Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors  Robert Everitt and

Ian Houlder.

Any Member who is substituting for another Member should so indicate together with the name of the relevant absent Member.

No substitutions were declared.

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

The minutes of the meeting held 2 June 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(i) Change of use of land to 9 hole pay and play golf course with changing room facilities and associated landscaping;  (ii) erection of 26 timber lodges, manager’s lodge and associated landscaping; and (iii) non-compliance with Condition 17 of Planning Permission E/89/2307/P  and Condition 20 of Planning Permission E/97/2470/P relating toretention of  existing vehicular access and without compliance with Condition 6 ofPlanning Permission SE/05/02293 to enable occupation of holiday lets without bringing golf course into use  at Fornham Park, Fornham St.Genevieve for Dream Lodge Group.

Report    DEV/SE/16/46

(i) Change of use of land to 9 hole pay and play golf course with changing room facilities and associated landscaping; (ii) erection of 26 timber lodges, manager’s lodge and associated landscaping; and (iii) non-compliance with Condition 17 of planning permission E/89/2307/P and Condition 20 of planning permission E/97/2740/P relating to retention of existing vehicular access and without compliance with Condition 6 of planning permission SE/05/02293 to enable occupation of holiday lets without bringing golf course into use at Fornham Park, Fornham St. Genevieve for Dream Lodge Group.

A Committee Update Report had been previously circulated after the agenda and papers for the meeting had been distributed. This clarified comments on the application made by the Council’s Planning Policy Team, provided further comments from the Council’s Economic Development Officers, put forward amendments to the proposed Conditions 1 and 3 and recommended additional conditions 15, 16 and 17.

In presenting the written report Officers referred to the Parish Council’s

comments detailed in paragraph 8, the last bullet point of which suggested that the application would have a detrimental effect on the Park Farm allocation contained in Policy RV6 of the Rural Vision 2031 document and advised that this point had not been addressed in the report. Officers further advised that at the time the Park Farm allocation was made the Council would have taken into account the extant planning permission, reference SE/05/02293, for the lodges and golf course. In view of the situation that the current application simply sought to vary one of the conditions imposed on that permission Officers did not consider there was any impact on the deliverability of the Park Farm allocation.

The following persons spoke on the application :

(a)     Objectors     -     Mark Aston and Rona Kelsey

(b)     Supporter    -     Colin Hilder

(c)     Parish Council –  Councillor Mike Collier (Chairman)

(d)     Ward Member –  Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger

(e)     Applicants       -  Nick Laister, agent

In discussing the application Members noted that a detailed soft landscaping scheme was proposed the intention of which was to mitigate the visual impact of the holiday lodges. Members also acknowledged points of concern which had been expressed  by the Parish Council and local residents during the public speaking session as follows:

(i) the proposed access road within the site which incorporated the reinstated South Lodge Drive was felt to be unnecessarily circuitous. Fears were expressed that  the shorter route  via  North Lodge Drive would be used by guests staying at the proposed lodges  and other visitors  which would pose highway safety risks at the point where it met the B 1106. The suggestion had been made that the proposed Condition 8 should be withdrawn and that an alternative improved access route identified;  and

(ii) whilst there was a proposed means of access for cyclists and pedestrians along South Lodge Road  there was an absence of pavements along this route and also of other safe cycle  and pedestrian links within the application site.

Additionally Councillor Peter Stevens suggested there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

(Means of access to be considered) – Residential Development of up to 30 dwellings, associated garages, ancillary development, public open space and landscaping at development land, Brickfields Drive, Haverhill for Trustees of The Vestey 1993 Settlement.

Report      DEV/SE/16/47

(Means of access to be considered) Residential development of up to 30 dwellings, associated garages, ancillary development, public open space and landscaping at development land, Brickfields Drive, Haverhill for the Trustees of The Vestey 1993 Settlement

The following person spoke on the application:

(a)    Applicants     - Jonathan Friel, agent.

In considering this proposal the Committee noted that :

(i) the development of this site by the grant of any planning permission would be dependent on the prior commencement of the Northern Relief Road for the town and that the  planning permission for this road expired at the end of March 2018 and as such highway works should commence prior to this time; and

(ii) the highways  authority and the Town Council had expressed concerns about on-street parking  and traffic management issues that would arise in the vicinity of the application site. Haverhill Members on the Committee reiterated these concerns.

Decision

Consideration be deferred to enable the Committee to carry out a site inspection.

1 no. dwelling (following demolition of existing village hall) at Former Village Hall, The Street, Stradishall for Mr E Hollingsworth.

Report   DEV/SE/16/48

1 no. dwelling (following demolition of existing village hall) at Former Village Hall, The Street, Stradishall for Mr E Hollingsworth.

