Agenda and minutes

Prior to the consideration of the items on the agenda, the Chairman informed all members of the public in attendance that they were present in order to listen to the discussion and did not have the right to address the meeting.  They were not to cause a disturbance or interrupt and, if necessary, anyone making a disturbance could be asked to leave.

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Louise Marston was unable to attend the meeting.

There were no substitutes present at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016 were unanimously accepted as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/001

Single storey B2/B8 industrial units and associated external works (Resubmission of DC/14/2218/FUL)

(Report No: DEV/FH/17/001)

Application for single storey B2/B8 industrial units and associated external works (Resubmission of Planning Application DC/14/2218/FUL).

Prior to the commencement of the consideration of this application, the Case Officer explained that the incorrect version of the block plan had been submitted with the agenda papers.  However, Members of the Committee had now been provided with the correct version and the agenda papers on the website had also been updated.

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the Office recommendation of approval, was contrary to the views of Newmarket Town Council.  This was also a major application which had generated significant local interest.

Newmarket Town Council, the District Council Ward Member and local residents (which included 60 letters of objection) had raised various objections to the application, as set out on pages 12 and 13 of the agenda papers.

The Case Officer also explained that Planning Application DC/14/2218/FUL had been the subject of an appeal for the refusal of planning permission for a B2/B8 warehouse and distribution centre on the site.  This appeal had been dismissed and the Inspector’s decision was a significant material consideration in the determination of this revised application.

The Case Officer also provided the following updates which had been received, following the publication of the agenda papers:

1.       An additional letter of objection had been received which raised the following issues:-

-      A loading bay would cause a noise nuisance, particularly to Nos. 30 to 36 and 77 to 81 Studlands Park Avenue.

-      Accoustic barriers could be more effective if built across the loading area itself.

2.       A letter, accompanied by a photograph, had been addressed to all Members.  Members were also in receipt of the Officer response, which corrected several unsubstantiated accusations and defamatory comments and clarified the planning process, in respect of the building of Plot 8.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, as set out in paragraph 44. of Report No: DEV/FH/17/001.

Councillor Ruth Allen (Member for the Severals Ward) was in attendance to speak on this application.  Councillor Allen explained the local opposition to this proposal and the concerns that the amended plans still remained a gross overdevelopment of the site and was out of keeping with the character of the other units in the area.  These amended proposals would still not resolve the loss of natural light, restricted views,  increased noise for local residents and domination of the whole of the landscape.

It was moved and duly seconded that the application be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, for the following reasons:

1.       Contrary to Policy DM2.

2.       Be out of keeping with the character of the area.

3.       Proposed buildings were disproportionate in height.

With the motion for refusal being put to the vote and with 6 voting for the motion and with 7 voting against, the Chairman declared the motion lost.

It was then moved and duly seconded that the application be GRANTED, as set out in paragraph  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/002

Erection of retirement living housing for the elderly (29 No. units), part one-and-a-half / part two-and-a-half / part single storeys, including communal facilities, landscaping and car parking (demolition of existing buildings), as amended

(Report No: DEV/FH/17/002)

Application for the erection of retirement living housing for the elderly (29no. units), part one and a half/part two and a half storey/part single storeys, including communal facilities, landscaping and car parking (demolition of existing buildings), as amended.

This planning application was first referred to the Development Control Committee on 1 June 2016.  Members had expressed concerns regarding the impact of the development on its surroundings and resolved that they intended to refuse planning permission.  Members did not determine the planning application, but deferred their final decision to the following meeting on 6 July 2016 to enable a risk assessment to be considered, in advance of the determination.

At the Development Control Committee on 6 July 2016, Members resolved to grant planning permission, subject to prior completion of a S106 Agreement to secure off-site affordable housing contributions.  The Committee resolved for delegated authority to be given to Officers to negotiate and agree an appropriate level of affordable housing contribution, in the light of a viability claim that had been presented by the Applicants.

The Case Officer reported that it had not been possible to agree an appropriate affordable housing contribution with the Applicant and, consequently, had not been able to complete a S106 Agreement.  The Applicants had indicated that they were no longer willing to discuss viability matters as they could not foresee agreement being reached and had effectively required that the Council determined the planning application, based on their current affordable housing offer (which included a minor upwards adjustment, which represented approximately 5.5% affordable housing provision, set against the Council’s policy target of 30%).

Officers were of the view that the proposals were contrary to the Development Plan with respect to the affordable housing provision, given that it had not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the scheme could not be viably delivered.  Officers considered that there were no material considerations in favour of the proposals that would outweigh the need to deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing from a development of this site.  This included any perceived need for specialist ‘retirement’ housing in the District, which in any case, would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the need to provide for the well documented and evidenced need for affordable homes.

Therefore, whilst the proposed scheme remained acceptable in all other material respects, Officers were recommending that planning permission be refused, given the absence of a policy compliant contribution towards affordable housing provision being secured from the scheme (the proposed reasons for refusal were set out in paragraph 22. of Report No: DEV/FH/17/002).

With the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Planning permission be REFUSED, for the following reasons:

1.           The proposals for the erection of 29 retirement dwellings is contrary to  national planning policies in the NPPF. The proposals are also contrary to the provisions of Policy CS9 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy (2010) and its supporting ‘Joint Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document’. The aforementioned Development Plan policies require new housing developments of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 199.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/003

(i) Two storey front extension and, (ii) side extension to existing detached garage to form workshop/home office

(Report No: DEV/FH/16/003)

Application for:

(ii)     Two storey front extension; and

(ii)     Side extension to existing detached garage to form workshop/home office.

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee because the applicant was an employee of the Council.

Mildenhall Parish Council had supported the application.  A neighbouring property had also made comments in support of the application.  

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, as set out in paragraph 19. of Report No: DEV/FH/17/003.

With the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1.       Standard Time Limit.

2.       Approved Plans.