Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ian Houlder.

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 6 December 2018 (copy attached).

Councillor David Nettleton made reference to Minute No 63. Planning Application DC/18/0464/FUL – King Edward VI Upper School, Grove Road, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/SE/18/042) and the reference therein to him having spoken against the application under the public speaking part of the meeting.

Councillor Nettleton explained that he did not speak against the application at this stage, he simply spoke on the scheme and requested that the minutes were amended to reflect this.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2018 were, therefore, unanimously received by the Committee as an accurate record and were signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following amendment to Minute No 63:

“Speakers:   Councillor David Nettleton (Ward Member: Risbygate) spoke on the application”

Report No: DEV/SE/19/001

Planning Application - 87no. dwellings with associated infrastructure

Planning Application - 87no. dwellings with associated infrastructure

This application had been referred to the Development Control Committee as Haverhill Town Council objected to the scheme.

The Committee was advised that the application site had been previously identified and reserved for the construction of a Middle School.  However, following Suffolk’s Schools Reorganisation Review the site was no longer required for this purpose and it was not identified for any alternative suitable community uses.

The greenfield site was therefore put forward as a small scale allocation in Policy HV5 of the Haverhill Vision 2031.

Members were advised that over the course of the application amendments had been made to the overall design and layout of the scheme and additional information was submitted regarding ecology, archaeology and drainage.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions, as set out in Paragraph 13.1 onwards of Report No DEV/SE/19/001.

As part of the Senior Planning Officer’s presentation she advised Members of the following updates:

·         A late representation had been received the evening prior to the Committee from a resident at 28 Powell Road who objected to the application on grounds of traffic, safety, privacy, ecology and air/noise pollution.  A copy of the email was tabled to all Members for their reference; and

·         At the site visit Members had asked a question with regard to the timing of the delivery of the area of open space.  The Officer confirmed that the open space would be required prior to the occupation of the 78^th dwelling.

Speakers:    Mrs Eileen Bocock (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   Ms Audrey Cain (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   Mr Jordan Last (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor John Burns spoke at length on the application and made reference to the number of changes that had been made since initial submission.  Whilst he welcomed a number of elements of the scheme, such as the disabled-access bungalow, he strongly opposed the proposed pedestrian/cycle link which would connect the site to the existing footpath along Howe Road, and which had been objected to by a number of residents.

Councillor Burns made reference to a number of photographs that he had emailed his fellow Members of the Committee and which he argued showed that the Howe Road was not suitable for the proposed pedestrian/cycle link.

The Senior Ecology and Landscape Officer was invited to speak by the Chairman in order to outline to the Committee the reasoning for the proposed linkage. 

The Officer highlighted the ecological importance of the area of Public Open Space and explained that this was part of the reason why a pedestrian/cycle link had been eliminated on the South/East side of the site.  If a foot/cycle way was to be accommodated in that region it would require trees to be removed and lighting to be provided, which would have an impact on the natural area.

A number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/002

Planning Application - Access road to serve residential development

Planning Application - Access road to serve residential development

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it related to a major planning application.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council objected to the proposal which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 11.0 of Report No DEV/SE/19/002.

As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer explained that the applicant had cited operational reasons for requiring this application to be determined at this time.

Officers had intended to bring both the access road and residential development applications to the Development Control Committee at the same time, however, the applicant was still working with Officers on the final number of dwellings proposed on the residential land and the design and layout of those dwellings.

Attention was also drawn to the ‘late papers’ which had been circulated after the agenda had been published and which contained a corrected plan and additional/reworded conditions.

Speaker:      Councillor Ben Lord (Chairman, Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council) spoke against the application

Considerable discussion took place on the application, primarily in relation to; prematurity, highway safety, drainage and the impact on the established tree belt.

In response to which the Principal Planning Officer:

·         Explained that Officers considered the principle of development to have been established as the site in question had been allocated for the development of housing;

·         Made reference to the right turn ghost island junction that had been granted on appeal and was not part of the application before the Committee;

·         Advised that it was not unusual for the Highways Authority to choose not to adopt the drainage attached to a road scheme such as that proposed and for the management to be carried out by a separate commercial company, and clarified that this was not a material planning consideration; and

·         Informed the Committee that approximately 5% of the tree belt was likely to be lost to accommodate the road and there was limited scope for replacement planting, however, this could potentially be addressed via future residential development applications.

