4
The Planning Committee received report ES/0036 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management. This application was a revised submission following an application for four dwellings which was refused by Waveney District Council's Planning Committee on 14 August 2018. The current application sought to demolish an agricultural building and replace it with two detached four bed houses. It was also proposed to convert and extend an existing outbuilding to create a two bed dwelling, providing a total of three new dwellings on the site. The site was in the open countryside outside any defined physical limits where there was a presumption against new residential development in accordance with local and national planning policy.
The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Development Management Team Leader (North). The presentation outlined the site location and its proximity to Spexhall Hall, a Grade II listed building. The Development Management Team Leader noted that one of the existing agricultural buildings on the site had permitted development rights to be converted into three dwellings, although this had not been implemented. An aerial photograph of the site was displayed, demonstrating that the application site was within the countryside.
Photographs of the site were shown which highlighted the existing agricultural buildings on the site and views from the site of Spexhall Hall and towards the existing agricultural buildings. The Development Management Team Leader identified which agricultural building had permitted development rights and which was identified for demolition. The Committee was also shown the view along the proposed access to the site, which would run parallel to an existing bridleway.
Drawings demonstrating the proposed elevations and floor plans were displayed, along with the proposed block plan which identified the relation of the proposed dwellings to Spexhall Hall. Each dwelling had amenity space allocated from the existing courtyard.
The Development Management Team Leader explained that the previous application had been refused by Waveney District Council on the grounds that the site was in the open countryside, outside of any settlement boundary and did not comply with exceptions in policy that would allow new housing in the countryside, the impact on the setting of Spexhall Hall, poor layout, and lack of amenity space. He highlighted that the number of dwellings proposed in the new application had been reduced by one unit and now had an appropriate amount of amenity space. The design and appearance of the dwellings was considered to be acceptable.
The Committee was advised that the site was in the open countryside and outside any defined physical limits, where there was a presumption against new residential development in accordance with local and national planning policy. The Development Management Team Leader stated that none of the exceptions that might be applied to these policies of restraint in the open countryside were applicable to the proposed development. The Development Management Team Leader identified that the application was contrary to Waveney Local Plan policies WLP1.2, WLP7.1, WLP8.7, WLP8.11, and WLP8.37, as well as the NPPF (2019), and therefore, was recommended for refusal. He stated that although the new housing to be created would be of benefit, this would be, at best, limited and did not outweigh the harm that would be caused by allowing new housing in an unsustainable location which conflicted with adopted policy. He noted that the policy of achieving 10% of housing growth in rural areas, explaining that of this amount, 70% should be to larger villages, 20% to smaller villages, and the remaining 10% to other rural settlements. In this instance, given the application site comprised of a farmstead divorced from the village, it was not considered to represent a settlement in terms of the policy requirement.
The recommendation to refuse, as set out in the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chairman invited Mr Miller, agent for the applicant, to address the Committee.
Mr Miller quoted the remarks of the Leader of the Council at the Full Council meeting of 22 May 2019 regarding a shortage of housing in the district and the Council's ambitions for more housing growth across the district. He stated that the applicant was trying to help fulfil the 10% housing growth target in rural areas, as defined in the Waveney Local Plan. He noted that there had been no objections to the application; Spexhall Parish Council had supported the application, the Highways Authority had not objected, RAMS approval had been gained, no concerns had been raised by Suffolk County Council Archaeology, and the application was supported by Councillor Cackett, as the Ward Member.
It was stated by Mr Miller that, following the refusal of the previous application by Waveney District Council, the applicant had attempted to address the concerns raised at that time. A Chartered Architectural Practice from the local area had been employed and the current application included a reduction in the number of proposed dwellings and now used materials sympathetic to the local area. Mr Miller acknowledged that one of the agricultural buildings had permitted development rights for conversion to three dwellings.
Mr Miller considered the report to contradict itself in places, as it stated that Spexhall Hall was part of a farm complex but also acknowledged the permitted development rights that existed which would end the site's status as a farm complex, if implemented. He was of the opinion that any harm caused to Spexhall Hall by the development would be less than substantial and that the additional dwellings would support local amenities in the community.
Mr Miller advised the Committee that the site was a small cluster and as such is in the Coastal Plan.
The Chairman invited questions to Mr Miller.
There being no questions to Mr Miller, the Chairman invited questions to the officers.
It was confirmed that, should the development be approved, the site would not become a settlement. The Planning Development Manager stated that in the view of officers, the site was not a cluster, rather, a group of agricultural buildings where some permitted development rights existed. In response to another question, the Planning Development Manager advised that the permitted development rights that existed on the site had been determined by central government.
