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 |
45. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
There were no apologies for
absence.
The Democratic Services Officer advised that
since publication of the agenda Councillor Alaric Pugh had resigned
from the Development Control Committee, hence it was currently
operating with a vacancy until such time as an alternative
appointment was made.
|
46. |
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.
|
47. |
Minutes PDF 138 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
6 September 2018 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 6 September
2018 were received by the Committee as an accurate record, with 14
voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, and were signed by the
Chairman.
|
48. |
Planning Application DC/18/0721/FUL - Saxon House, 7 Hillside Road, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/SE/18/033) PDF 136 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/033
Planning Application - (i) Change of use from
dental clinic (D1) to dental clinic and community healthcare
facility (D1); (ii) 5no. additional car parking spaces
Additional documents:
-
DEV.SE.18.033 Saxon House, BSE - Location Plan , item 48.
PDF 149 KB
-
DEV.SE.18.033 Saxon House, BSE - Site Plan , item 48.
PDF 107 KB
-
DEV.SE.18.033 Saxon House, BSE - Working Paper 1 , item 48.
PDF 128 KB
-
DEV.SE.18.033 Saxon House, BSE - Working Paper 2 , item 48.
PDF 192 KB
-
DEV.SE.18.033 Saxon House, BSE - Working Paper 3 , item 48.
PDF 1 MB
- There are a further 2 documents.View the full list of documents for item 48.
Minutes:
Planning Application - (i) Change of use from dental clinic (D1)
to dental clinic and community healthcare facility (D1); (ii) 5no.
additional car parking spaces
This application had been
referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 September 2018
following consideration by the Delegation Panel, the item had been
referred to the Panel at the request of a Ward Member (Moreton
Hall).
At the September Committee
Members resolved that they were minded to approve the application,
contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal and inclusive of
a condition to limit usage of the site to the applicant.
Officers determined that the
decision making protocol needed to be invoked which required the
Committee to consider this further report, inclusive of a risk
assessment, prior to a final decision being made on the
application. A Member site visit
was held prior to the September Committee meeting.
As part of her presentation the Senior
Planning Officer drew attention to the ‘late papers’
which were issued as a supplement to the agenda papers and which
set out:
·
The applicant’s argument against a ‘personal’
condition limiting the use of the site and the Officer’s
subsequent amended wording for condition No 3;
·
The clarification that the facility would only have 6
treatment rooms and not 7, as previously understood by Officers
and stated in the September Committee report; and
·
The agent’s response to the further comments
received from Suffolk County Council Highways in which they
maintained their objection to the application and refuted the
applicant’s technical note in respect of parking and
sustainable travel.
In conclusion, the Case Officer explained that
the Planning Authority was continuing to recommend refusal of the
application for the reasons set out in Section C of Report No:
DEV/SE/18/033.
Also included within the report at Section E
(subject to the amendment to condition 3 in the late papers) were
proposed conditions for the application should Members determine to
approve the scheme.
Speakers: Mr Sinclair Armitage (Project Manager,
Community Dental Services) spoke in support of the application
Mr Richard Sykes-Popham (agent) spoke in support of the
application
Councillor David Nettleton spoke in support of
the application and again stated that he did not agree with the
access restrictions that were made reference to. He reiterated the public transport and foot/cycle
way connections that existed at the site’s location.
Councillor Nettleton proposed that the
application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation of
refusal and subject to the conditions outlined in the report, for
the following reasons:
·
The harm made reference to by SCC Highways had not been evidenced
and the parking could be managed sustainably;
·
There were other use class D1 facilities in the vicinity of the
application site; and
·
The proposal would provide a much needed community healthcare
facility for the public.
This was duly seconded by Councillor Terry
Clements, who also spoke in support.
Upon being put to the vote and with the vote
being unanimous, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED,
CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ...
view the full minutes text for item 48.
|
49. |
Planning Application DC/18/1017/FUL - Hill View Works, Simms Lane, Hundon (Report No: DEV/SE/18/034) PDF 109 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/034
Planning Application - 5no. dwellings with
5no. garages and new vehicular access (following demolition of
existing industrial buildings)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- 5no. dwellings with 5no. garages and new vehicular access (following
demolition of existing industrial buildings)
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel, the item had been referred to the Panel at the
request of the Ward Member (Hundon).
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting. Officers were recommending
that the application be refused for the reasons set out in
Paragraph 11.1 of Report No DEV/SE/18/034.
As part of her presentation the Senior
Planning Officer drew attention to the ‘late papers’
which were issued as a supplement to the agenda papers and which
set out comments received from Hundon Parish Council in support of the
scheme.