Councillor Julia Wakelam proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, due to the insufficient detail provided on the potential impact on the established tree belt.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.

The Service Manager (Planning Development) confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked in this case and that a risk assessment was not considered necessary by Officers.

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

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL for the following reason:

1.   The proposed access road will encroach upon the established tree belt along the western boundary of the wider area and will result in the loss of trees and vegetation at this point.  The applicant has failed to supply a detailed arboricultural survey for the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/003

Planning Application - (i) Ground floor retail unit; (ii) 4 no. flats on first and second floor (following demolition of existing building). As amended by plans and documents received on 14 August 2018 removing garden areas

Planning Application - (i) Ground floor retail unit; (ii) 4 no. flats on first and second floor (following demolition of existing building). As amended by plans and documents received on 14 August 2018 removing garden areas

This application had been referred to the Development Control Committee following call-in by Councillor Jo Rayner (Ward Member: Abbeygate).

The Chairman of the Development Control Committee subsequently expressed a view that the application should be presented directly to the Development Control Committee rather than the Delegation Panel and this was agreed by the Assistant Director (Planning and Regulatory Services).

A Member site visit was held prior to the Committee.  Bury St Edmunds Town Council had raised objection to aspects of the scheme.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 57 of Report No DEV/SE/19/003.

Speakers:    Mr David Marjoram (Owner of the neighbouring One Bull Public House) spoke against the application

                   Mr David Barker (Agent for the One Bull Public House) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Tom Murray (Bury St Edmunds Town Council) spoke against the application  

During the debate the Committee’s discussion largely concerned the relationship between the proposed scheme and that of the neighbouring One Bull Public House which was both a business and private residence of the owners.

Members largely commended the design of the proposal which they considered would enhance that area of Bury St Edmunds.

Whilst recognising the amendments which had already been made to the scheme during the course of the application; the Committee did not consider the requests raised by the One Bull owner/agent to be unreasonable.

It was therefore proposed by Councillor David Nettleton that consideration of the application be deferred, in order allow additional time in which for the applicant to consider the requests put forward by the One Bull, these being:

1.   The construction of a permanent structure to form the bin store;

2.   The inclusion of a screen to prevent overlooking into the One Bull’s private residence’s garden and access to the proposed flat roof adjacent; and

3.   Amendments to the internal layout of Flat 3 including obscured glazed windows closest to the One Bull.

This was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.

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

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order allow additional time in which for the applicant to consider the requests put forward by the One Bull, these being:

1.   The construction of a permanent structure to form the bin store;

2.   The inclusion of a screen to prevent overlooking into the One Bull’s private residence’s garden and access to the proposed flat roof adjacent; and

3.   Amendments to the internal layout of Flat 3 including obscured glazed windows closest to the One Bull.

(On conclusion of this item, and Part A of the agenda, the Chairman permitted an interval before proceeding with Part B of the agenda at 1pm.)

Report No: DEV/SE/19/004

DC/18/0034/FUL |Planning Application – i) Construction of Agricultural dealership building with associated offices, servicing and repairs of agricultural machinery, parking, access, cleaning facility and outside storage and display areas of agricultural machinery for sale (sui generis use)  ii) Construction of new access road with cycle ways and footpaths, pumping station, substation and associated landscaping

DC/18/0034/FUL |Planning Application – i) Construction of Agricultural dealership building with associated offices, servicing and repairs of agricultural machinery, parking, access, cleaning facility and outside storage and display areas of agricultural machinery for sale (sui generis use)  ii) Construction of new access road with cycle ways and footpaths, pumping station, substation and associated landscaping

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the Officer recommendation was not wholly consistent with the Development Plan, noting the designation of part of the site as being within an airfield.

The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects explained that the application site sat between Rougham Tower Avenue (formerly known as the Eastern Relief Road (ERR)) to the North and the Rougham Industrial Estate, to the South.

The site was previously part of a much larger arable field/airfield which was allocated principally in the Local Plan as the Rougham Airfield.  However, the realignment of the ERR in a more northerly route had resulted in the application plot becoming available as it was now cut off from the wider airfield site.

