Agenda and minutes

This being the first meeting of the Development Control Committee since the Authority’s Annual Meeting in May 2017, the Business Partner (Planning) opened the meeting and asked for nominations for the Chairman of the Committee for 2017/2018.

Councillor David Bowman nominated Councillor Rona Burt as Chairman and this was seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

There being no other nominations, the motion was put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Rona Burt be elected Chairman for 2017/2018.

Councillor Burt then took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

ChairCouncillor Rona Burt nominated Councillor Chris Barker as Vice Chairman and this was seconded by Councillor David Bowman.

There being no other nominations, the motion was put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Chris Barker be elected Vice Chairman for 2017/2018.

Prior to continuing with the business on the agenda, the Chairman took the opportunity to formally welcome David Collinson who had recently joined the West Suffolk Councils as Assistant Director for Planning and Regulatory Services. 

The Chairman then paid tribute to two elected Members who had recently passed away; Councillor Bill Sadler long-serving Forest Heath District Councillor for Newmarket and St Edmundsbury Borough Councillor Angela Rushen.  All those present then observed a one minute silence in their memory.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Carol Lynch.

There were no substitutes present at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2017 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2017 were unanimously received as an accurate record and were signed by the Chairman.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/015

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access and Layout to be considered) 9 no. dwellings (following demolition of existing agricultural buildings), alterations to existing access and associated works (amended scheme to DC/15/2456/OUT)

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access and Layout to be considered) 9 no. dwellings (following demolition of existing agricultural buildings), alterations to existing access and associated works (amended scheme to DC/15/2456/OUT)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the Parish Council supported the proposal which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 75 of Report No DEV/FH/17/015.

Members were advised that the application was also before Committee in the interests of consistency, as the previously determined application for the site (DC/15/2456/OUT) had been considered by the Committee in May 2016 when the proposal for 11 no. dwellings was refused.

Speaker:      Mr Michael Hendry (agent) spoke in support of the application

It was moved by Councillor David Bowman that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Simon Cole.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The site falls outside of the defined settlement boundary of Beck Row and is therefore within the countryside where the provision of new housing is strictly controlled.  The exceptions are 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 is contrary to policies DM5, DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document, CS10 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy 2010 and the guiding principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions.  Paragraph 12 of the NPPF is clear however that the Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making.  Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.  There are no material considerations in this case that warrant an approval of the proposed development which is contrary to policy. 

Prior to the consideration of Agenda Items 7, 8 and 9 the Case Officer for the three Lakenheath planning applications tabled two sets of documents to the meeting which related to each of the three reports:

1.   Late representations from Lakenheath Parish Council and supporting documentation (as emailed directly to all Committee Members by the Parish Council earlier in the day); and

2.   Correspondence setting out matters which arose pertaining to the cumulative traffic study following publication of the Committee agenda.

The Case Officer spoke to each of the items and summarised what Members had before them.

The Chairman then allowed a 10 minute adjournment in order to permit the Committee time in which to peruse the tabled documentation.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/016

Hybrid planning application -  1) Full application for the creation of a new vehicular access onto Station Road, and entrance to a new

primary school, 2) Outline application for up to 375 dwellings (including 112 affordable homes), and the provision of land for a new primary school, land for ecological mitigation and open space and associated infrastructure (as amended)

Hybrid planning application -  1) Full application for the creation of a new vehicular access onto Station Road, and entrance to a new primary school, 2) Outline application for up to 375 dwellings (including 112 affordable homes), and the provision of land for a new primary school, land for ecological mitigation and open space and associated infrastructure (as amended)

This item was originally considered by the Development Control Committee on 3 August 2016 when Members determined that the application be granted.

The planning application was returned to Committee in order to enable Members to consider material changes in circumstances that had occurred since the August 2016 determination, these being:

     i.        The Council’s submission to the Planning Inspectorate of the ‘Single Issue Review’ and ‘Site Allocations’ Development Plan Documents;

    ii.        The completion of a cumulative traffic assessment for the village; and

   iii.        The recent publication of noise contour information by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (on behalf of the Ministry of Defence).

The Committee were also advised that following the resolution to grant planning permission in August 2016 the Secretary of State issued an ‘Article 31 Holding Direction’ in respect of this application, which prevented the Planning Authority from granting planning permission for the development, in order to enable the Secretary of State to determine whether or not to ‘call in’ the application for his own determination.

Accordingly, whilst Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 75 of Report No DEV/FH/17/016, this was subject to the Secretary of State confirming withdrawal of the Holding Direction and/or deciding not to call in the planning application.

Members conducted a site visit prior to the meeting.