This application had been deferred by the Committee at its meeting on 4 May 2016 for further information to be obtained it being acknowledged that the village hall was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and that alternative or replacement provision of community facilities did not appear to have been adequately addressed. Additionally, deferment  had been in order to seek a more appropriate design of the proposed dwelling  which had regard to the neighbouring listed building. Report DEV/SE/16/48 provided an update since this proposal was last considered and appended to this was a letter from the applicant’s agent. The letter informed that the Parish Council had a preference for converting part of the parish church for use as the village meeting room and that in meantime the applicant had offered the community the use of a barn known as The Lodge on an informal basis.

The following person spoke on the application:

(a)    Applicant     -   Erica Whettingsteel, agent.

The Committee in considering the application was of the view that  the statement made in relation to alternative community facility provision did not satisfactorily overcome the objection to the proposal raised by Policy DM41 and that there remained other policy objections to the application which related to the adverse effect the overall bulk, scale height and massing of the proposed replacement dwelling would have on the adjacent listed building.

Decision

Permission be refused

 (i) Two storey side extension (following demolition of existingrear extension and porch) ; and (ii) detached double garage (followingdemolition of existing garage) at 9 Glebe Close, Ingham for MrGeorge Trudgett.

Report    DEV/SE/16/49

(i) Two storey side extension (following demolition of existing rear extension and porch); and (ii) detached double garage (following demolition of existing garage) at 9 Glebe Close, Ingham  for Mr George Trudgett.

The following person spoke on the application:

(a)    Parish Council   -   Councillor Jack Beadie.

The Committee noted the concerns of the Parish Council but concluded that there were insufficient grounds for refusing the application.

Decision

Permission be granted

Single storey rear extension (following demolition of existingconservatory) at 27 Horsecroft Road,  Bury St. Edmunds for Mr & Mrs Willem and Sara Nissink and Noonan.

Report    DEV/SE/16/50

Single storey rear extension (following demolition of existing conservatory) at 27 Horsecroft Road, Bury St. Edmunds for Mr Willem Nissink and Mrs Sara Noonan

This Committee was required to determine this application as one of the applicants was an employee of the Borough Council.

It was noted that a dormer window had now been omitted from the original plans submitted and this would overcome concerns about overlooking  that had been expressed by neighbours.

Decision

Permission be granted.

(a) DC/15/1464/FUL – Change of use from D1 (Non-residential institution) to B1 (Business),B2 (General Industry) or B8 (Storage/Distribution).Amendments to the application include: (i) alterations and extensions to mezzanine floors within unit;(ii) minor alterations to external appearance (installation of windows) in north-western and southern elevations; (iii) revisions to car parking; and (iv) details of delivery and servicing at Unit B;

(b) DC/15/1465/FUL – Change of use from D1 (Non-residential institution) to B1 (Business), B2 (General Industry) or B8

(Storage/Distribution).Amendments to the application include: (i) alterations and extensions to mezzanine floors within unit; (ii) minor alterations to external appearance (installation of windows) in north-western and southern elevations; (iii) revisions to car parking; and (iv) details of delivery and servicing at Unit C;

(c) DC/15/1466/FUL – Change of use from D1 (Non-residential institution) to B1 (Business), B2 (General Industry) or B8 (Storage/Distribution). Amendments to the application include (i)

Alterations and extensions to mezzanine floors within unit; (ii) minor alterations to external appearance (installation of windows) in north-western and southern elevations; (iii) revisions to car parking; and (iv) details of delivery and servicing at Unit D; and

(d) DC/15/1467/FUL – Change of use from D1 (Non-Residential

Institution) to B1 (Business), B2 (General Industry) or B8 (Storage/Distribution). Amendments to the application include (i)

Alterations and extensions to mezzanine floors within unit; (ii)

Minor alterations to external appearance (installation of windows) in north-western and southern elevations; (iii) revisions to car parking; and (iv) details od delivery and servicing at Unit E,

Anglian Lane Bury St. Edmunds for Zurich Assurance Ltd.

It was noted that the proposed B8 use for  each of these applications had been withdrawn by the agent  prior to the meeting.

A Committee Update Report had been previously circulated after the agenda and papers for this meeting had been distributed. This recommended amendments to  proposed Conditions 3 and 4 and put forward proposed additional Conditions 12 and 13. Officers advised orally on an amendment to  the Update Report in relation to the  preamble to the proposed Condition 13 so that this read : ‘ to ensure that the two roller shutters to the northern side of Units C and D are not left open whilst works takes place leading to potential for noise pollution and impact on residential amenity’. It was explained that the roller shutter to Unit B was to be dispensed with and the opening bricked up. The proposed Condition 13 should therefore only relate to Units C and D.

It was also reported that a parking plan had recently been received and this made provision for 127 spaces. Suffolk County Council, Highways

prescribed standards required a total of 132 spaces but Highway Officers were of the view that there was tolerance regarding the shortfall.

An acoustics report commissioned by the applicants had also been received and this had concluded that given the ambient noise levels relating to the nearby A14 noise generated by the applicants would not be perceptible above this. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232.