Agenda and minutes

This being the first meeting of the Development Control Committee since the Authority’s Annual Meeting in May 2019, the Service Manager (Democratic Services) opened the meeting and asked for nominations for the Chair of the Committee for 2019/2020.

Councillor Carol Bull nominated Councillor Andrew Smith as Chair and this was seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

There being no other nominations and no objections, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Andrew Smith be elected Chair for 2019/2020.

Councillor Smith then took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

The Chair made reference to the volume of work that would need to be undertaken in the role of Vice Chair to the Committee, in light of which he proposed that the Committee appoint two Vice Chairs.

This was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull and upon being put to the vote, and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That the Development Control Committee appoint two Vice Chairs for 2019/2020.

The Chair then sought nominations for the two positions of Vice Chair.

Councillor Peter Stevens nominated Councillor Jim Thorndyke and this was seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Councillor David Gathercole nominated Councillor Roger Dicker and this was seconded by Councillor Don Waldron.

Councillor Susan Glossop nominated Councillor Mike Chester and this was seconded by Councillor David Roach.

In light of there being three nominations for two positions, the Service Manager (Democratic Services) explained that each nomination would be voted on in turn, with each Member of the Committee only being able to vote for a maximum of two, and the two Members with the highest number of votes would be appointed as Vice Chairs.

Upon being put to the vote:

·         Councillor Jim Thorndyke received 13 votes;

·         Councillor Roger Dicker received 6 votes; and

·         Councillor Mike Chester received 10 votes.

Accordingly, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillors Mike Chester and Jim Thorndyke be elected as Vice Chairs for 2019/2020.

Prior to commencing with the order of business on the agenda, the Chair addressed Members and gave thanks for his appointment and stated that he looked forward to working with the Committee over the ensuing year.  He encouraged all Members to involve themselves in the debate but to ensure that they focused on material planning considerations and avoided repetition.

The Chair also gave specific acknowledgement to Councillor Jim Thorndyke who had been Chair of the St Edmundsbury Borough Council Development Control Committee for a considerable number of years and who had supported and guided the newly appointed Chair whilst he served as his Vice Chair.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ann Williamson.

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

Councillor Carol Bull attended the meeting as substitute for Councillor Ann Williamson.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/001

This report set out four documents which were integral to the workings of the Development Control Committee (Site Visit Protocol, Guide to Having Your Say on Planning Applications, Decision Making Protocol and Agenda Notes) and sought Members’ approval.

The report also recommended that a review of working practices of the Development Control Committee be undertaken in 2020.

Councillor Jim Thorndyke made reference to the recommendation in respect of the review which stated that it would be undertaken in consultation with the Committee Chair and Vice Chairs.  He asked if all Members of the Committee would have opportunity to contribute.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) assured Councillor Thorndyke that feedback into the review would be welcomed from all Members of the Committee.

It was moved by the Chair, duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

1.   The following documents be approved, as attached to Report No DEV/WS/19/001:

·         Site Visit Protocol;

·         Guide to Having Your Say on Planning Applications;

·         Decision Making Protocol; and

·         Agenda Notes

2.   A review of working practices of the Development Control Committee be undertaken during 2020 in consultation with the Committee Chair and Vice Chairs.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/002

Planning Application -26no. dwellings and associated works including parking, vehicular access and landscaping

(Councillor Ian Houlder declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he was a shareholder representative on Barley Homes (Group) Ltd. He indicated that he would remain in the meeting and take part in the discussion and voting thereon.)

Planning Application -26no. dwellings and associated works including parking, vehicular access and landscaping

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because the applicant, Barley Homes (Group) Ltd, is owned by West Suffolk Council.

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the ‘late papers’ which had been circulated supplementary to the agenda and set out four additional conditions that were to be added to the recommendation. 

Members were asked to note that the third of the additional conditions should include the number 26 where the number had been denoted as an ‘X’ in the supplementary late papers.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement as set out in Paragraph 86 of Report No DEV/WS/19/002 and in the supplementary late papers.

As part of his presentation the Officer explained that the application site fell within the West Suffolk Wards of Haverhill South and Haverhill West (the report incorrectly made reference to Haverhill North which reflected the, now dissolved, St Edmundsbury Borough Council ward boundaries.)

Speaker:      Hannah Northrop (agent) spoke in support of the application

During the debate a number of Members raised questions in respect of the following matters and the Case Officer responded as below:

·         Site clearance/disposal – this would be dealt with by way of condition No 17;

·         The colour palate to be used – Officers considered the colour of the cladding proposed by the developer to be appropriate;

·         Tree removal – 10 Poplar trees were to be removed to facilitate the development, however, replacement planting was controlled by way of condition No 13;

·         The ownership/management of the shared use foot and cycle path – the Committee was advised that this matter was still being explored between Suffolk County Council and West Suffolk Council and condition No 7 could be expanded to reflect this; and

·         The provision of electric charging points, solar panels and fibre optic cables – electric charging points had been included by way of condition No 15 and Officers could pass on the comments in relation to solar panels and fibre optic cables to the applicant.

Councillor David Smith asked if it would be possible to include some form of ‘spur’ off the foot/cycle path in order to provide a more direct link to the school site.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this had not been requested by Suffolk County Council (as Local Education Authority), however, it is something that Officers could explore with the LEA and applicant.

Councillor John Burns raised some concerns with the consultation that was undertaken with local residents in that it was not held locally to the development site. 

However, he proposed that the application be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/003

Planning Application - 38no. dwellings and associated access works

Planning Application - 38no. dwellings and associated access works

This application was referred to St Edmundsbury Borough Council’s Development Control Committee on 28 March 2019 as it was a major application and Haverhill Town Council had registered objections to the scheme.

