Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Robert Everitt.

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 4 August 2016 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held 4 August 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED – That :

                   (1) subject to the full consultation procedure, including

                        notification to Parish Councils/Meetings and reference to

                        Suffolk County Council, decisions regarding applications

                        for planning permission, listed building consent,

                        conservation area consent and approval to carry out

                        works to trees covered by a preservation order be made

                        as listed below;

                   (2) approved applications be subject to the conditions

                        outlined in the written reports (DEV/SE/16/61 to

                        DEV/SE/16/65) and any additional conditions imposed

                        by the Committee and specified in the relevant decisions;

                        and

                   (3) refusal reasons be based on the grounds outlined in the

                        written reports and any reasons specified by the

                        Committee and indicated in the relevant decisions.

                       (The item relating to Report DEV/SE/16/66 was withdrawn

                        from the agenda)

Change of use from antiques centre (A1) to 9 no. self-contained flats (C3) at Clare Antiques,  Malting Lane, Clare for Mr Christopher Marchant.

Report    DEV/SE/16/61

Change of use from antiques centre (A1) to 9 no. self-contained flats (C3) at Clare Antiques, Malting Lane, Clare for Mr Christopher Marchant.

(Councillor Alaric Pugh advised that he had been involved in negotiations between the applicant and the Trustees of Clare Castle Country Park over the possible use of some car parking spaces within the country park in connection with the proposal. After speaking as Ward Member during the public speaking session and to avoid  any perception of bias or predetermination he therefore withdrew from the meeting for the remainder of the discussion of the item.

Councillor Carol Bull arrived at the meeting  immediately prior to the Officer’s  presentation of the report on this item)

The Committee had visited the application site on 28 July 2016 but the item had been withdrawn from the agenda for the meeting on 4 August 2016 to enable matters relating to car parking and refuse bin storage to be clarified.

Officers reported that further correspondence had been circulated directly to all Members of the Committee by Clare Town Council.

In relation to the proposed Condition 3, Officers advised that the reference to ‘House of construction’  should read  ‘Hours of construction’.

The following persons spoke on the application :

(a)   Objector         -  Geoffrey Bray, Chairman, Clare Castle Country Park

                                Trust

(b)   Town Council  -  Cllr. Paul Bishop, Chairman

(c)   Ward Member –  Cllr. Alaric Pugh

(d)   Applicant        -  Christopher  Marchant.

In response to Members’ questions Officers advised as follows:

(i)   the shop area of the building would remain although with a slightly reduced frontage. The proportion of the shop use to be retained was small (less than 10%) in relation to the overall building which had three storeys;

(ii)  it was proposed that cycle storage on racks would be provided off the lobby area within the building. Officers advised that the exact arrangements for cycle storage could be made the subject of a condition requiring detailed proposals to be submitted for prior approval;

(iii)  a bin storage area would  also be provided within the building and the Council’s Waste Collection Officers were satisfied with the arrangement being proposed;

(iv)  in view of concerns expressed by some Members about a single access serving 6 of the flats  and as a consequence whether there would be a satisfactory means of fire escape Officers advised that this matter had been discussed with the Council’s Building Control Officers who would deal with this aspect of the proposal. They had advised that no external fire exit staircase would be necessary; and

(v)   whether, if permission was granted, the residents involved would be  permitted to use the car parking spaces at the nearby country park for a fee was entirely a matter to be agreed by the parties concerned. A Member expressed the view that the issue of car parking might be self-regulatory since prospective owners of the flats would have knowledge in advance of the purchase that there was no allocated car parking space available within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 250.

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.

Report   DEV/SE/16/62

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.

Consideration of this application had been deferred at the meeting on 4 August 2016 as the Committee was minded to refuse it because of the detrimental effect the proposal would have on road safety during the construction period. It was suggested at that time that alternative access solutions might be available for construction traffic. In accordance with the Decision Making Protocol, a Risk Assessment Report (DEV/SE/16/62)

had been produced to enable further consideration to be given to the proposal by the Committee. This contained: (i) further information from the applicants in relation to the concerns previously raised; (ii) an assessment of the risks involved in refusing the application; and (iii) potential reasons for refusal if the Committee was still minded to take this decision. The report referred to a supporting statement provided by the applicants subsequent to the last meeting which outlined difficulties involved with three alternative access routes to the application site and which concluded by stating that the proposed access under consideration was their preferred option. In relation to Paragraph 6 and the first-mentioned clause of the proposed Construction Management Plan Officers advised that the stipulated days this restriction would apply to should be   ‘ Monday to Friday’ and not  ‘ Monday and Friday’ as stated. Officers also reported that three further letters of objection had been received since this matter was last considered. These raised concerns about the proposed vehicular access and expressed doubts that the proposed Construction Management Plan would overcome the road safety issues.

