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
No. | Item |
---|---|
Welcome Minutes: The Chair formally commenced the meeting and jointly welcomed all present and those externally viewing the Development Control Committee.
A number of housekeeping matters and remote meeting guidance were highlighted to all.
|
|
Apologies for absence Minutes: No apologies for absence were received. |
|
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.
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. |
|
Declarations of interest Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary or local non pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda, no later than when that item is reached and, when appropriate, to leave the meeting prior to discussion and voting on the item. Minutes: Members’ declarations of interest are recorded under the item to which the declaration relates. |
|
Report No: DEV/WS/20/052
Reserved Matters Application -Submission of details under SE/09/1283 - the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of 41 dwellings with associated private amenity space, means of enclosure, car parking, vehicle and access arrangement and drainage together with proposed areas of landscaping and areas of open space for a residential development known as Phase 2A Additional documents:
Minutes: Reserved Matters Application -Submission of details under SE/09/1283 - the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of 41 dwellings with associated private amenity space, means of enclosure, car parking, vehicle and access arrangement and drainage together with proposed areas of landscaping and areas of open space for a residential development known as Phase 2A
This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following a call-in from the local Ward Member Councillor Joe Mason (Haverhill North).
In addition, Haverhill Town Council objected to the application which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation for approval subject to the receipt of an acceptable noise assessment and conditions, as set out in Paragraph 9.0 of Report No DEV/WS/20/052.
Members were advised that the application related to part of the wider North West Haverhill site, one of the two strategic growth sites for Haverhill identified in the adopted Core Strategy. It sought approval of the details for part of the second phase of residential development.
The Committee were informed that the site had been the subject of significant public engagement through the preparation and adoption of a concept statement and a masterplan. Outline planning permission was granted on 27 March 2015 for residential development, a primary school, local centre including retail and community uses, public open space, landscaping infrastructure, servicing and other associated works alongside full permission for the construction of a relief road.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application had initially sought approval for all the dwellings in phase two. However, during the course of the application, the dwellings in the southern half of the phase were removed and the red line was reduced in size to allow further work to take place on the southern parcel (phase 2b) to improve its character, layout and appearance before the submission of a new reserved matters application.
The remaining northern parcel (phase 2a) had, therefore, been amended to address concerns with the layout, house types, landscaping, and highways. The site included a section of highway connecting the parcel to the approved road network within phase one and a strip of land connecting to a proposed drainage basin to the south, which would serve all of phase two.
As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer made reference to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which had been circulated following publication of the agenda.
Lastly, reference was made to a separate ongoing enforcement matter in connection with the application site which, the Committee was reminded, was not a material planning consideration for the determination of the application.
Speakers: Anne & Brad Strachen (neighbouring resident objectors) spoke against the application Councillor Joe Mason (Ward Member: Haverhill North) spoke against the application Stuart McAdam (Applicant – Persimmon Homes) spoke in support of the application (All parties listed did not connect to the meeting to personally address the Committee and the Democratic Services Officer read out pre-prepared submitted statements on their behalf)
Considerable debate ensued with a number of comments/questions raised by Members ... view the full minutes text for item 78. |
|
Report No: DEV/WS/20/053
Householder planning application - Single storey detached annexe. As amended by plans received 01 October 2020 and 06 October 2020 Additional documents:
Minutes: Householder planning application - Single storey detached annexe. As amended by plans received 01 October 2020 and 06 October 2020
This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel on 3 November 2020.
It was presented to the Delegation Panel due to the objection from Bury St Edmunds Town Council which was in conflict with the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 43 of Report No DEV/WS/20/053.
As part of his presentation the Planning Officer outlined the Permitted Development ‘fallback’ position and provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.
Speakers: John Brabrook (neighbouring resident objector) spoke against the application (Mr Brabrook did not connect to the meeting to personally address the Committee and instead opted to have the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared submitted statement on his behalf) Councillor Kevin Hind (Bury St Edmunds Town Council) spoke against the application Michaela Cooper (applicant) spoke in support of the application
During the debate a number of questions were posed with regard to the parking provision.
In response, the Planning Officer explained that whilst the scheme resulted in a technical under-provision of parking, Suffolk County Council Highways had not objected as there was on-street parking available at Acacia Avenue and they did not consider that approval of the application would lead to any material harm to highway or pedestrian safety.
Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Richard Alecock.
Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting for the motion and 1 against, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
3. The use shall not commence until the area within the site shown on Drawing No. 087-20/P/01 Rev A for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area shall be retained and used for no other purposes. 4. The extension/annex hereby permitted shall be occupied only in conjunction with and for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the existing dwelling known as 31 Acacia Avenue to which it is associated and together they shall form a single dwelling house. |
|
Report No: DEV/WS/20/054
Householder Planning Application - (i) Garage (ii) vehicular driveway improvements Additional documents:
Minutes: Householder Planning Application - (i) Garage (ii) vehicular driveway improvements
This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel on 20 October 2020.
It was presented to the Delegation Panel due to the support from the Parish Council which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 41 of Report No DEV/WS/20/054.
As part of her presentation to the Committee the Planning Officer drew attention to the supplementary ‘late papers’ that had been issued since publication of the agenda and presented videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.
Speakers: Councillor Brian Harvey (Ward Member: Manor) spoke in support of the application Les Belsberg (applicant) spoke in support of the application (by way of a pre-recorded audio file)
Councillor David Roach spoke in support of the application which he considered not to be in conflict with polices CS5, DM2, DM17 and DM24 and would not create an adverse impact on the Conservation Area.
Accordingly, he proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.
The Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting and reminded the Committee that the support from the community for the proposal was not a material planning consideration.
On the basis of the reasons given by Councillor Roach for approving the application she also advised that the proposal would not be ‘minded to’ and the Decision Making Protocol would not be invoked in this instance.
Following which, the Planning Officer verbally outlined the conditions that could be appended to a planning permission, if granted.
(Prior to taking a vote on this item Councillor Peter Stevens raised a query with regard to the recorded vote process which the Service Manager – Democratic Services responded to.)
Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion and 8 against, the Chair exercised his casting vote against and the motion for approval was therefore lost.
Councillor Roger Dicker then proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Don Waldron.
Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting for the motion and 7 against it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
|
|
Report No: DEV/WS/20/055
Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) - 1no. dwelling (previous application DC/19/1273/OUT) Additional documents:
Minutes: (Councillor Susan Glossop addressed the meeting as Ward Member for the application and stressed that she would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)
Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) - 1no. dwelling (previous application DC/19/1273/OUT)
This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel on 3 November 2020.
It was presented to the Delegation Panel following a call-in from the Ward Member (Ingham) Councillor Susan Glossop and in light of the objection from Ingham Parish Council which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 55 of Report No DEV/WS/20/055.
As part of his presentation the Planning Officer outlined the planning history of the site and related appeal position and provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.
Speakers: Hannah Ellis (neighbouring resident objector) spoke against the application Councillor Adrian Dawson (Ingham Parish Council) spoke against the application (by way of a pre-recorded audio file)
Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.
Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion and 8 against the Chair exercised his casting vote in favour and it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
|