As part of his presentation to the meeting the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects drew attention to the following:

·         The two supplementary document bundles that related to this application, as made reference to earlier in the meeting;

·         The correct site map which had been emailed separately to Members prior to the meeting (the wrong version had been attached to the published agenda);

·         The most recent noise contour mapping – the Committee were advised that following the noise contours having been updated the application site now fell within the defined boundaries (this wasn’t the case when the application was considered in 2016);

·         The ‘nesting buffer’ and the boundaries that had been updated in respect of this, however, the application site remained unaffected; and

·         Other determined and pending planning applications for Lakenheath and the current status of each.

Speaker:      Councillor Hermione Brown (Lakenheath Parish Council)                     spoke against the application

Councillor Brian Harvey made reference to the tabled correspondence in relation to the cumulative traffic study and voiced concerns with regard to the estimations made reference to within the documentation.  In light of this supplementary paper he felt unable to support the planning application.

In response, the Case Officer explained that Highways had carried out their own assessment of the roads/junctions in question,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/017

Residential development (up to 81 dwellings, as amended)

Residential development (up to 81 dwellings, as amended)

This item was originally considered by the Development Control Committee on 3 September 2014 when Members determined that the application be granted.

The planning application was returned to Committee in order to enable Members to consider material changes to circumstances that had occurred since the September 2014 determination, these being:

     i.        The Council’s submission to the Planning Inspectorate of the ‘Single Issue Review’ and ‘Site Allocations’ Development Plan Documents;

    ii.        The completion of a cumulative traffic assessment for the village;

   iii.        The recent publication of noise contour information by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (on behalf of the Ministry of Defence);

  iv.        The ability of the Council to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing sites;

    v.        The adoption by the Council of the Joint Development Management Policies document in February 2015;

  vi.        The submission of a number of additional planning applications proposing large scale housing development at and around Lakenheath village; and

 vii.        Enactment of CIL Regulation 123 which led to a requirement for the off-site public open space contributions being omitted from the S106 Agreement.

Members conducted a site visit prior to the meeting. Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 115 of Report No DEV/FH/17/017.

As part of his presentation to the meeting the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects drew attention to the following:

·         The two supplementary document bundles that related to this application, as made reference to earlier in the meeting;

·         The comments made by the Council’s Public Health and Housing Officers (as set out in Paragraph 17 of the report) in confirming that they continued to retain no objections to the application; and

·         The most recent noise contour mapping – the Committee were advised that following the noise contours having been updated the application site now fell within the defined boundaries (this wasn’t the case when the application was considered in 2014).

Speaker:      Councillor Hermione Brown (Lakenheath Parish Council)                     spoke against the application

Councillor Louise Marston moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor David Bowman.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion and with 2 abstentions it was resolved that

Decision

1.        Outline planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

        A. The completion of a S106 agreement to secure:

·         Affordable housing: 30% provision.

·         Education contribution (towards land and build costs for a new primary school).

·         Pre-school contribution (towards a new pre-school facility to be co-located with the new primary school).

·         Open space maintenance commuted sum (in the event the Public Open Space on site is subsequently transferred to the Council for maintenance).

·         Contribution towards strategic village green infrastructure provision (off site).

·         Libraries contribution.

        And

        B. Subject to conditions, including:

·         Time limit (3 years for commencement)

·         Materials (use of those proposed)

·         Water efficiency measures (triggering the ‘optional’ requirements of the Building Regulations)

·         Bin  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/018

Erection of 67 dwellings (including 20 affordable dwellings) together with public open space, as amended

Erection of 67 dwellings (including 20 affordable dwellings) together with public open space, as amended

This item was originally considered by the Development Control Committee on 3 September 2014 when Members determined that the application be granted.

The planning application was returned to Committee in order to enable Members to consider material changes in circumstances that had occurred since the September 2014 determination, these being:

     i.        The Council’s submission to the Planning Inspectorate of the ‘Single Issue Review’ and ‘Site Allocations’ Development Plan Documents;

    ii.        The completion of a cumulative traffic assessment for the village;

   iii.        The recent publication of noise contour information by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (on behalf of the Ministry of Defence);

  iv.        The ability of the Council to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing sites;

    v.        The adoption by the Council of the Joint Development Management Policies document in February 2015;

  vi.        The submission of a number of additional planning applications proposing large scale housing development at and around Lakenheath village;

 vii.        Enactment of CIL Regulation 123 which led to a requirement for the off-site public open space contributions being omitted from the S106 Agreement;

viii.        Adoption of new parking guidance by Suffolk County Council, replacing the 2002 Suffolk Advisory Parking Standards; and

  ix.        Amendments to the proposal made by the applicant to address changes in circumstance relevant to public open space, car parking provision and surface water drainage requirements.

