Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 8 July 2020, 10.00 am

Agenda and minutes

Venue: To be held remotely via video conferencing facilities (Microsoft Teamslive)

Contact: Helen Hardinge: Democratic Services Officer  Email: helen.hardinge@westsuffolk.gov.uk

Note: The link to view the live stream of the meeting is shown in 'Media' below together with a supporting guidance document // The Public Speaking Protocol for remotely held Development Control Committees can also be found under 'Media' below // Please note Agenda item 5 has been WITHDRAWN from the agenda 

Media

Items
No. Item

20.

Welcome

Minutes:

The Chair formally commenced the meeting and jointly welcomed all present and those externally viewing the Development Control Committee which was to be operated in two parts with a scheduled interval.

 

A number of housekeeping matters and remote meeting guidance were highlighted to all by the Chair and he also advised that Agenda Item 5 had been withdrawn from the agenda in order to allow Officers time in which to carry out necessary consultation on the application.

21.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received.

22.

Substitutes

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

Minutes:

No substitutions were declared.

 

Following which, the Democratic Services Officer verbally outlined all Members of the Committee who were present, together with any attending Councillors and the names of the Officers supporting the meeting.

23.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 236 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2020 (copy attached).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2020 were unanimously confirmed as a correct record, subject to it being noted that the meeting had been held virtually via video conference and not in the Conference Chamber as had been indicated.

24.

Planning Application DC/20/0420/FUL - 35 St Andrews Street North, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/20/026) pdf icon PDF 296 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/026

 

Planning Application - (i) change of use from guest house (Class C1) to house of multiple occupancy (Sui Generis) (ii) conversion of outbuilding to additional self-contained unit of living accommodation

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Peter Stevens declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in view of being the relevant Portfolio Houlder under which the application in question fell.  He stated that he would not take part in the item and would abstain from the voting thereon.)

 

Planning Application - (i) change of use from guest house (Class C1) to house of multiple occupancy (Sui Generis) (ii) conversion of outbuilding to additional self-contained unit of living accommodation

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee in view of it having been submitted by West Suffolk Council.

 

Bury St Edmunds Town Council had raised no objections to the scheme and the Officer was recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 66 of Report No DEV/WS/20/026.

 

Prior to the Planning Officer making his presentation the Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the Committee in response to an email that had been sent to Members on the evening prior, from a third party who objected to the application. 

 

The Committee were advised that there were no new material factors raised in the correspondence that prevented Members determining the application before them.

 

As part of his presentation the Planning Officer included videos of the site which he took the Committee through by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Attention was drawn to Paragraph 21 of the report where objections from a neighbouring resident had been summarised.  The Planning Officer responded to each of the points and offered further explanation where necessary.

 

Speaker:      Tony McCourt (supporter) spoke in support of the application

 

Councillor John Burns raised some highways related concerns with the scheme.  In response to which, the Planning Officer drew attention to the section of his report where he set out in detail correspondence from Suffolk County Council Highway Authority.

 

Councillor Roger Dicker proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

 

Before being put to the vote the Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised the Committee that the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) had received a third party request for the Secretary of State to consider calling in the planning application and to consider whether this is appropriate or not.

 

Accordingly, whilst the Committee could resolve that the application be approved a decision could not be issued until the Secretary of State had decided whether to call in the planning application. 

 

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

 

Decision

 

Subject to the Secretary of State confirming whether or not to call in the planning application, planning permission 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.   The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents.

          No occupation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

Planning Application DC/20/0094/RM - Land adj Haverhill Business Park, Bumpstead Road, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/WS/20/027) **WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA** pdf icon PDF 289 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/027

 

Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under Outline Planning Permission DC/15/2424/OUT - Matters Reserved by Condition 2 (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the development of Units 1, 2 and 3 (Plots NE1 and NE2) for Class B1, B2 and B8

Application to Discharge Condition 6 (surface water drainage), 7 (HGV traffic movements and deliveries management plan), 8 (loading manoeuvring parking), 10 (soft landscaping), 13 (landscape management plan), 17 (contamination)and 21 (SUDS) of DC/15/2424/OUT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair advised earlier in the meeting that this item had been WITHDRAWN from the agenda.

26.

Planning Application DC/17/1093/FUL - Stanton Community Primary School, Bury Lane, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/20/028) pdf icon PDF 300 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/028

 

(i) Conversion and change of use of redundant school building to form 3no. residential units and; (ii) new vehicular access and associated parking

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(i) Conversion and change of use of redundant school building to form 3no. residential units and; (ii) new vehicular access and associated parking

 

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

 

The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects drew attention to the following item on the agenda which set out a separate, but related planning application (DC/17/1087/FUL) for determination, which proposed the construction of 7 dwellings on the site of the former primary school (excluding its playing field) and would involve the demolition of the former school building.

 

As part of his presentation the Officer included videos of the site which he took the Committee through by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions, as set out in Paragraph 120 of Report No DEV/WS/20/028.