The following person spoke on the application:

(a)    Applicants    -  Jonathan Friel, agent

During the public speaking session the applicants’ agent reiterated a request that the proposed Condition 3 be deleted if permission was granted. This condition required that development on the application site

be not commenced until work on constructing the Northern Relief Road had begun. The applicants were contending that this condition would sterilise the site for a period of 5 years which was the latest date for construction work on the Relief Road to be commenced. They felt that a start date which coincided with work beginning on the residential development for the North West Haverhill Strategic Site to be more reasonable and acceptable.

In discussing the application Members sought clarification as to the

dates by which works on the  Relief Road  were to be commenced and completed. Officers advised that the Section 106 Agreement relating to the NW Haverhill Development Site required the road  to be completed within 5 years of this development commencing ( estimated to be  in March 2018) or when the first 500 houses were finished.  A Member questioned whether the proposal could be regarded as sustainable development in  view of the lack of public transport and other services in this part of the town. Officers responded by advising they were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 251.

Amendment to landscaping around the lagoon areas and site frontage at Land East of The Granary, Clare for Charles Church Anglia.

Report  DEV/SE/16/63

Amendment to landscaping around the lagoon areas and site frontage at Land East of The Granary, Clare for Charles Church Anglia.

This application sought amendment to an already approved application, SE/12/0461/FULCA, for the erection of 60 dwellings and the construction of new vehicular access. The original plans envisaged the erection of a post and chain link fence around the lagoons at the front of the site. Because of Health & Safety legislation considerations an amendment was now being proposed whereby black metal railings would be used. Whilst in the normal way consultation on non-material amendments was not required this had been undertaken and an objection had been received from Clare Town Council.

The following person spoke on the application:

(a)    Objector    -   Julia Yeung

The Committee noted that during the public speaking session the objector had raised safety concerns as the proposed railings would be horizontal. She had referred to the ease with which children could climb over or through this type of railing and gain access to the water area beyond. She had expressed surprise that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) had endorsed the use of such railings and asked whether a Risk Assessment had been carried out by the applicants. Some Members shared these concerns and questioned whether vertical or some other arrangement of dual fencing could be utilised. It was also acknowledged that the objection received from the Town Council related to the detrimental effect the use of prominent railings would have on the setting of the residential development which was well designed and laid out. Officers advised that the form of this fencing had been the subject of long discussion with the applicants and they were requesting that the current proposal be determined. It was difficult to achieve a solution which would satisfy safety considerations and be ROSPA approved and yet would also be acceptable in aesthetic terms by not affecting the setting of the development adversely.

Decision

Approval be granted

Tree Preservation Order 151 (1971) 6 – 1 no. sycamore (T1 on plan within A1 of order) at Victoria House, 112 Springfield Road, Bury St. Edmunds for Victoria House Management Co. Ltd.

Report  DEV/SE/16/64

Tree Preservation Order 151 (1971) 6 – 1 no. sycamore (T1 on plan within A1 of order) fell at Victoria House, 112 Springfield Road, Bury St. Edmunds for Victoria House Management Co. Ltd.

The Committee had visited the application site on 25 August 2016.

The following persons spoke on the application :

(a)      Supporter                         -   Margaret Ellis

(b)      One of the Ward Members  -   Cllr. David Nettleton

In discussion the application the Committee noted the recommendation of the Arboricultural Officer that consent be refused but it was sympathetic to the views of the supporter who lived in the adjoining property of 22 Chancery Mews who wished to see the tree felled. During the public speaking session the supporter had explained the adverse effects the tree was having on her residential amenity. Her concerns were endorsed by Councillor David Nettleton who suggested that if felling of the tree was to be allowed a condition could be imposed that a replacement tree of a suitable size and species be planted.

Decision

Consent be granted subject to the following conditions :

1.  Two year time limit for the works to be carried out; and

2.  A replacement tree of a suitable size and species to be planted.

Two storey front extension at Gatehouse, Dettingen Way, Bury St. Edmunds for Gatehouse – Caring in East Anglia.

Report   DEV/SE/16/65

Two storey front extension at Gatehouse, Dettingen Way, Bury St. Edmunds for Gatehouse – Caring in East Anglia.

(Councillor Julia Wakelam declared a pecuniary interest in this item as she was acting as the agent for the applicant organisation and also was its Chairperson. After speaking on behalf of the applicants during the pubic speaking session she withdrew from the meeting for the remainder of the discussion of the proposal)

This application was before the Committee as the agent for the applicants was an elected member of the Borough Council.

The following person spoke on the application :

(a)    Applicants    -   Julia Wakelam, agent

Decision

Permission be granted.

Construction of Storage Barn at East Town Park, Coupal’s Road, Haverhill for  St. Edmundsbury Borough Council.

Report  DEV/SE/16/66

Construction of storage barn at East Town Park, Coupal’s Road, Haverhill for St. Edmundsbury Borough Council.

At the request of Officers this item was withdrawn from the agenda with the intention of it being considered at the next meeting.