Members conducted a site visit prior to the meeting.

The Committee were advised that there were still some minor ‘snagging issues’ to be resolved in respect of highways (as made reference to in Paragraph 86 of Report No DEV/FH/17/018), which were considered negligible enough to be delegated to Officers to confirm with the Highways Authority following the submission of further details with the applicants.  Accordingly, whilst Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 119, this was subject to the receipt of confirmation from the Highways Authority that they had no reasonable objections to the amended details.

As part of his presentation to the meeting the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects drew attention to the following:

·         The two supplementary document bundles that related to this application, as made reference to earlier in the meeting;

·         The amendments made to the plans since September 2014, principally with regard to the public open space element (the number of dwellings within the scheme remains the same); and

·         The most recent noise contour mapping – the Committee were advised that following the noise contours having been updated the application site now fell within the defined boundaries (this wasn’t the case when the application was considered in 2014).

Speaker:      Councillor Hermione Brown (Lakenheath Parish Council)                     spoke against the application

Following a question from Councillor Brian Harvey, the Case Officer reiterated that Highways had carried out a cumulative impact assessment of all relevant applications, they had not been solely considered in isolation.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/019

Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under Planning Permission F/2013/0257/HYB - the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for Phases B and C

The Chairman agreed for these two items to be considered concurrently as they concerned the same site.

Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under Planning Permission F/2013/0257/HYB - the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for Phases B and C

Planning Application – 8no dwellings and associated garaging and parking

These applications had been referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of one of the Red Lodge Ward Members, Councillor Lance Stanbury, for the reasons detailed Paragraph 29 of Report No DEV/FH/17/019.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the applications be approved subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 53 of Report No DEV/FH/17/019 (DC/16/2832/RM) and Paragraph 47 of Report No DEV/FH/17/020 (DC/16/2833/FUL).

The Principal Planning Officer made reference to the previously granted hybrid application for the site (F/2013/0257/HYB) within her presentation.

Speaker:      Mr Clive MacLeod (resident) spoke against the applications

Further to the comments made by the public speaker, the Officer drew attention to the agreed haul route plan in respect of the development;  she confirmed to Members that past breaches of this plan had been notified to the Council who were monitoring this.  The Committee were advised that the separate enforcement matter was not a material planning consideration.

In response to a question concerning education provision, Officers confirmed that Suffolk County Council had recently granted permission for Red Lodge’s second primary school to be constructed.

Councillor Lance Stanbury was present as Ward Member for the application and spoke on the importance of space standards and the quality of developments within the District.  He advised the Committee that he had raised the size of properties with the Council’s Strategic Housing Team who confirmed that the size of the units met with minimum space requirements.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) also added that Officers had been undertaking a piece of work with regard to space standards across West Suffolk and this would be presented to a future meeting of the Development Control Committee.

Councillor David Bowman moved that Planning Application DC/16/2832/RM (Report No DEV/FH/17/019) be approved as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 2 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission for DC/16/2832/RM (Report No DEV/FH/17/019) be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.       Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved         plans and documents

2.       Details of emergency access to be provided and implemented in        advance of 194th dwelling.

Councillor David Bowman moved that Planning Application DC/16/2833/FUL (Report No DEV/FH/17/020) be approved as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 2 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission for DC/16/2833/FUL (Report No DEV/FH/17/020) be GRANTED subject to conditions to address the following:

1.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/021

Planning Application - (i) Extensions to B1 Light Industrial warehouse including loading bay (ii) additional parking area and new access

Planning Application - (i) Extensions to B1 Light Industrial warehouse including loading bay (ii) additional parking area and new access

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because Newmarket Town Council raised objections which were contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 38 of Report No DEV/FH/17/021.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer made reference to the planning application granted for the site in 2013 (F/2013/0253/FUL) and explained that the change to the HGV access proposed in the scheme before Members for determination was considered a much better solution by Officers.

As part of the Officer’s presentation attention was drawn to Paragraph 31 of the report, which contained the comments made by the Council’s Public Health and Housing Team who raised no objections to the scheme, on the basis that the proposed extension was likely to reduce the noise levels generated during operation by serving as a barrier to the plant.

Lastly, the Officer advised that since publication of the agenda a response had been received from the consultee in respect of surface water.  No objections were raised to the scheme, subject to the inclusion of three conditions which would be added to those listed within the report’s recommendation.

It was moved by Councillor David Bowman that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the three additional surface water conditions, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Ridgwell.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to         the following conditions:

1        Time limit

2        14FP Approved drawings.

