Development & Planning Committee

Minutes of the meeting held on Friday 22nd August 2014

GREAT CORNARD PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of theExtraordinary Meeting of the DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING COMMITTEE

Held in The Stevenson Centre at 10am on Friday 22nd August 2014

Present:CouncillorsMrs P WhiteChairman

Mrs F A Jackson

J R A Sayers

T M Welsh

Council ManagerM J Fitt

1. Apologies for Absence:

Apologies were received from Councillors T J Keane, N MacMaster, Mrs T E A Welsh, S M Sheridan and H J S Scott-Molloywho were unable to attend the meeting.

2. New Planning Applications

i)B/14/00877/FHA – 6 Wells Hall Road

Erection of single-storey rear extension and installation of dormer window to front roof slope in connection with loft conversion

Recommend - APPROVAL

ii) B/14/00900/FHA - 2 Pecockes Close

Erection of replacement boundary wall

Recommend - APPROVAL

iii) B/14/00948/FHA – 66 Cats Lane

Erection of porch, first floor side extension, two-storey rear extension, and detached garage

Recommend - APPROVAL

iv) B/14/00804/FUL – Land East of Carsons Drive

Erection of 166 no. dwelling.New vehicular, pedestrian, and cycle access. Provision for public open space and play areas. Proposed woodland planting, provision of new wildlife habitat.

Resubmission of B/10/00094/FUL/GC

Recommend – REFUSAL – see Appendix A

Meeting Closed 10.45am

Appendix A

Application No: B/14/00804/FUL

Land East of Carsons Drive, Great Cornard

We thank you for your letter of 7th August 2014 (received 11th August) inviting the Council’s observations on the above application.

Firstly, the Council notes that this application is described as “Resubmission of B/10/00094/FUL/GC” and, having commented extensively on this application in the past, would be grateful if you would apply our observations, made previously, to this resubmission. For information, we attach copies.

There are, however, further observations we would make in the light of the previous application’s refusal and the dismissal of the subsequent appeal.

Effect on Abbas Hall

Apart from the removal of two plots, 82 & 138, to which the Appeal Inspector drew particular attention, it is hard to see how his concerns regarding sense of place and setting have been addressed in this new application.

Whilst the Inspector (para 36) allowed that the development would not lead to substantial harm, he did conclude that it would cause “less than substantial harm” and that “In accordance with para.134 of the NPPF, this less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal”

We note the ‘public benefits’ listed in the summary of the Design & Access Statement provided by the applicant, and would comment as follows:-

  • Affordable Housing

Whilst the development will provide some affordable housing, this is not particular to this site, and could be provided by development of any site. The Appeal Inspector, in para. 114 notes “But these benefits are not peculiar to this particular scheme; any proposal complying with the local plan allocation would also bring those benefits”

In fact NPPF provides that the public benefits may be achieved with less, or no, harm by alternative location.

  • Improved access and enjoyment opportunities of the immediate surrounding countryside.

Far from improving access to the countryside, this development merely pushes the access several hundred metres further away.

  • Improved amenity and recreation areas

There are amenities provided for the new occupiers of the new dwellings, we cannot see how this provides ‘improvement.

  • Improvement to pedestrian and cycle links between the village and the countryside.

As already noted, the development does not improve access, merely push it further away

  • Growth without resulting in significant additional traffic through the village centre

This completely ignores the detrimental effect that traffic from the development using the C732 through Cornard Tye as a ‘rat run’ to the A134 will have on that community and the ancient ‘holloway’.

We have commented previously on traffic access through the C732 and note that previous amendments to the design, e.g. roundabout, have been removed from the plans.

  • Funding towards improved infrastructure through a Section 10 Agreement (sic)

As above this benefit would accrue from a development sited anywhere

  • Improvement to the local highway network

As noted, the improvements to the highway network seem to have vanished from the plans. The only highway works appear to be those necessary for access to the site.

  • Improvements to surface water drainage system to prevent risk of localised flooding to properties on the Carsons Drive development

As noted in our previous submissions regarding the Flood Risk Assessment. Surely the proposed improvements are there to mitigate the detrimental effects of the development itself, and can hardly constitute a public benefit.

  • Ecological improvements to the immediate area by the creation of woodland and wild flower meadow areas for the benefit of wildlife.

Whilst the provision of more space dedicated to the benefit of wildlife is to be welcomed, surely conservationists locally agree that what is lacking is ‘unimproved grassland’ not more woodland.

As the Appeal Inspector noted in paragraph 114 “The proposal would bring disadvantages of its own with no advantages of its own.”

We cannot, therefore, agree that, in accordance with NPPF the public benefits justify the harm which would be done to the setting of Abbas Hall.

Design and Layout

We have previously commented on the design And layout of the development, saying that red brick is inappropriate; the traditional Suffolk brick is white.

We note that the Sudbury Society have also drawn attention to the Suffolk tradition of lower eaves lines, to move away from the roofs “perched on top of banal façades”.

We concur with their view that “There is ample evidence of good and imaginative current house design which these proposals might have taken account of, and made them a more positive contribution to our continuing built heritage.”

We would also associate ourselves with the general criticisms made by the Appeal Inspector in his section headed Placemaking. We also believe that placing parking and garages in separate blocks, away from the housing it relates to is a poor design. Garage and parking areas tend, by their nature, to attract anti-social behaviour and a consequent reluctance of residents to park there. This leads to a high level of on street, or on verge, parking, which is, in itself, anti-social.

The appeal Inspector notes this in para. 112 and has, particularly, noted the very poor siting of plots 105-110.

Please, therefore, advise the Planning Committee that Great Cornard parish Council continues to recommend REFUSAL of this application.