Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jason Crooks, Robert Everitt and Peter Stevens. 

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

There were no substitutes present at the meeting. 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2018 (copy attached).

Councillor David Nettleton made reference to Minute No 31 and the reference therein to the “Lawyer” who provided legal advice to the June meeting. 

The Lawyer who was in attendance advised Councillor Nettleton that the job title was indeed correct and outlined the reasoning for this.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2018 were then received by the Committee as an accurate record, with 12 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, and were signed by the Chairman.

Report No: DEV/SE/18/026

Planning Application - Variation of condition 1 of DC/16/2836/RM to enable drawing PH-125-03C to be replaced with 040/P/102 and PH-125-04C to replaced with 040/P/101 and add plan 040/T/152A for the additional 24no. garages for the Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under outline planning permission SE/09/1283/OUT - The appearance, layout, scale, access and landscaping for 200 dwellings, together with associated private amenity space, means of enclosure, car parking, vehicle and access arrangements together with proposed areas of landscaping and areas of open space for a phase of residential development known as Phase 1

Planning Application - Variation of condition 1 of DC/16/2836/RM to enable drawing PH-125-03C to be replaced with 040/P/102 and PH-125-04C to be replaced with 040/P/101 and add plan 040/T/152A for the additional 24no. garages for the Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under outline planning permission SE/09/1283/OUT - The appearance, layout, scale, access and landscaping for 200 dwellings, together with associated private amenity space, means of enclosure, car parking, vehicle and access arrangements together with proposed areas of landscaping and areas of open space for a phase of residential development known as Phase 1

This application had been deferred from consideration at the Development Control Committee on 7 June 2018 in light of the concerns raised by Members with regard to the garages proposed; with particular regard to the internal dimensions, which fell below the minimum width allowed in the Suffolk Guidance for Parking. 

The item was deferred in order to allow Officers additional time in which to work with the applicant in order to clarify the garage provision.

The application had been originally referred to the Development Control Committee because Haverhill Town Council objected. 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that following the June meeting amended plans for the garages had been submitted by the applicant.  The garages were now designed to have an internal width of 3000mm at the narrowest point between the brick piers and 3225mm for the remainder of the width.  The width between the door-frame was 2428mm and the internal length 6000mm.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 31 of Report No DEV/SE/18/026.  The Committee were advised that the conditions listed within the report were the full conditions stipulated as part of the scheme’s previously granted approval, with a minor amendment to reflect the Section 73 application seeking determination. 

Speaker:      Mr Stuart McAdam (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Julia Wakelam expressed disappointment that it had not been possible to include electrical vehicle charging points as part of the scheme.

The Case Officer explained that this would have needed to have been secured at the outline stage of the application and, indeed, for future applications this would be the case.  The Officer also remarked that as time moved on the market was likely to start to dictate this provision, in the same way that prospective purchasers had requested garages from the developer.

Councillor Carol Bull pointed out that future owners of the properties would have been able to have constructed garages as part of the Permitted Development rights associated with the properties.  As such, she considered it an advantage for the garages to be constructed en bloc by the developer as this would ensure a uniform of design. 

Councillor John Burns expressed a degree of satisfaction at the amendments which had been made to the garages’ internal dimensions.  Henceforth, he proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation.  

This was duly seconded by Councillor Alaric Pugh and with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Report No: DEV/SE/18/027

Householder Planning Application - First floor extensions to front and rear

Householder Planning Application - First floor extensions to front and rear

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the applicant was employed by St Edmundsbury Borough Council.

Bury St Edmunds Town Council raised no objection, however, one of the Ward Members (Moreton Hall) raised concerns together with three neighbouring residents.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 26 of Report No DEV/SE/18/027.

The Case Officer explained that Members had requested that a sunlight analysis be carried out whilst at the site visit.  Henceforth, this had been undertaken and was included in the Officer’s presentation and showed that the proposed scheme would have very little impact.

Speaker:      Mr Lionel Thurlow (agent) spoke in support of the application

The Chairman advised the meeting that a number of Committee Members had received an email the evening prior to the meeting from a neighbouring resident at 8 Sutton Close who objected to the application.  The comments within the email largely reiterated those made in previous submissions and which the Officer had summarised at Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the report.

It was established that not all of the Committee had received the email due to the lateness on which it was sent, accordingly, the Chairman agreed for it to be read out to the meeting by the Case Officer.

Councillor David Nettleton spoke upon the value of the site visit that was undertaken and voiced concern at the impact the application would have on neighbouring residents. 

Accordingly, he moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, on the basis of the proposal being overbearing and the unneighbourly impact on residential amenity.

Councillor Carol Bull concurred with the reason for refusal and seconded the motion.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the reason for refusal could have the relevant policy appended to it and the decision making protocol need not be invoked. 

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 3 abstentions it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL for the following reason: the scheme being overbearing and the unneighbourly impact on residential amenity.