43A Woodbridge Road East
Proposal: Erection of two storey detached building to accommodate 4x single bedroom self-contained flats. Provision of car parking, courtyards/amenity areas and other external works.
Address: 43A Woodbridge Road East
Applicant: SDA Property Solutions
Agent: Mr Adrian Tricker
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report illustrated by drawings and photographs. A site visit was undertaken by Members of the Committee on 6 January 2020.
A late late representation was received from the agent on 6 January 2020 in relation to the previous marketing of the site.
Councillor Smart proposed that condition 6 be amended to consider lockable bollards to protect the parking allocated for future residents, and this was agreed.
The updated Officer recommendation of approval was put to the meeting and was lost.
Councillor Jones proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of policies DM13 and DM5 in terms of establishing a safe and secure environment, safe and convenient access, protecting the setting of existing buildings, and the economic impact on the District Centre, and this was agreed.
Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
1. Policy DM5 of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review (2017) states the Council will require all new development to be well designed and sustainable. In Ipswich this will mean areas which function well and where possible integrate residential, working and community environments and fit well with adjoining areas (DM5 b). Policy DM13 states that proposals for small scale residential development involving infill, backland or severance plots will not be permitted unless the development is sited in a location where it would not be disturbed by other land uses (DM13 a) and has safe and convenient access (DM13 e).
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users (para 127).
The proposed dwellings, due to their siting within a commercial context with restricted access arrangements, together with limited spacing between the development and Dickson House as well as the inappropriate location of the proposed bin store adjacent to a proposed residential dwelling, would result in a cramped form of development that would fail to provide a high standard of amenity for residents and would fail to provide a safe and convenient means of access.
Furthermore, the proposal would not function well and would not be well integrated with or fit well with the adjoining District Centre. The proposed dwellings would inevitably be disturbed by existing uses within the District Centre which rely upon the existing access for servicing.
Consequently, the proposal would fail to be well designed and sustainable and would fail to be in accordance with policies DM5 and DM13, as well as being contrary to the NPPF.
2. The Local Planning Authority is not currently able to demonstrate that it has an adequate five-year supply of land for housing and that housing applications must be assessed in terms of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. In this case it is considered that the harmful effects of the development demonstrably outweigh the benefit of the proposed dwellings. The proposal would be contrary to the aforementioned policies of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review (2017) and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.