Speakers: Councillor Mary Evans (Ward Member:
Hundon) spoke in support of the
application
Mr Ben Elvin (representing the applicant and agent) spoke in
support of the application
In response to questions raised during the
debate the Case Officer responded as follows:
·
The prior approval granted for the site no longer
applied as the building in question had been deemed not to be
structurally sound; and
·
A similar application in Hundon had been refused via Delegation Panel
recently (as some Members made reference to). However, the Committee was reminded to
consider each application on its own merits.
Councillor John Burns proposed that the
application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation of
refusal, inclusive of a condition to address contaminated
land. This was duly seconded by
Councillor Peter Stevens.
Further discussion then took place with a
number of Members making reference to Paragraph 9.19 of the report
and raising concern that insufficient evidence had been submitted
to establish the potential retention of the site for employment use
and that a marketing exercise should, therefore, be undertaken.
Accordingly, Councillor Stevens withdrew his
position as seconder for the motion to approve the application, and
instead proposed an amendment that the application be deferred, in
order to allow time in which for Officers to explore the potential
for the site to be marketed with the applicant.
This was duly seconded by Councillor Terry
Clements and Councillor John Burns formally withdrew his original
motion for approval.
Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting
for the motion, 2 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved
that
Decision
Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order to allow time in which for Officers to
explore the potential marketing and retention of the site for
employment use with the applicant.
(Councillor Robert
Everitt left the meeting at 11.00am during the discussion which
took place on this item and prior to the voting thereon.)
|
50. |
Planning Application DC/18/1222/OUT - Land East of 1 Bury Road, Stanningfield (Report No: DEV/SE/18/035) PDF 96 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/035
Outline Planning Application (all matters
reserved) - 9no. dwellings
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Outline Planning
Application (all matters reserved) - 9no. dwellings
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel and in light of the objection received from the
Parish Council.
Officers were recommending that the
application be approved, subject to conditions, as set out in
Paragraph 26 of Report No DEV/SE/18/035.
As part of his presentation the Principal
Planning Officer (on behalf of the Case Officer) made reference
to:
·
The planning and appeal history in respect of the
site; and
·
The determining factors considered in the allocation of
affordable housing to local people.
Speakers: Dr Nicholas Amor (neighbour) spoke
against the application
Councillor Clive
Mears (Bradfield Combust with Stanningfield Parish Council) spoke against the
application
Councillor Sara
Mildmay-White (Ward Member:
Rougham) spoke against the
application
A number of Members made comment on the
application which principally related to the following
concerns:
·
The flooding risk of the site;
·
Reservations relating to the fact that neither the Borough Council
or a registered housing provider had been approached by the
applicant with regard to the management of the affordable housing
that was proposed – therefore being unable to demonstrate
local need; and
·
The lack of detail provided, in light of it being an outline
application.
In light of the above reasons, Councillor
David Nettleton proposed that the application be refused, contrary
to the Officer recommendation of approval, and this was duly
seconded by Councillor Terry Clements.
The Officers present responded to each of the
points raised and explained that they did not consider a refusal on
these grounds to be defensible, hence, the Decision Making Protocol
would be invoked and the decision would be ‘minded to’
and subject to the consideration of a risk assessment before a
final decision was made.
Councillor David Roach proposed an amendment
that the application be deferred in order to allow additional time
in which for Officers to seek further information on these matters
from the applicant, however, this failed to achieve a seconder.
Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting
for the motion and 5 against it was resolved that
Decision
Members be MINDED TO REFUSE THE
APPLICATION, CONTARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL,
due to the following reasons:
1.
The flooding risk of the site;
2.
Reservations relating to the fact that neither the Borough Council
or a registered housing provider had been approached by the
applicant with regard to the management of the affordable housing
that was proposed – therefore being unable to demonstrate
local need; and
3.
The lack of detail provided, in light of it being an outline
application.
(On conclusion of
this item the Chairman permitted a short comfort break before
reconvening the meeting.)
|
51. |
Planning Application DC/18/0635/FUL - 9 St Olaves Precinct, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/SE/18/036) PDF 83 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/036
Planning Application - Change of
use from Use Class A1 (Retail) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) and installation of an
Extraction System
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- Change of use from Use Class A1 (Retail) to Use Class A5 (Hot
Food Takeaway) and installation of an Extraction System
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel, the item had been referred to the Panel at the
request of one of the Ward Members, Councillor Max Clarke (St
Olaves).
Bury St Edmunds Town Council had submitted
comments confirming that they did not object to the
proposal. Officers were recommending
that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out
in Paragraph 24 of Report No DEV/SE/18/036.
As part of his presentation the Senior
Planning Officer made reference to Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the
report which set out the planning balance to be considered in
respect of the application; in relation to losing a retail (A1)
unit but conversely preventing a vacant property.
Speakers: Mr Delil
Sinsed (operator of neighbouring unit)
spoke against the application
Councillor Max Clarke (Ward Member: St Olaves) spoke against the application
Councillor Paul Hopfensperger (Ward Member: St Olaves) spoke against the application
Miss Stacey Hartrey (agent) spoke in support of the application
Members made a number of comments in respect
of the application which largely related to the number of other
takeaway establishments in the vicinity and the impact the
application could have on their sustainability. Reference was also made to the Council’s
healthy objectives and the conflict that the proposal could have on
these.
