Venue: Conference Chamber, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds IP33 3YU
Contact: Helen Hardinge Email: email@example.com
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Terry Clements, Robert Everitt, Paula Fox and Ivor McLatchy.
Any Member who is substituting for another Member should so indicate together with the name of the relevant absent Member.
No substitutes were declared at the meeting.
To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 2 November 2017 (copies attached).
The Chairman drew attention to the two sets of minutes attached to the agenda for Members’ consideration:
2 November 2017 (Special Meeting):
The minutes of the Special Development Control Committee meeting held on 2 November 2017 at 10.00 am were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman
2 November 2017:
The minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2017 at 2.00 pm were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.
(At this point there was a short unintentional adjournment as the presentation equipment had failed. A member of staff attended to resolve the issue and the meeting reconvened).
Report No: DEV/SE/17/046
Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under DC/16/2825/OUT - the means of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for 2no. industrial/logistics buildings (B8 with ancillary B1a offices), together with associated car parking, service yard and landscaping as amended by plans and details received
Reserved Matters Application – Submission of details under DC/16/2825/OUT – the means of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for 2no. industrial/logistics buildings (B8 with ancillary B1a offices), together with associated car parking, service yard and landscaping as amended by plans and details received.
The application had been referred to the Development Control Committee because the Council had a financial interest in the land.
The Reserved Matters application sought consent for layout, scale and appearance and on plot landscaping. The application also sought consent for two large storage and distribution buildings (B8) that would have ancillary B1 offices to serve the principle B8 use, with car parking, cycle storage, yard space and Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) parking, turning and unloading areas. The description of the two buildings were listed in paragraph 2 and 3 of the report.
The two proposed units would operate in isolation from each other and would be served by separate accesses which were approved as part of the new internal road that was being constructed. Each unit would have an entrance for the main car park and pedestrian access and there would be a separate entrance for HGV vehicles.
The application had been amended since submission as outlined in paragraph 5 of the report.
Representations had been received from Bury St Edmunds Town Council and Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council who were both in support of the application.
Speakers: Mr Neil Osborne (Agent) spoke in support of the application.
Members commended the Case Officer for producing a clear and high quality report.
Given that the application was considered a signature development along the A14 that would showcase the entire business park, it was suggested that Members would have liked to have seen elevations that would be visible from the A14 in order to obtain an understanding of what it would look like from the view of travelling down the highway.
Whilst Members’ were generally in support of the application, the following concerns were raised:
· The applicant had submitted a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) statement and achieved a standard of ‘Very Good’, however Members would have liked to have seen a standard of ‘Excellent’ achieved.
· The amount of light pollution that was generally produced from industrial estates.
· The amount of on-site parking available to manage the loading and unloading of multiple HGVs to ensure that they do not have to park off-site.
The case officer responded to the comments and concerns raised:
· The achievement of ‘Excellent’ for the BREEAM statement was deemed as unrealistic by the applicant due to the speculative nature of the proposal and other factors outside of their control. The developer had proposed that they would include other enhancements included in the BREEAM statement.
· An environmental statement was submitted at the application’s outline stage that included conditions that future occupiers of the site would have to comply with to reduce the impact of light pollution.
· A sufficient amount of on-site parking had been provided for HGVs as well as electrical charging ... view the full minutes text for item 355.
Report No: DEV/SE/17/047
Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - Redevelopment of site to provide up to a maximum 79 no. residential units (Class C3) and a new community centre also incorporating a replacement Carousel Children's Centre (Class D1) with associated parking, open space, landscaping and infrastructure
Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) – Redevelopment of site to provide up to a maximum 79 no. residential units (Class C3) and a new community centre also incorporating a replacement Carousel Children’s Centre (Class D1) with associated parking, open space, landscaping and infrastructure.
The application was referred to the Development Control Committee because St Edmundsbury Borough Council were one of the applicants and owned part of the site.
The application site included the former Howard Community Primary School and the Newbury Community Centre. The school had closed in August 2016 as part of the wider implementation of Suffolk County Council’s School Organisation Review and became surplus to education requirements as the children had been transferred to the larger Howard Middle School site. The site had been earmarked by Suffolk County Council for residential development that would help forward-fund the implementation of other essential education projects in the County and improve the quality of infrastructure and meeting an increased demand for places.
The Newbury Community Association had a longstanding objective to rebuild the adjoining Newbury Community Centre to overcome the deficiencies of the existing building and provide a range of flexible meeting space that was better suited to meeting current demand and would enable a greater range of activities and services to be offered.
The application had been amended to increase the maximum quantum of development from 70 dwellings to 79 dwellings, 30% of which would be classed as affordable housing.
Attention was drawn to the supplementary report that had been circulated in respect of this item which corrected a typo in paragraph 26 of the report and included an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation.
