Agenda and minutes
Venue: Conference Chamber, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds IP33 3YU
Contact: Helen Hardinge
Email: helen.hardinge@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Items
No. |
Item |
71. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillor Ian Houlder.
|
72. |
Substitutes
Any Member who is substituting for another
Member should so indicate together with the name of the relevant
absent Member.
Minutes:
There were no substitutes present at the
meeting.
|
73. |
Minutes PDF 209 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
6 December 2018 (copy attached).
Minutes:
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”
|
74. |
Planning Application DC/18/1187/FUL - Land South of Chapelwent Road, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/SE/19/001) PDF 331 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/19/001
Planning Application - 87no. dwellings with associated infrastructure
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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 78th
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.
|
75. |
Planning Application DC/17/0339/FUL - Land to the South of A1088 and Crown Lane, Crown Lane, Ixworth (Report No: DEV/SE/19/002) PDF 182 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/19/002
Planning Application - Access road to serve
residential development
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.
|
76. |
Planning Application DC/18/0068/FUL - 26 Angel Hill, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/SE/19/003) PDF 179 KB
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
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.)
|
77. |
Planning Application DC/18/0034/FUL - Suffolk Business Park, Rougham Tower Avenue (Report No: DEV/SE/19/004) PDF 171 KB
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
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.
|
78. |
Planning Application DC/18/1443/FUL - No's 2-4 St. Andrews Street North and Land to Rear of No's 106-108 Risbygate Street, Bury St. Edmunds (Report No: DEV/SE/19/005) PDF 145 KB
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
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.
|
79. |
Planning Application DC/18/1018/FUL - Land at Queens Hill, Chevington (Report No: DEV/SE/19/006) PDF 1 MB
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
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(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.
|
80. |
Planning Application DC/18/0544/HYB - Land North of Green Acre, Thetford Road, Ixworth Thorpe (Report No: DEV/SE/19/007) PDF 98 KB
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
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.
|
81. |
Planning Application DC/18/2154/FUL - 23 Rookwood Way, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/SE/19/008) PDF 91 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/008
Planning Application - 1no. storage building (following removal of part of
existing industrial building)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.
|
82. |
Planning Application DC/18/1925/HH - Briar Cottage, Bury Lane, Stanton (Report No: DEV/SE/19/009) PDF 69 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/19/009
Householder Planning Application - Oak cart
lodge and office
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(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.
|
83. |
Planning Application DC/18/2243/HH & DC/18/2244/LB - Manor House, Church Road, Great Barton, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/SE/19/010) PDF 86 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/19/010
Householder Planning Application - single
storey rear extension with associated alterations
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.
|
|
In this section
|