3        Implementation of a programme of archaeological work

4        Completion of a site investigation and post investigation          assessment

5        Provision of electric vehicle charge points

6        Provision of new vehicular access in accordance with Drawing No. 3875 - 009 Rev A

7        Provision of manoeuvring and parking areas

8        Provision of visibility splays

9        Hours of demolition and construction

10      Hours of use for loading bays

11      Hard and soft landscaping scheme

12      Details of the strategy for the disposal of surface water

13      Details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the strategy for the disposal of surface water

14      Details of a construction surface water management plan detailing how surface water and storm water will be managed on the site during construction

Report No: DEV/FH/17/022

10 No. apartments (demolition of existing dwelling)

10 No. apartments (demolition of existing dwelling)

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 3 May 2017 because it was for a major development and Newmarket Town Council raised objections.  A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

At the May meeting a number of Members voiced varied concerns with regard to the scheme and the Committee resolved that they were minded to the refuse permission, contrary to the Officer recommendation. 

Accordingly, a risk assessment had been produced for Members’ consideration.  Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved subject to conditions, as set out in Section I of Report No DEV/FH/17/022.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that following the May Committee meeting the applicant had submitted an amended site plan which included four additional parking spaces and an acoustic fence.  The applicant had also confirmed that the scheme allowed two vehicles to pass at the entrance to the site.  A revised tree protection plan had also been submitted, in light of the works required to enable the four additional parking spaces, which would be mitigated by way of replacement planting.

The Officer also stated that she was aware that the applicant’s agent had emailed Members of the Committee directly with supporting information.

Speaker:      Mr Malcolm Daines-Smith (agent) spoke in support of the                            application

Whilst some Members of the Committee continued to voice concern with the scheme a number found it generally acceptable.

It was moved by Councillor Simon Cole that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting for the motion and with 3 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Full planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun no later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

2.   The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans and documents:

Amended plans and elevations received 1 April 2017

Amended roof plan received 13 April 2017

Amended site plan received 24 May 2017

Amended Tree Protection plan – date TBC

Location Plan received 28 September 2016

3.   Prior to their first use, samples of all external materials to be used in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

4.   No development above damp course level shall be constructed until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

5.   No individual dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until the optional requirement for water consumption (110 litres use per person per day) in Part G of the Building Regulations has been complied with for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 235.

Report No: DEV/FH/17/023

Householder Planning Application - (i) Single storey front extension (ii) Two Storey side and rear extension (iii) Single storey rear extension - revised scheme of DC/15/2282/HH

Householder Planning Application - (i) Single storey front extension (ii) Two Storey side and rear extension (iii) Single storey rear extension - revised scheme of -DC/15/2282/HH

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

A Member site visit was held on 3 April 2017.  No comments had been received from Newmarket Town Council and Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 31 of Report No DEV/FH/17/023.

The Planning Officer explained that in 2016 planning permission was granted under application DC/15/2282/HH.  However, whilst works had been largely completed, several elements had been found not to conform to what was granted permission.

Accordingly, the plans before Members had been amended as part of the retrospective application to better show what works had been completed. 

As part of his presentation the Case Officer advised that a first floor front elevation window had been omitted from the plans, however, this could be delegated to Officers to include if Members resolved to approve the application.

Councillor Ruth Bowman explained that whilst she was not happy with the noncompliance and subsequent retrospective application, she moved that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation (inclusive of the delegation in respect of the first floor window) and this was duly seconded by Councillor Simon Cole.

Upon being put to the vote and with 3 voting for the motion and 9 against, the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Councillor Brian Harvey raised a question with regard to building regulations.  Officers confirmed that a building regulations application had been submitted via an external company, however, Members were reminded that building regulations compliance was not a material planning consideration.

The Case Officer advised the Committee that a significant amount of the scheme before them would have been allowed under Permitted Development.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded Members that whilst the application was retrospective it, like any other, needed to be considered on its own merits.  She also advised the Committee that it was custom and practice to consider Permitted Development alongside an application in order to help inform an Officer recommendation.  

Councillor Stephen Edwards spoke against the application, he cited objections to the scheme in respect of:

·         Poor design being out of character in the street scene;

·         Impact on neighbours’ amenity (overlooking); and

·         Overdevelopment of the site.

Councillor David Bowman proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, for the reasons cited by Councillor Edwards and this was duly seconded by Councillor Edwards.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the ‘minded to’ process would be invoked in respect of this application should Members resolve to refuse, and Officers would produce a risk assessment for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

Councillor Cole requested that the following information be included in the risk assessment report; the scheme granted approval under DC/15/2282/HH, development allowed under Permitted Development and the scheme applied for retrospectively –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 236.