Amended footway plans at George Hill Nurseries, Stanton

The site

The site is a former nursery north of Stanton, outside the housing boundary, beside Barningham Road and existing homes.

“The site is situated to the north of the village of Stanton and falls outside the housing settlement boundary, on land designated as countryside for the purpose of planning.”

“The site is bound to the East by the Barningham Road and to the north and south by existing residential dwellings. The site historically was used as a former nursery, including a number of buildings previously used for this purpose and numerous trees and other vegetation.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the amended footway would maintain access to Stanton while retaining a mature tree and electricity poles.

“Whilst the amendments will reduce the width of an element of the western footpath, this part of the footpath will be the least used by the application site residents as they will mostly be using the footpath on the eastern side of Barningham Road, which leads to Stanton.”

“In conclusion, the principle of the development was established through the allowed appeal (ref. APP/F3545/W/21/3278163) and the detail of the proposed alterations to the western footpath are deemed to be an acceptable, still enabling a walking route into the village of Stanton from the application site, whilst retaining a mature tree and high voltage electricity cable poles.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The highways authority had no objection, while Stanton Parish Council objected over trees and the development’s closeness to the front boundary.

“Suffolk County Council Highway Authority – Have no objection to the variation of conditions 2 and 23 of DC/20/2065/OUT to allow for amended footway plans for the 10-dwelling development. It was noted that the reduced width footway on the opposite side of Barningham Road will ensure that the existing street trees will be unaffected by the new footway.”

“Stanton Parish Council – Object to this application as some concern had been raised by a resident about the felling of trees without permission and the closeness of the development to the front boundary.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Stanton ward member spoke on the application and the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

Members’ debate

Members questioned whether the footway could be built around the electricity poles and trees, and highways officers responded about traffic movements.

“During the debate some Members raised concern at the proposal and questioned why the footpath simply couldn’t be constructed to go round the high voltage poles and trees.”

“Following comments in relation to traffic movements along the adjacent highway the Suffolk County Council Highways Officer was invited to respond on this point.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the variation removed secured highway improvements and diminished their quality and intended function.

“Councillor Jon London then proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as he was mindful that in allowing the original appeal the Inspector gave weight in favour of the development to the package of highways improvements proposed.”

“Members were mindful that in allowing the original appeal the Inspector gave weight in favour of the development to the package of highways improvements proposed. The variation of condition application sought to remove a section of improvements that were secured, diminishing the quality of the proposed improvements so that they would no longer serve the function as originally intended.”

Minutes