The Parish Council supported the application.  Officers were recommending that planning permission be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 28 of Report No DEV/SE/19/004.

Members largely considered the application to offer both a sensible and acceptable solution. 

Some questions were raised with regard to the proposed colour palate and if there was an aspiration to form some kind of cohesive design palate across the Borough. 

In response, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the Planning Authority was currently working alongside other authorities on the development of a Suffolk-wide design guide.

Councillor Julia Wakelam posed a question as to why Officers accepted a BREEAM standard of V Good when Policy DM7 required the application to achieve Excellent standard or equivalent.

The Case Officer explained that, whilst not ideal, Officers were satisfied that the lesser level should be accepted because the scheme included:

i.     On site renewable energy generation;

ii.    Enhancements for biodiversity and landscape; and

iii.   Enhanced facilities to allow people to walk and cycle to work.

As the above matters were covered in the BREEAM Assessment Officers considered that the harm of the scheme not being at Excellent standard could only be afforded limited weight and so the application was, on balance, acceptable.

Councillor David Nettleton proposed that the application be granted, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

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.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun not 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 approved plans and documents.

3.           The existing access off Fred Castle Way shall be used for the construction of the development hereby approved and no other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/005

Planning Application - (i) Change of use from shops and offices A1/B1 to 3no. dwellings - 2-4 St Andrews Street North (ii) 2no. dwellings (demolition of existing accommodation/garage building and partial boundary wall) - Land to rear of 106-108 Risbygate Street

Planning Application - (i) Change of use from shops and offices A1/B1 to 3no. dwellings - 2-4 St Andrews Street North (ii) 2no. dwellings (demolition of existing accommodation/garage building and partial boundary wall) - Land to rear of 106-108 Risbygate Street

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

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Bury St Edmunds Town Council and Ward Members (Risbygate) had expressed concerns on the application.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 71 of Report No DEV/SE/19/005.

Speakers:    Ms Sally Burrows (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Tom Murray (Bury St Edmunds Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Mr Patrick Stephenson (agent) spoke in support of the application

Comments made by Members during the debate largely indicated support for the St Andrews Street North element of the scheme but with concerns in respect of the Risbygate Street element.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that they were required to determine the application before them and the Planning Authority could not insist that the scheme was split into two separate proposals.

Councillor David Nettleton moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, for the following reasons:

1.   The cramped, small, overdeveloped element of the Risbygate Street proposal; and

2.   The unneighbourly impact the Risbygate Street proposal would have on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

This was duly seconded by Councillor Julia Wakelam.

The Service Manager (Planning Development) confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked in this case and that a risk assessment was not considered necessary by Officers.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion, 2 against and 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, for the following reasons:

1.   The cramped, small, overdeveloped element of the Risbygate Street proposal; and

2.   The unneighbourly impact the Risbygate Street proposal would have on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/006

Planning Application - (i) change of use of site from agriculture use (Sui Generis) to equine educational establishment (Class D1); (ii) conversion of existing agricultural storage barn to stables, tack room and storage; (iii) 1no. Manège; (iv) 1no. rural worker's dwelling and (v) 1no. classroom building

(Councillor Mike Chester declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item due to being both the Ward Member and the Chairman of the Parish Council in question. He would remain in the meeting and would take part in the discussion but would abstain from the voting thereon.)

Planning Application - (i) change of use of site from agriculture use (Sui Generis) to equine educational establishment (Class D1); (ii) conversion of existing agricultural storage barn to stables, tack room and storage; (iii) 1no. Manège; (iv) 1no. rural worker's dwelling and (v) 1no. classroom building

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Mike Chester (Ward Member: Chedburgh) given the level of public interest in the proposal.

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 136 of Report No DEV/SE/19/006.

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer:

·         Made reference to the ‘late papers’ which had been circulated after the agenda had been published and which provided additional clarification/information;

·         Advised of a correction to his report in that the location of the windows on the agricultural barn were on the West elevation (and not the East, as incorrectly stated in the report); and

·         Informed the Committee that Suffolk County Council Highways Authority had confirmed that the accident information made reference to in their response was fully up to date and clarified that the statistics related to instances where the emergency services attended the scene.