There being no further questions to the officers, the Chairman invited the Committee to debate the application that was before it.
A member of the Committee, who was Ward Member for Spexhall, noted that he was familiar with the site. He described the agricultural buildings as being in disuse and derelict and considered that they would further decay if not developed. He said that he did not have any problem with seeing a small amount of development of the site as it would improve the area. He noted that the land was not being used for agricultural purposes and was of the opinion that it should be developed.
It was acknowledged by another member of the Committee that the farm was not a working one. He said that the revised designs improved the proposed scheme substantially which was varied in terms of heights and materials. He was of the view that the development would not cause substantial harm to the surrounding area and was in support of the application, noting that Spexhall Parish Council was also in favour of it.
In response, it was highlighted by a member of the Committee that the new Waveney Local Plan had only recently been adopted and made; he noted that the application was contrary to the Local Plan and suggested that it would set a precedent against the new policies should the application be approved. This was supported by another member of the Committee who stated that the 10% housing growth for rural areas should primarily be within settlement boundaries and not scattered across rural areas. He said that the site was not directly linked to local amenities and was at least 1km away from the village hall. He considered that there was no reason to approve the application when it was contrary to policies and suggested that the Committee should take heed of the Officer's recommendation.
A member of the Committee, who was in support of the application, was of the opinion that an exception should be made. He noted the rural location of the application site and considered that the development would encourage growth of the rural economy by supporting local businesses and amenities, and that the development would not be visible from the road. Another member of the Committee replied that the potential for the homes to be taken up was not a valid reason to go against local and national planning policies.
Another member of the Committee spoke for the application, but was concerned about the size of the houses proposed. She considered that perhaps smaller houses would better suit the needs of the local population. She was of the opinion that the houses would be sold and presumed that they would be used as primary homes.
Another member of the Committee said that, having considered all that had been said during the debate, she had resolved that the current application was overambitious for the site and that a more modest proposal would be suitable. She could not support the application in its current form and said that it would be wrong to approve the application if it was contrary to policy. Several members of the Committee noted that it was not for the Committee to consider alternatives for the site, but to consider the application that was before it.
It was stated by a member of the Committee, who was Ward Member for Spexhall, that the original application had been reduced as requested by the Waveney District Council Planning Committee, and would encourage older people (65 plus) to retire to, and spend money in, the local area which he said would fit in with the demographic of the area. He strongly considered that the design and demographic would fit what people wanted and what was needed.
Another member of the Committee, who also supported the application, reiterated that the Committee was considering the application before it and was of the view that the applicant had addressed the concerns raised previously, and had resolved the lack of amenity space in the original application.
Councillor Pitchers moved that the Committee refused the application as per the Officer's recommendation, citing that the development was too large for the site.
At this point in the meeting, the Planning Development Manager was invited to address the Committee regarding issues raised during the debate. She informed the Committee that the application before it was to be determined and not any possible scheme that may be presented in the future. She reiterated that the Waveney Local Plan had been adopted in March 2019 and although its policies allowed exceptions to development in the countryside, this application did not accord with those relevant policies as it was an isolated development that was not connected to local services. She advised that recent appeal decisions received from the Planning Inspectorate supported this stance and that the development was unsustainable, particularly in instances where new dwellings cannot access services and facilities by footpath or lit road.
The Planning Development Manager also referred to the NPPF, which was clear that the public benefits needed to significantly outweigh the harm to listed buildings and confirmed that officers' views were that this was not the case and that the buildings proposed did not meet the defined housing needs of the area. The Planning Development Manager noted that the reasons for refusal had not been debated as yet, by the Committee.
The Planning Development Manager concluded that the Officer's advice was very clear that the application was contrary to a number of policies recently upheld and adopted, and that if it was the Committee's wish to go against the Officer's recommendation clear reasons needed to be given to justify this.
It was clarified that the development was not considered to be a benefit to the heritage asset, as per the NPPF, and that only 15% of any CIL would be paid to the local Parish Council with the remainder being paid to East Suffolk Council. The Committee was advised that there was no evidence to support that local businesses would fail without the new development.
Councillor Brooks offered to move an alternative recommendation; he was informed by the Chairman that Councillor Pitchers had already moved a recommendation to refuse and sought a member of the Committee to second the motion. Councillor Elliott seconded the motion which was then put to the vote and was not carried.
The Chairman sought an alternative recommendation. On the proposition of Councillor Brooks, seconded by Councillor Goldson, it was by a majority vote
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED.