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held Development Control Committees can also be found under 'Media' below // Please note Agenda item 5 has been WITHDRAWN from the agenda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advised that Agenda Item 5 had been withdrawn from the agenda in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 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 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:
- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
|