 

Speaker:      Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke on the application

 

Considerable discussion on the application took place by the Committee, following which the Case Officer responded on the following points:

Hedgerow – it was confirmed that the hedgerow in question was not a designated ancient hedgerow. Members were also provided with an explanation in respect of the Hedgerow Regulations and informed that any planning permission superseded these regulations;

Access Gradients – had largely been responsible for the time that had passed since original submission of the application in light of the Highways Authority initially raising concerns on the gradients first proposed within the scheme; and

Grass Bank Stability – it was clarified that the stability of the grass bank would be the responsibility of the owner and was not a material planning consideration.

 

Following further comments the Service Manager (Planning – Development) clarified that the Planning Authority could not dictate how applicants managed multiple applications/sites.  It was highlighted that irrespective of the two separate applications Officers had considered the two schemes collectively in relation to S106 Obligation requirements.

 

The Committee were also advised that the lack of affordable housing from the scheme was purely due to Vacant Building Credit having been applied.

 

A number of points were raised with regard to potential overlooking from the first-floor windows at the rear of the existing building.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects advised that Members could, if they wished, include an additional condition to stipulate that obscure glaze was used in the lower half of the sash window in question.

 

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the additional condition with regard to obscure glazing.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion, 1 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

 

The completion of an Agreement (or equivalent) under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following from this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

Planning Application DC/17/1087/OUT - Stanton Community Primary School, Bury Lane, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/20/029) pdf icon PDF 313 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/029

 

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - (i) 7no. dwellings (demolition of school building) (ii) Formation of new vehicular access from Bury Lane and associated on-site parking

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - (i) 7no. dwellings (demolition of school building) (ii) Formation of new vehicular access from Bury Lane and associated on-site parking

 

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

 

The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects drew attention to the previous item on the agenda which concerned a separate, but related planning application.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions, as set out in Paragraph 129 of Report No DEV/WS/20/029.

 

Speaker:      Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke on the application

 

Considerable discussion took place with regard to the trees/hedges to be retained and questions were raised in relation to replacement planting.

 

In response, the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects explained that landscaping would be addressed by condition at Reserved Matters stage; the application before the Committee was in outline form.

 

A number of comments were made in relation to space standards and the number of electric charging points to be included within the scheme.

 

The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects explained that the levels proposed within the application were considered reasonable, however, in order to address these points, he suggested that ‘informatives’ could be appended to a permission, if granted.

 

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the informatives as suggested.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and with 2 against, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

 

The completion of an Agreement (or equivalent) under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following from this planning application (in combination with the related proposals for three dwellings reference DC/17/1093/FUL):

 

·         Education contribution (as set out at Paragraph 19 of the report)

·         Libraries contribution (as set out at Paragraph 19 of the report)

 

And subject to conditions, including:

 

·         Submission of the reserved matters within three years and commencement of development within 2 years of the approval of the final reserved matter.

·         Compliance with approved plans (noting that the access is included for consideration at this outline stage)

·         Materials (details to be submitted with the Reserved Matters)

·         As recommended by the Highway Authority (conditions are summarised at Paragraph 16 of the report)

·         Landscaping details provided at reserved matters to include provision of a replacement hedgerow to be planted behind the access visibility splays (and maintained outside of those areas)

·         Retention and protection of those trees and other planting to be retained.

·         To secure the ecological enhancement measures proposed recommended in the bat report.

·         Construction management plan (to include waste minimisation and recycling, deliveries management, dust management, working hours, lighting details (if any) site compound/storage/construction staff parking provision.

·         Means of enclosure (to be submitted with reserved matters)

·         Compliance with Building Control Requirements for reduced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Planning Application DC/20/0623/FUL - Milton House, Thurlow Road, Withersfield (Report No: DEV/WS/20/030) pdf icon PDF 250 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/030

 

Planning Application - 6no. dwellings (following demolition of existing dwelling)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Application - 6no. dwellings (following demolition of existing dwelling)

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of Withersfield Parish Council having submitted objections to the scheme which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 44 of Report No DEV/WS/20/030.

 

As part of his presentation the Principal Planning Officer included videos of the site which he took the Committee through by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Members were advised that drainage details would be approved pre-commencement with the Highways Authority.

 

Speakers:    Denis Elavia (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Terry Rich (Chairman, Withersfield Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Lee Frere (architect) spoke in support of the application

 

(During the debate Councillor Andy Drummond lost connection to the meeting, on reconnecting he advised the Committee that he would abstain from voting.)

 

During discussion Members raised a number of concerns with regard to the application principally in relation to; flooding/drainage, overdevelopment and the impact it would have on neighbour amenity and the surrounding Conservation Area and nearby listed building.

