Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 February 2019 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2019 were unanimously received as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman. 

Report No: DEV/SE/19/019

Planning Application - (i) Construction of access road and (ii) construction of Ambulance Depot with associated landscaping and parking

Planning Application - (i) Construction of access road and (ii) construction of Ambulance Depot with associated landscaping and parking

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was not wholly consistent with the Development Plan given that the overall use did not fall into any defined use class order, whereas the allocation was for B1 and B8 uses.  In addition to this, St Edmundsbury Borough Council has a financial interest in the land.

Members were advised that the application site sat between Fortress Way to the North and the A14 to the South; with the site having previously been part of a much larger arable field/airfield which was allocated as the Suffolk Business Park Extension.

With the indulgence of the Chairman, the Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an update on the overall progress of the Suffolk Business Park which had become a real success story for the Borough.

The Parish Council were in support of the application and no objections had been received from third parties.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 49 of Report No DEV/SE/19/019.

A number of comments/questions were raised by Members during the debate and in response the Case Officer explained:

Highways – recent traffic surveys had been undertaken by the Highways Authority since the Eastern Relief Road had opened which the East of England Ambulance Trust had used to inform their due diligence; and they were satisfied with the routes available to the emergency vehicles;

Landscape – since publication of the agenda amended plans had been submitted and the Landscape and Ecology Officer was content with what was proposed;

Colour Palate – the Council’s Landscape and Ecology Officer had recently attended a training course in relation to colour palates in development; which encouraged the use of natural palates that could be derived from the landscape.  The Case Officer had raised this with the applicant who was happy to consider this alongside the inclusion of the corporate colours of the operation.

Changing Rooms – Officers had raised the fact that only communal changing rooms were proposed within the scheme and highlighted it as a negative of the proposal, however, the applicant proposed an oversupply of shower rooms to ensure that individuals did not have to wait for the showers to become available. 

Councillor Mike Chester made reference to the recent national press coverage on ambulance response times.  He wholeheartedly supported the proposed development and proposed that it be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.

Councillor Terry Clements echoed many of the same comments and duly seconded the motion.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/020

Planning Application - (i) 1no. dwelling; (ii) 1no. ancillary outbuilding and (iii) improvements to existing vehicular access

Planning Application - (i) 1no. dwelling; (ii) 1no. ancillary outbuilding and (iii) improvements to existing vehicular access

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.  It was referred to the Panel because Lidgate Parish Council objected to the proposal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting and a supplementary ‘late paper’ was issued after publication of the agenda.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 42 of Report No DEV/SE/19/020.

Speakers:    Ms Carol Sharp (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   Councillor John Whitefield (Lidgate Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Mr Dean Pearce (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Nettleton drew attention to the fact that no statutory bodies had objected to the application and stated that, in his opinion, the development would enhance the street scene.  Accordingly, he moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.

Councillor Peter Stevens also spoke in support of the application and outlined what he considered was likely to have been the geographical history of the site, before duly seconding the motion for approval.

At this point the Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the Committee and made reference to the statement made earlier in the meeting by Lidgate Parish Council. 

During which, Councillor John Whitefield advised that a further investigation had been commissioned by the Parish Council and submitted to Historic England for their response.

The Planning Authority had not been informed of this further study until it was raised at the meeting; in light of the fact that Officers had not had sight of the document and Historic England were yet to have commented upon it, the Committee was now strongly advised to defer consideration of the application.

Accordingly, Councillors Nettleton and Stevens as proposer and seconder of the motion for approval, withdrew their motion and instead duly proposed and seconded that the application be deferred, in order to allow Officers time in which to consider the further study which had been undertaken and the subsequent comments to be submitted from Historic England.

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 Officers additional time in which to consider the further study which had been undertaken on the site and the subsequent comments to be submitted from Historic England.

Report No: DEV/SE/19/021

Planning Application - (i) remodelling part of existing building to provide vehicle storage area and provision of additional office space; (ii) operational changes to the existing building and (iii) installation of fence and gates (part retrospective)

Planning Application - (i) remodelling part of existing building to provide vehicle storage area and provision of additional office space; (ii) operational changes to the existing building and (iii) installation of fence and gates (part retrospective)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the property was in the ownership of St Edmundsbury Borough Council and at the request of Councillor Paula Fox (Ward Member: Haverhill South).

The Senior Planning Officer explained that some of the development had already commenced, thus the application was part retrospective.

Comments had been made on the application by Haverhill Town Council.  Officers were recommending that it be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 18 of Report No DEV/SE/19/021.

Members’ attention was drawn to Paragraph 14 of the report which stated “a maximum eight lorries in total could be leaving the site”, the Case Officer clarified that the eight lorries was an average, as opposed to a maximum, as the company actually held an operator’s licence for more than eight vehicles.

Speakers:    Mr Ben Pridgeon (agent) spoke in support of the application

Mr Dean Clerkin (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillors Jason Crooks and David Nettleton made reference to the unauthorised works which had been undertaken on the site prior to planning approval, with Councillor Nettleton stating that he would be voting against the application because of, what he considered to be, reputational damage to the Borough Council.

In response to which, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that matters relating to the owners of land and tenancy arrangements were not a material planning consideration.  Furthermore, retrospective applications were to be considered on their own merits in the same way in which a non-retrospective application would be, regardless of who owned the application site.

A number of Members raised queries in connection with the application and the Senior Planning Officer responded as follows:

Drainage – The Suffolk County Council Floods and Water Engineer was satisfied with the drainage strategy

Parking – The majority of office staff would be arriving/leaving the site at different times than the heavy goods vehicles, hence, it was not considered necessary to condition their vehicle’s ingress/egress, however, a Transport Management Plan could be secured by way of a condition

Asbestos Removal – the contractor who had undertaken the asbestos removal had carried out all required mediation and the Health & Safety Executive was satisfied

Construction – A Construction Management Plan for the remaining (prospective) works could be secured by way of a condition

Discussion also took place on the operating hours of the business with Members seeking clarification on what was listed under condition 9 within the report (as Saturday was seemingly omitted and the timings conflicted slightly with that which was written in Paragraph 14).

The Chairman permitted the applicant’s agent to again address the meeting, who confirmed that the business would operate 06.00 to 19.00 Monday – Friday (with lorries unlikely to start leaving the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.