In addition to the supplementary report, the Case Officer informed Members of the following amendments that had also been made to the report:
· Reference to the replacement of the community centre in paragraph 64 of the report had been removed;
· Proposed condition two on page 52 of the report;- for clarification the reserved matters listed were in relation to the community centre and nursery building;
· Additional conditions were proposed related to vehicular access, surface treatments and phasing the construction of the community centre and nursery building.
Representations had been received from two local residents who were in support of the application, however did raise concerns related to potential noise and light disturbance from the proposed community centre. A request was also made to install lockable gates on the car park entrance.
Speakers: Mr Colin Ross (Agent) spoke in support of the application.
Members commended the scheme presented before them and stated that they would like to ensure that if approved, the developer would deliver no less, in terms of quality and the quantum of affordable housing, than what was proposed in the application. The Case Officer confirmed that planning conditions and the Section 106 agreement would secure what had been proposed in the application.
In response to a Member’s query, the Case Officer explained that the replacement Carousel Children’s Centre would be ... view the full minutes text for item 356.
Report No: DEV/SE/17/048
Householder Planning Application - (i) Single storey side extension including attached garage (demolition of existing garage) (ii) Replacement of existing flat roof over rear extension with pitched roof
Householder Planning Application – (i) Single storey side extension including attached garage (demolition of existing garage) and (ii) replacement of existing flat roof over rear extension with pitched roof.
(Councillor Ian Houlder declared a non-pecuniary interest as his daughter owned the property next door to the site. He remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item).
The application had been referred to the Development Control Committee because the applicant was an employee of St Edmundsbury Borough Council.
The application sought planning permission for the construction of a single storey side extension including attached garage, following the demolition of existing garage and the replacement of existing flat roof over single storey rear extension with a pitched roof. The proposed single storey side extension would extend 5.5 metres from the side elevation of the existing dwelling and measure a maximum of 13.7 metres in length and 5.4 metres in height.
A query was raised as to whether the Council had any policy in place that stipulated that the height of an extension had to be subservient to the ridge height of the host property. The Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that usually it was preferable for an extension to be subservient to the host property, however for this particular application it was considered acceptable by Officer’s that the ridge height of the proposed extension would be level to that of the host property, particularly given the modest scale of the host dwelling.
One Member was particularly concerned about the extension of the bungalow when there was already a shortage of smaller bungalows suitable for older residents in the Borough. In response to this Members stated that the application should be determined on its own merit and it was considered that the proposal would significantly improve the design and quality of the existing property.
Councillor David Nettleton proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.
Upon being put to the vote, and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that
Planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. Time limit
2. Compliance with plans
Report No: DEV/SE/17/049
Outline Application (Means of Access to be considered) - Residential development of up to 2,500 units (within use classes C2/C3); two primary schools; two local centres including retail, community and employment uses (with use classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5, B1 and D1/D2; open space; landscaping and associated infrastructure
Outline Application (Means of Access to be considered) – Residential development of up to 2,500 units (within use classes C2/C3); two primary schools; two local centres including retail, community and employment uses (with use classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5, B1 and D1/D2; open space; landscaping and associated infrastructure.
(Councillor John Burns declared a non-pecuniary interest as he lived in close proximity to the application site but remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item).
Planning application DC/15/2151/OUT had been considered by the Development Control Committee on 2 March 2017 and planning permission had been granted subject to the applicant entering a Section 106 agreement to secure essential infrastructure. Members were informed that progress towards signing the Section 106 agreement was proceeding well.
The application had been bought back to the Committee because the applicant sought permission to adjust the implementation period from three years to five years for commencement of development and from 10 years to 15 years for the submission of details. The reasoning behind the request was explained by the Case Officer as follows:
· The application site was still owned by a private individual and not a development company therefore the land would need to be marketed before any development could commence.
· The Officer’s decision to suggest a period of submission of details to 10 years was made in line with smaller strategic sites previously considered around Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill, however given that the scale of the proposed development was much larger than those in comparison it was unlikely that all details would have been submitted by the 10 year time limit.
The Case Officer also reminded Members that at the Committee meeting on 2 March 2017, delegated authority had been given to Officers’ to consider alternative access to the site from that which had been proposed from Chalkstone Way. The Officer explained that this had been difficult due to issues related to land ownership, however those issues had now been resolved and the amendment had been made. Some objections had been received, however they related primarily to the scale of development and not the details of the alternative access.
Speakers: Mrs Marion Farrant spoke on behalf of Kedington Parish Council on the application
Councillor John Burns spoke on the application as the Ward Member for Haverhill East
Members were generally in support of the request, however in light of recent requests from Central Government for Local Councils to build an increased amount of houses in a shorter period of time, a suggestion was made by one Member to hold at least one part of the development site to the original agreement to ensure the development does not delay the Council’s obligation to build more houses.
The Case Officer responded to the suggestion and explained that if any part of the site was held to the original agreement of three years then a situation could arise similar to that had been experienced on the nearby North West Haverhill strategic site where development had to commence by March ... view the full minutes text for item 358.