Speakers:    Mr James O’Donnell (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

Miss Diane Harvey (Equine Industry Representative) spoke in support of the application

Ms Julie Brega (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Mike Chester spoke on the proposal and outlined some of the changes that had been made to the scheme over the life of the application.  He continued to have some concerns which included; road signage/safety, street lighting and bus services.

Other Members supported the application and spoke on the appropriateness of the countryside location for this type of venture.  The need for villages to diversify to provide local employment was also remarked upon. 

In response to a question with regard to the lack of solid wall between the domestic and business element of the building, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that even if a solid wall was built as part of the construction a door/opening could be added at a later date without planning permission being required.

The Senior Planning Officer also responded to a question with regard to flood risk and provided further explanation.

Councillor Peter Stevens moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and 2 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/007

Hybrid Planning Application - (i) Full Planning Application - Demolition of 3no. existing dwellings and (ii) Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - for up to 5no. Dwellings

Hybrid Planning Application - (i) Full Planning Application - Demolition of 3no. existing dwellings and (ii) Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - for up to 5no. Dwellings

This application had been referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of the Assistant Director (Planning and Regulatory Services) on behalf of Councillor John Griffiths (Ward Member: Ixworth).

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council did not object to the proposal.

Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 33 of Report No: DEV/SE/19/007.

Members acknowledged that the proposed development would be situated outside the settlement boundary and Officers had considered that the proposal did not fall within the remit of planning policies DM5 and DM27. These policies set out specific criteria that proposals would need to meet to feasibly allow development in the countryside, as summarised in Paragraph 13 of the report.

A detailed discussion was held and a motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as it was considered that the proposal would not contravene Policy DM27, reasoning that no adverse impact would be created on the character of the countryside, particularly as three dwellings already existed on this site which were proposed to be demolished and the proposed replacement with five new dwellings was not considered to be significantly harmful to the landscape. 

In addition, and whilst it was acknowledged that the Council’s existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),  Members recognised that the policies set out in the new NPPF aimed to promote sustainable development in rural areas by locating housing where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, by supporting its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental.  The proposal was considered by the majority of Members to accord with this. 

A discussion was then held on the fact that a biodiversity survey had not been undertaken and some Members were mindful that the application should not be approved without one. It was also felt that should the application be approved, the proposed design for the dwellings could be improved to be more attractive and in keeping with the character of the countryside landscape.

The Service Manager (Planning - Development) suggested that the application be deferred to enable a risk assessment report to be produced.  If Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, a more detailed analysis of Policy DM27 would need to be undertaken to provide Members with further information regarding the interpretation of this policy and the potential implications of approving the application.  A deferral would also provide the opportunity to request the applicant to undertake a biodiversity study.

The proposer and seconder of the motion to approve the application agreed to withdraw that original motion and proposed and seconded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Report No: DEV/SE/18/008

Planning Application - 1no. storage building (following removal of part of existing industrial building)

Planning Application - 1no. storage building (following removal of part of existing industrial building)

This application had been referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.  The item had been presented to the Delegation Panel at the request of Councillor Jason Crooks (Ward Member: Haverhill South).

Haverhill Town Council objected to the scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and the impact on residential amenity.

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 32 of Report No: DEV/SE/19/008.

Speakers:    Councillor Maureen Byrne (Haverhill Town Council) spoke  against the application

                   Mr Lee Frere (agent) spoke in support of the application

Concern was expressed by Councillor Jason Crooks, one of the Ward Members, that the amended plans were not sufficiently significant to warrant approval of the application.  Specific concerns raised included that:

·         The buffer zone between the industrial estate and residents’ rear gardens was not insufficiently substantial to mitigate potential adverse impact on these residents’ amenity;

·         Despite the plans being amended, the proposal was considered to remain an overdevelopment of the site that adversely impacted residential amenity;

·         More clarity was needed on the industrial Use Classes intended for the building;

·         A noise assessment report had not been undertaken to accompany the application;

·         No additional employment would be created as a result of the new building; and

·         Should permission be granted, a sprinkler system should be installed.

Councillor Crooks moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, on the grounds that Officers had previously considered the original proposal to be unacceptable in terms of its impact on residential amenity, and although the application had been amended, the changes were not sufficiently significant to mitigate this impact. The motion was duly seconded.