 

As such, Councillor Waldron proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation as the application was contrary to Policy (CS4) and therefore overdevelopment together with drainage and flood risk, harm to the conservation area, impact on the setting of a listed building, impact on biodiversity and impact on neighbouring amenity.  This was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting and advised the Committee that whilst the reason given for refusal was considered valid, the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked.  Accordingly, a Risk Assessment would be produced for future consideration by the Committee; and an assessment of the other concerns raised by Members would also be addressed through that further report.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

MEMBERS BE MINDED TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION, CONTARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION as the application was contrary to Policy CS4, drainage and flood risk, harm to the conservation area, impact on the setting of a listed building, impact on biodiversity and impact on neighbouring amenity. A Risk Assessment would therefore be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting.

 

(On conclusion of this item Councillor Ian Houlder left the meeting at 2.22pm.)

29.

Planning Application DC/20/0682/FUL - Caravan Site South, Pigeon Lane, Fornham All Saints (Report No: DEV/WS/20/031) pdf icon PDF 371 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/031

 

Planning Application - (i) Change of use of part of golf course for the siting of 35no. caravan holiday homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction of access roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (previous application DC/19/1700/FUL)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Application - (i) Change of use of part of golf course for the siting of 35no. caravan holiday homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction of access roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (previous application DC/19/1700/FUL)

 

A previous application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 5 February 2020 because Fornham All Saints Parish Council had made comments in support of the application and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council had objected.

 

Furthermore, one of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great Barton Ward had asked for the application to be considered by the Committee due to the number of representations received objecting to the proposal.

 

At the February Committee Members resolved to refuse planning permission on the grounds of the adverse impact on the landscape, visual amenity and potential for settlement coalescence of the two villages of Fornham All Saints and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve.

 

The application before Committee now was a re-submission of the scheme refused in February 2020.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application had now been submitted with the support of a visualisation, showing the expected views from Mildenhall Road, Pigeon Lane and from within the golf course when the proposed soft landscaping has reached maturity. 

 

Furthermore, during the course of the application minor amendments had been made to the soft landscaping scheme to allow for the planned footpath widening along the A1101/ Mildenhall Road at the front of the application site.

 

Members were advised that Fornham All Saints Parish Council had made no objections to the application and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council had objected.

 

The Officer explained that one further objection had been received from a third party since publication of the agenda.  However, it did not raise any new points not previously covered by earlier representations.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 160 of Report No DEV/WS/20/031.

 

Speakers:    Leon Jones (local resident) spoke against the application

                   Malcolm Johnson (local resident) spoke against the application

Frank Stennett (local resident) spoke against the application

(The three local residents had opted not to connect to the meeting to address the Committee and had instead asked the Democratic Services Officer to read out the statements on their behalf)

Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger (one of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great Barton ward) spoke against the application

Josh Harris (applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

Prior to the Chair opening up the debate on the application the Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the Committee to advise that they were to consider the application on its own merits irrespective of the previous determination made earlier in the year.

 

Considerable discussion took place with a number of Members voicing concern at the impact the scheme would have on the valley meadowlands landscape.

 

In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that, given the time it would take for the proposed landscaping to mature, short  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

30.

Planning Application DC/20/0600/TPO - 52 Street Farm Lane, Ixworth (Report No: DEV/WS/20/032) pdf icon PDF 266 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/032

 

TPO 429 (2006) Tree Preservation Order - 1no. Maple (T1 on plan and T2 on order) fell

Additional documents:

Minutes:

TPO 429 (2006) Tree Preservation Order - 1no. Maple (T1 on plan and T5 on order) fell

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in view of Ixworth Parish Council and the Ward Member supporting removal of the tree, which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of refusal for the reason set out in Paragraph 24 of Report No DEV/WS/20/032.

 

The Planning Officer drew attention to a typographical error in the report; in the description of the application the tree was listed as T5 in error and it should have read T2.

 

As part of his presentation the Officer included videos of the site which he took the Committee through by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Speakers:    Councillor John Griffiths (Ward Member: Ixworth) spoke in                   support of the application

(Due to a diary conflict Councillor Griffiths was unable to connect to the meeting and had requested that the Democratic Services Officer read out his statement on his behalf)

Debbie Scott (applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

A large number of Members spoke in support of felling the tree in question, remarking on the local support for the application and the fact that other trees originally covered by the TPO had also been removed. 

 

Members largely considered that the amenity value of the tree was outweighed by the justification for felling put forward by the applicant and the local community.

 

In response to questions posed with regard to replacement planting, the Committee were advised that the Council’s Tree Officer had suggested a pear tree to be planted within 4m of the felled tree.

 

Members voiced concern at the proposed replacement tree being within 4m and instead suggested that it should be planted within the Parish of Ixworth at an appropriate location agreed with the Parish Council.

 

Accordingly, Councillor Jim Thorndyke proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and with the location of a replacement tree to be agreed under negotiation with the applicant.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and 1 against, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Consent for the works be GRANTED CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION with the location of a replacement tree to be agreed under negotiation with the applicant.

 

In this section