One dwelling at Development Site, Stoke Road, Clare

“The application seeks planning permission for the construction of one dwelling on land at Clare Golf Course. The proposal reflects a detached dwelling, one and half storey in nature with associated parking area towards the front and an area of rear amenity space.”

“The application site is located outside of any defined settlement boundary within Clare. The application site forms part of Clare Golf Club and is considered to be previously developed land. There are residential dwellings towards the east of the application site and a public right of way towards the west. The settlement boundary of Clare sits towards the north of the application site.”

“DC/17/2653/FUL Planning Application - 4no. holiday cottages with car parking Application Granted 23 March 2018”

“In this regard, the locational sustainability of the site is a material consideration which reduces the weight to be attached to the identified policy conflict. The site lies within close proximity (less than 1km) to the centre of Clare, a defined Key Service Centre, and benefits from pedestrian connectivity via an existing footpath.”

“In addition, the proposal would deliver a number of benefits which weigh in favour of the development. These include, most notably, the re-use of suitable previously developed (brownfield) land, to which substantial weight should be given in accordance with paragraph 125(c) of the NPPF.”

“Private Sector Housing & Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions relating to acoustic insulation, construction hours and external lighting.”

“Suffolk County Council – Highways Authority No objections subject to conditions relating to provision of vehicle parking and cycle storage.”

“The following representations have been received following display of a site notice and a 21-day consultation.”

“The owner/occupier of The Baffy supports the application, providing that the trees and hedges are retained, the width of the current footpath is not encroached upon and that the height of the ground level is retrained and the building not raised during construction.”

“Councillor Mike Chester made reference to the site being referred to as ‘previously developed’ and asked if there was a prescribed timescale for this definition in legislation. The Head of Planning confirmed that the definition was not prescribed, and the Local Planning Authority would make a judgement based on the previous use of the land and the characteristics of the site.”

“Councillor Sara Mildmay-White proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull.”

“Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that…”