Accessibility parking at 16 Bull Lane, Long Melford, Sudbury

What was proposed

The application proposed a dropped kerb, permeable driveway and accessibility parking space with stepped and step-free access.

“The proposal seeks householder planning permission for the construction of a vehicular dropped kerbed, accessibility parking, and associated driveway. The proposed access makes use of highway frontage and outdoor amenity space to the west of the host dwelling, no.16 Bull Lane.”

“The proposal is to employ a 3.66 metre wide dropped kerb on Bull Lane, utilising block paving to create permeable hardstanding that terminates at a suitably sized accessibility parking space, along with the relevant paved buffer clearances. The scheme is to be located parallel to an existing footway the feeds the property, with both stepped and step-free access to the parking and dwelling.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The property is a two-storey semi-detached home without vehicle access or parking, outside designated areas and in Flood Zone 1.

“No.16 Bull Lane is a two-storey brick residential dwelling within the Settlement Boundary of Long Melford. The dwelling forms part of a semi-detached pair, currently only accessed by a pedestrian footway with no vehicular access onto the plot. There is currently no parking provision within the otherwise generous plot, but the property is afforded a sizable outdoor amenity area to the east.”

“The site is located outside of any land designated as Conservation Area, National Landscape, or Site of Special Scientific Interest. There are no Listed Buildings, Tree Protection Orders, or Public Rights of Way on or adjacent to the proposal. The scheme is located within Flood Zone 1 at where there is the lowest risk of fluvial flooding and equally is not identified as at risk from any other sources of flooding as per the Environment Agency’s current mapping database.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history, and no earlier committee decision, site visit or member call-in was recorded.

“Previous Committee/ Resolution: None Previous Member Site Visit: None Call in request from Council Member: None…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the proposal acceptable for highway safety, drainage, design, residential amenity and biodiversity, and compliant with the development plan.

“The proposal is not considered to detrimentally impact highway safety and is considered to be a suitable access onto the site. The proposal is therefore deemed acceptable in this regard.”

“Policy LP24 of the JLP and paragraph 135 of the NPPF seek to ensure development does not detrimentally affect the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and delivers adequate amenity to future occupiers in order to achieve and maintain well-designed places and the health and wellbeing of communities. The proposed access and parking provision are not considered to cause material harm to the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council had no objection, highways had no objection subject to conditions, and no public comments had been received.

“SCC - Highways Comments Received - 02/12/2025 No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What was said at committee

The case officer outlined the proposal, referral reason, site constraints, access, drainage and recommendation before answering members’ questions.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed highway parking, the absence of a turning point, local congestion and possible effects on the garden.

“Members debated the application on issues including: the potential reduction in parking on the highway, the lack of a turning point, the existing parking congestion in the area, and the impact on the residents’ garden should a turning point be required.”

“The Area Planning Manager advised Members that it would be unreasonable to condition a turning head as this had not been requested by the Highway Authority.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded, passing by six votes for and three against.

“Councillor Whyman proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer recommendation.”

“By a vote of 6 votes For and 3 votes Against…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted with conditions covering time, plans, visibility, access, parking and construction management, plus informatives.

“That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and informatives and any others as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:”

“Compliance Required: Commencement time limit 2. Approved plans and documents 3. Compliance Required: Visibility splays 4. Compliance Required: Access 5. Compliance Required: Vehicle parking 6. Discharge Required: Construction management plan…”

Minutes