Other Members shared Councillor Crooks’ concerns, particularly in respect of the potential noise impact on neighbouring residents due to the perceived lack of depth to the buffer zone and whether a change of use to residential could take place under Permitted Development rights. 

In response to questions and the concerns raised, the Committee was informed that:

·         Proposed Condition 8 specified that the unit should be used for storage (Use Class B8) associated with that use.  Should the application be approved, an additional condition could be imposed that sought to restrict the potential for any further change of use of this building using Permitted Development rights. The applicant could therefore not use the building for residential use without prior permission being sought (*see note at the foot of this minute);

·         A noise assessment report had not been submitted by the Council’s Environmental Health and Housing service as it was not considered necessary or proportionate;

·         Issues regarding the installation of a sprinkler system would form part of discussions between the Fire Service and the Building Regulations team;

·         The operating hours for deliveries/despatch to and from the building would be restricted to 8am to 6pm on Mondays to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/009

Householder Planning Application - Oak cart lodge and office

(Councillor Andrew Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item, being familiar with the applicant having contracted him to carry out work to his own property over a year ago. He would remain within the meeting and would take part in the discussion and voting thereon.

Councillor Jim Thorndyke declared a personal interest in this item, having been acquainted with the applicant and his family for a number of years.  He would remain in the meeting but would abstain from the voting thereon.)

Householder Planning Application - Oak cart lodge and office

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

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council supported the proposal, which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 11.1 of Report No DEV/SE/19/009.

Speaker:      Mr Anthony Bray (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Despite noting that the original scheme proposed had been amended to mitigate concerns of the occupiers of the neighbouring property and that the Parish Council was now supportive of the application, the majority of Members considered the proposal remained overbearing and would have a harmful impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

A motion for refusal, as per the Officer recommendation, was then moved and seconded.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion, 1 against and 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

 1       Policy DM24 requires proposals to respect the character of the local area, not overdevelop the curtilage of a dwelling, and to not adversely affect the residential amenity of occupants of nearby properties, and this supports the requirements of DM2. In this regard the neighbouring property, Meadowside, will experience a material and significant reduction in the quality of its residential amenity as a direct result of the proposed development, with the proximity and height of the proposed outbuilding resulting in loss of light, obstructed outlook and a notable overbearing impact arising from the proximity between this structure and the property and amenity space of Meadowside. Consequently it fundamentally fails to meet the requirements of Policies DM24 and DM2 with respect to development protecting the residential amenity of occupants of nearby properties, conflicting in turn therefore with the provisions of the NPPF which seek to protect amenity.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/010

Householder Planning Application - single storey rear extension with associated alterations

Householder Planning Application - single storey rear extension with associated alterations

This application had been referred to the Development Control Committee as a St Edmundsbury Borough Councillor Sarah Broughton was the applicant.

Great Barton Parish Council were in support of the application.  Officers were recommending that both planning permission and the associated Listed Building Consent be approved, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Report No DEV/SE/19/010.

A motion for approval, as per the Officer recommendation, was moved and seconded.

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

Decision

(A)     Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun not 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 approved plans and documents.

(B)     Listed building consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.   Time limit: The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

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

3.   Window details 09OO: No works involving new/replacement windows shall take place until elevation(s) to a scale of not less than 1:10 and horizontal and vertical cross-section drawings to a scale of 1:2 fully detailing the new/ replacement windows to be used (including details of glazing bars, sills, heads and methods of opening and glazing) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority all glazing shall be face puttied. The works shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

4.   Door details 09PP:

No works involving new/replacement doors shall take place until elevation(s) to a scale of not less than 1:10 and horizontal and vertical cross-section drawings to a scale of 1:2 fully detailing the new/ replacement internal/external doors and surrounds to be used (including details of panels and glazing where relevant) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority all glazing shall be face puttied. The works shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

5.   Sample of external materials 09D ii:

No development above ground level shall take place until details in respect of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

a.    Samples of external materials and surface finishes

6.   Sample panel of flintwork 09CC :

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 

(i)Sample panel(s) of all new facing brickwork/ flintwork shall be constructed on site showing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.