounds not to approve other infill sites along the whole of Martlesham Road.
It was highlighted by Mr Ransome that Martlesham Road had no pavement, lighting, or public transport links and that more cars for residents and visitors would exacerbate existing traffic issues in the area.
Mr Ransome considered that paragraph 6.49 of the report contained an error, as the son of the occupant of Marchwood had objected on behalf of the residents, highlighting many of the same points made by the Parish Council.
Mr Ransome said that the Parish Council was not opposed to development where it was appropriate, sustainable and of benefit to the residents. He considered that the Council would be in grave error if it interpreted policy SCLP5.4 as providing grounds for unsustainable development in the SLA.
At the conclusion of Mr Ransome's address, the Chairman sought clarification on whether objections had been received from the residents of Marchwood. The Principal Planner advised that the objections made by the son of the occupants of Marchwood had been written from a different address and had not explicitly stated that they were on behalf of the residents of Marchwood.
There being no questions to Mr Ransome the Chairman invited Mr Price, agent for the applicant, to address the Committee.
Mr Price noted that there was extant planning permission on the site which had been approved under paragraph 55 of the NPPF (now paragraph 79). He noted that the new Suffolk Coastal Local Plan was at an advanced stage, that there were no outstanding issues with policy SCLP5.4, and that the plan was due to be adopted in due course.
It was the view of Mr Price that the application was in accordance with the new policy and that there was no demonstrable harm. He stated that paragraph 48 of the NPPF made it clear that where a Local Plan was at an advanced stage and there were no major issues, its policies could be given significant weight. He sought approval of the application.
There being no questions to Mr Price the Chairman invited Councillor Colin Hedgley, Ward Member for Little Bealings, to address the Committee.
Councillor Hedgley stated that the previous application had been approved as an exception under paragraph 55 (now paragraph 79) of the NPPF. He was of the opinion that the new application did not meet the standards for this exception.
Councillor Hedgley considered that the emerging Local Plan had not been adopted and said it felt wrong to give significant weight to its policies. He said that it was a moral issue to determine the application based on the existing Local Plan rather than trying to circumvent it by pretending that the new Local Plan was already in place. He said that he objected to the application.
There being no questions to Councillor Hedgley the Chairman invited Councillor Tony Fryatt, Ward Member for Little Bealings, to address the Committee.
Councillor Fryatt was concerned about the route being taken with the application. He concurred with Councillor Hedgley's view that the new application was not of the same standard as what had already been approved on the site and said that although he understood that more weight should be given to an emerging Local Plan as it progresses, it should not be acquiesced to until it is adopted. Councillor Fryatt was very unhappy about approving this application based on the presumed adoption of the new Local Plan.
The Chairman invited the Committee to debate that application that was before it.
Several members of the Committee expressed concern about giving significant weight to policy SCLP5.4 when determining the application. Several Members stated that, morally, more weight should be given to the existing Local Plan and Members considered they could not support the application as it was contrary to policy DM4 of the existing Local Plan. One member of the Committee considered that the approval of the application would lead to ribbon development on Martlesham Road.
One member of the Committee initially spoke at length in support of the application, noting that it had not been submitted under paragraph 79 of the NPPF but under policy SCLP5.4 of the emerging Local Plan. However, as debate continued the Member advised that the significant strength of feeling from those members of the Committee opposed to the application had swayed him to support their views and that he would not be voting in favour of the application.
The Chairman of the Committee invited the Planning Manager to address the Committee. The Planning Manager referred the Committee to paragraph 48 of the NPPF, which set out the significant weight that should be given to policies of the emerging Local Plan, given its advanced state. The Planning Manager detailed the differences between policy DM4 and policy SCLP5.4 and noted that the application site had development on two sides of it and therefore accorded with the latter policy.
The Planning Manager advised that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application and the decision was appealed, the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) would consider the application against emerging and established policies in place at the time of the appeal decision and was of the view that any refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal.
There being no further debate, the Chairman moved to the recommendation set out in the report; it was proposed but not seconded and therefore the recommendation FAILED.
The Chairman sought an alternative recommendation. Following further debate by members of the Committee, it was suggested that the application be refused as it was not in accordance with policy DM4 of the existing Development Plan, when weighed against policy SCLP5.4 of the emerging Suffolk Coastal Local Plan.
The Chairman then moved to the alternative recommendation. On the proposition of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Fryatt it was by a majority vote
RESOLVED
That the application be REFUSED as it was not in accordance with policy DM4 of the existing Development Plan, when weighed against policy SCLP5.4 of the emerging Suffolk Coastal Local Plan.
Following the conclusion of this item, the meeting was adjourned at 3.23pm for a short break. The meeting was reconvened at 3.30pm.