18-home rural exception scheme at Land East Of Capel Road, Bentley

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for 18 dwellings, including 12 affordable homes and six market homes, with access considered and other matters reserved.

“RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION Development of Description Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Erection of 18no. dwellings (including 12 no. affordable units and public open space).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a 1.19-hectare former fruit farm outside Bentley’s settlement boundary, beside a playing field and near a public footpath.

“The site is a 1.19ha parcel of agricultural land which is a former commercial fruit farm. It is an irregular shape with a vehicular access and an area of hardstanding in the southwest corner of the site. To the rear of the hardstanding are polytunnel structures and two outbuildings. There is an area of land, close to Capel Road, which contains stakes used for growing soft fruit plants. The larger area of the site is now improved grassland.”

“There is a public right of way (PROW) to the east of the site, Footpath 055, which runs north to south along Case Lane. The site is outside of the Suffolk & Essex Coast and Heaths National Landscape, which lies approximately 215m away to the west at its closest point. There are no trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order on or adjacent to the site.”

Officer report

Earlier application

A previous proposal for 24 homes was refused because of countryside policy, character, recreation, infrastructure and biodiversity concerns.

“The above outline application for 24 dwellings on the site (8 of which were to be affordable units) was considered by the Planning Committee on 29 November 2023 and refused for the following summarised reasons:”

“1) Principle of development contrary to JLP Policy SP03 and location unsustainable. 2) Out of character with existing pattern of development; loss of an important gap; overdevelopment of the site. 3) Lack of mitigation for increased recreation pressure on European designated sites. 4) No S106 legal agreement in place to secure required contributions towards infrastructure. 5) Lack of measures to provide biodiversity net gain as required by SP09, LP16 and BEN 8.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal did not demonstrate local affordable housing need, robust viability, appropriate design or required mitigation.

“The submitted viability assessment fails to meet the national guidance set out within the PPG, including in terms of land value and build costs, and has not taken into account the CIL and planning obligations required to mitigate the impacts of the development on infrastructure.”

“1) The scheme has been submitted as a Rural Exception Site however there is insufficient evidence of a local need in Bentley and insufficient viability information has been provided to justify the inclusion of market housing to subsidise the affordable housing. The scheme is not proportionate in size to the existing settlement and there is no S106 agreement in place to secure the affordable housing.”

Officer report

What residents said

Fourteen representations objected on grounds including policy conflict, overdevelopment, design, flooding, traffic, wildlife, poor connectivity and uncertainty about affordable housing benefits.

“Principle of development does not comply with the Joint Local Plan or the Neighbourhood Plan. • Site is not proportionate in size to the settlement. • No viability assessment has been provided to justify the market housing. • Overdevelopment of the site. • Layout is car dominated. • Affordable units have small plots that are out of character. • Affordable housing and market housing are identifiable and separated. • Open space does not function well due to its position.”

“Case Lane is in my family’s ownership and I will not allow any pedestrian or cycle access from the Fruit Farm onto Case Lane. • Footpath 055 Case Lane should not be upgraded to a bridleway as this would be unsafe. • Site is isolated with poor connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists and children will have to be driven to school. • Pedestrian route between main entrance and the village is unsafe. • Site is not served by public transport.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a parish council representative and an agent’s representative, who answered questions about policy, viability, connectivity and affordable housing.

Members’ debate

Members debated affordable housing need, viability, policy compliance, the indicative layout, site benefits, delivery guarantees and possible deferral.

“Members debated the application on issues including: the loss of the existing fruit farm, the viability of the site, the need for affordable housing, the distance to the site of the nearest objectors to the proposal, the potential future viability issues, the guarantee of delivery of affordable housing, compliance with planning policy and the Bentley Neighbourhood Plan, conditions which could be applied to ensure delivery of the agreed number of affordable units, the…”

“Members debated the reasons for overturing the Officer recommendation and approving the application on issues including: the viability of the scheme, the local housing need, and compliance with planning policy.”

Minutes

The votes

Members rejected motions to approve and defer the application before voting six to two for refusal.

“Members debated the potential reasons for approving the application including policies LP07, Ben 1 and SP03, and the relevance of the layout to an outline application.”

“Councillor Maybury confirmed the substantive reasons for approving the application as: compliance with polices LP07, Ben 01 and SP03, the merits of policy SPD 6.4, reasons for refusal 2 and 3 no longer being relevant, and reason for refusal 4 being addressed by an S106 agreement. The seconder agreed to the reasons for approving.”

Minutes