Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brian Harvey and Carol Lynch.

There were no substitutes at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2016 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2016 were unanimously accepted as an accurate record and were signed by the Chairman, subject to the insertion of the following wording:

Minute No. 124     Planning Application DC/15/0754/FUL – 146a High                                      Street, Newmarket (Report No DEV/FH/16/005)

“Lastly, the Case Officer drew attention to two additional items that needed to be added to the recommendation in Paragraph 178:

1.   Section 106 agreement to include a contribution to Newmarket Railway Station (this had been mistakenly omitted and had been identified earlier in the meeting by Councillor Peter Ridgwell); and

2.   An additional condition to be included for details of levels.”

Report No: DEV/FH/16/008

Single storey extensions to existing barn conversion (as approved under DC/15/1402/PMBPA) as amended by email, design and access statement revision A and drawing nos. TAB189-01 Rev B and 10 Rev A received on 22 March 2016 removing annexe

Planning Application DC/16/0242/FUL  - Single storey extensions to existing barn conversion (as approved under DC/15/1402/PMBPA) as amended by email, design and access statement revision A and drawing nos. TAB189-01 Rev B and 10 Rev A received on 22nd March 2016 removing annexe.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee due to the applicant being related to an elected Member.  The application was recommended for approval as set out in Paragraph 24 of Report No DEV/FH/16/008.

The Planning Officer reminded Members that they had considered a previous application for the site at the meeting of the Committee on 5 August 2015.

The Committee was also advised that no further consultation responses had been received from any parties since publication of the agenda.

It was moved by Councillor David Bowman, seconded by Councillor Louise Marston and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that:

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.       01A – Time limit detailed.

2.       14FP – Development to accord with drawing nos. TAB189-01 Rev B, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 Rev A and 10 Rev A received 22 February 2016 and 22nd March 2016.

3.       04R – Materials as detailed on drawing no. TAB189-07 Rev A received 22 February 2016.

Report No: DEV/FH/16/009

Outline Planning Application (Access and Layout to be considered) - 11 no. dwellings (existing buildings to be demolished); alterations to existing vehicular access

Outline Planning Application DC/15/2456/OUT (Access and Layout to be considered) – 11 no. dwellings (existing buildings to be demolished); alterations to existing vehicular access.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was a ‘major’ development and was, therefore, presented directly to Members without prior consideration by the Delegation Panel.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 71 of Report No DEV/FH/16/009, which was contrary to the views of the Parish Council who were in support of the scheme.

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to Paragraph 20 of the report and advised that since publication of the agenda it had been confirmed that no play and open space contributions would be required for the scheme.

A typographical error was noted in Paragraph 45 by Councillor Simon Cole and the Officer confirmed that the sentence in question should have read:

“Relevant policies for the supply of housing…”.

Councillor David Bowman spoke as Ward Member for the application and moved that it be refused as per the Officer recommendation.  Councillor Cole spoke in support of the Officer report and seconded the motion.

With 9 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that:

The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1)   The site falls outside of the defined settlement boundary of Beck Row which is defined as a Primary Village under policy CS1 of the Forest Heath Local Development Framework Core Strategy (May 2010). There are exceptions to allow for housing development in the countryside as set out under policies DM5, DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Local Plan Joint Development Management Policies Document (February 2015), these being affordable housing, dwellings for rural workers, small scale infill development of 1 or 2 dwellings, and the replacement of an existing dwelling.  The proposal does not represent any of these exceptions and as such fails to comply with policies DM5, DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document and the guiding principles of the NPPF. The Authority is presently able to identify a deliverable five year (plus buffer) supply of housing sites and the proposal is therefore considered unacceptable as a matter of principle.

2)   Policy CS5 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy (May 2010) requires all new development to be designed to a high quality and reinforce local distinctiveness and states that design that fails to enhance the character, appearance and environmental quality of an area will not be acceptable.  Policy DM2 of the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Local Plan Joint Development Management Policies Document (February 2015) states that proposals for all development should create a sense of place and/or local character.  Policy DM22 of the same document states that residential development proposals should create a coherent and legible place that is structured and articulated so that it is visually interesting and welcoming.  New dwellings should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.