In response, the Principal Planning
Officer:
·
Reminded the Committee that competition and commercial
viability was not a planning issue; and
·
Outlined how Policy DM36 was assessed in relation
to the proposal and the marketing that was undertaken in connection
with the unit in question.
Councillor David Nettleton spoke in support of
the application, he stressed that the number of objectors to the
application was a very small percentage of the residents that lived
in the locality.
Councillor Nettleton explained that there had
been representations made in support of the application and he read
some of these out to the meeting. He
then moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer
recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian
Houlder.
Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting
for the motion and with 3 against, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED
subject to the following conditions:
1.
Time limit
2.
Approved Plans
3.
Opening Hours
4.
Submission of extraction system details
|
52. |
Planning Application DC/18/0897/HH - Moat Farm, Wickhambrook Road, Hargrave (Report No: DEV/SE/18/037) PDF 87 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/037
Householder Planning Application - detached
cartlodge
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Householder Planning
Application - detached cartlodge
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel, the item had been referred to the Panel as the
Parish Council objected to 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 26 of Report No DEV/SE/18/037.
In response to a question from a Member, the
Principal Planning Officer confirmed that in light of the very
recent adoption of the Hargrave
Neighbourhood Plan the Delegation Panel considered it appropriate
to refer the application to the Committee for determination.
Councillor Peter Stevens moved that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and
this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.
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.
|
53. |
Planning Application DC/18/1010/FUL - Land Adjacent To Forge Cottage, Blacksmith Lane, Barnham (Report No: DEV/SE/18/038) PDF 72 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/038
Planning Application - 1no. dwelling with associated external works
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- 1no. dwelling with associated external
works
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 had cited
no objection to the scheme.
Officers were recommending that the
application be refused for the reason set out in Paragraph 20 of
Report No DEV/SE/18/038.
As part of his presentation the Planning
Officer made reference to:
·
The ‘late papers’ which were issued as a supplement to
the agenda papers and which outlined the extant
planning permission on land immediately adjoining the application
site. The Case Officer explained
that in light of this new information the reason for refusal
remained, however, the extant permission was considered to
strengthen the Officer position adopted in relation to the harm
arising; and
·
Shadow drawings which had been requested by Members
at the site visit.
Speakers: Councillor Charles Merrifield (Barnham
Parish Council) spoke in support of the application
Councillor Andrew Smith (Ward Member: Bardwell) spoke in support of
the application
Mr Andrew Blenkiron (applicant) spoke
in support of the application
A considerable debate took place by the
Committee with Members voicing both support and opposition to the
proposal.
The Principal Conservation Officer was invited
to speak by the Chairman in order to further elaborate on her
objection to the application in respect of the perceived harm it
would cause to the setting of the listed building and the character
of the wider conservation area.
Councillor Peter Stevens stated that, contrary
to the reason for refusal, he considered that the development was
not contrived and would not cause harm to the listed
building/conservation area. He,
therefore, moved that the application be approved, contrary to the
Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor
David Roach.
The Committee was advised that the Decision
Making Protocol would not need to be invoked in this case as
Officers did not consider a risk assessment to be
required. The Planning Officer then
outlined relevant conditions for the application that could be
appended to an approval, if granted.
Upon being put to the vote and with 7 voting
for the motion, 6 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved
that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED,
CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF REFUSAL, 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.
No other part of the development hereby
permitted shall be commenced until the existing vehicular access
has been improved, laid out and completed in accordance with SCC
drawing DM01; and with an entrance width of 3.5. Thereafter the
access shall be retained in the specified form.
4.
Prior to the dwelling hereby permitted
being first occupied, the access onto the highway shall be properly
surfaced with ...
view the full minutes text for item 53.
|
54. |
Planning Application DC/18/1543/HH - 9 Darcy Close, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/SE/18/039) PDF 68 KB
Report No: DEV/SE/18/039
Householder Planning Application - First floor
extension to front elevation - Revised Scheme of DC/18/0476/HH
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Householder Planning
Application - First floor extension to front elevation - Revised
Scheme of DC/18/0476/HH
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee as the applicant was employed by St
Edmundsbury Borough Council.
Bury St Edmunds Town Council had raised no
objection and Officers were recommending that the application be
approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 23 of
Report No DEV/SE/18/039.
The Planning Officer informed Members that the
application was a resubmission of DC/18/0476/HH which had been
refused by the Committee at their meeting on 5 July
2018. The scheme now seeking
determination omitted the previous first floor rear extension.
Councillor David Nettleton proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and
this was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull.
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.
|
|
In this section
|