Consideration of the application was deferred by the Committee on 28 March 2019 in order to allow additional time for Officers to work with the applicant, in light of the concerns raised by Members in respect of access and parking provision.

Subsequent to the meeting amended plans had been submitted by the applicant and further comments had been received from the Highways Authority.

Officers were continuing to recommend approval, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 20 of Report No DEV/WS/19/003.

In light of the fact that this was the first meeting of the West Suffolk Development Control Committee the Senior Planning Officer provided Members with a full, detailed presentation on the application and highlighted the changes that had been made to the amended plans.

It was also noted that the application site fell within the West Suffolk Wards of Haverhill North (the report incorrectly made reference to Withersfield which reflected the, now dissolved, St Edmundsbury Borough Council ward boundaries.)

Speaker:      Alasdair Vaux (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Palmer requested that solar panels and fibre optic cables were included in the scheme, in response to which, Officers advised that they would pass on the comments to the applicant.

Councillor John Burns proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

The completion of a Section 106 Agreement with the following contributions:

30% Affordable Housing

Pre-school - £41,650

Education facilities - £239,666

Library provision - £623

And, 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 development above slab level shall take place until samples of the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4        No development shall take place on site until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: 

          a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording.

          b. The programme for post investigation assessment.

          c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording.

          d. Provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/004

Planning Application - 3no. dwellings and repositioning of parking area

Planning Application - 3no. dwellings and repositioning of parking area

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

Bury St Edmunds Town Council had raised objections to the scheme which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 35 of Report No DEV/WS/19/004.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

As part of her presentation, the Senior Planning Officer advised that comments had been submitted from Councillor Jo Rayner (Ward Member: Abbeygate) who had been unable to attend the meeting. 

The Officer therefore read out the submitted statement to the Committee which outlined objections to the scheme due to the loss of informal parking and the impact on residential amenity.  Councillor Rayner requested that the application be deferred in order to allow time in which for an historic parking agreement (made reference to by neighbouring residents) to be sourced.

Speakers:    Catherine Howes (on behalf of fellow neighbouring residents in Mill Road South) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Kevin Hind (Bury St Edmunds Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Jane Wilkie (agent) spoke in support of the application

In response to questions posed by Members during the debate, the Senior Planning Officer explained that both the Council and Orwell Housing Association (the applicant) had attempted to source a historical formal parking agreement for the site in question mentioned by residents but had been unable to do so.  Furthermore, none of the residents or Bury St Edmunds Town Council had been able to provide any kind of formal documentation in this regard.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) also clarified that the current informal parking arrangement could in theory be withdrawn by the landowners (Orwell Housing Assoc.) at any time, irrespective of the application before the Committee.  Moreover, the scheme seeking approval would actually enable the parking provision for existing residents to be formalised for the new area proposed.

Councillor John Burns asked if adverse possession rights could apply to the existing parking area.  The Lawyer advising the meeting explained that this would be a separate legal matter that the residents concerned would need to pursue outside of the planning process and it was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be deferred in order to allow additional time in which for clarity to be sought with regard to the current parking arrangement used by existing residents.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

Upon being put to the vote and with 6 voting for the motion, 7 against and with 3 abstentions the Chair declared the motion lost.

Councillor Ian Houlder then moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 6 against and with 2 abstentions it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/005

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - 4no. dwellings with garaging and creation of new vehicular access

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - 4no. dwellings with garaging and creation of new vehicular access

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

Troston Parish Council supported the application which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 59 of Report No DEV/WS/19/005.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

As part of her presentation the Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that the Parish Council had submitted a late, further representation largely reiterating their earlier points raised and this was read out to the meeting.

In response to this, the Case Officer made reference to the specific types of schemes which may be permitted outside of a designated settlement boundary.  However, in respect of the application before the Committee, Officers considered there to be no material considerations to set the Plan aside.

Speakers:    Councillor Simon Brown (Ward Member: Pakenham & Troston) spoke in support of the application

                   Philip Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Jim Thorndyke made reference to a previous planning application which resulted in the change of use of agricultural land to recreational Public Open Space; the site in question falling outside the settlement boundary of Troston.

In response, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the reallocation of the settlement boundary in relation to the recreation area could be addressed as part of the impending review and development of a West Suffolk Local Plan.

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

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 REFUSED for the following reason:

1.      The site falls outside the settlement boundary of Troston which is defined as an Infill Village under Core Strategy Policy CS4. Policy RV3 of the Rural Vision 2031 states that residential development will be permitted within housing settlement boundaries where it is not contrary to other policies in the plan. There are exceptions to allow for housing development in the countryside as set out under DM5, DM26, DM27 and DM29 (affordable, rural workers dwellings, replacement dwellings and infill where there is a cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings), but this proposal does not satisfy any of these exceptions. The site is also not allocated for residential development in the Local Plan. West Suffolk can demonstrate a five year housing land supply and therefore the development plan can be considered up to date. The proposals therefore fail to comply with policy RV3 of the Rural Vision 2031, Core Strategy policy CS1 and CS4, Policies DM5 and DM27 of the Joint Development Management Policies Local Plan and the 2019 NPPF, particularly paragraphs 11, 77 and 79 and is considered unacceptable as a matter of principle. Moreover the proposal would encroach into the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/006

Planning Application - 1no dwelling

Planning Application - 1no dwelling

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

Hepworth Parish Council supported the application which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 44 of Report No DEV/WS/19/006.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Councillor Carol Bull (Ward Member: Barningham) spoke in support of the application and proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that if Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, then Officers would invoke the decision making protocol and a risk assessment would be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting, prior to making final decision on the application.

Upon being put to the vote and with 3 voting for the motion and with 13 against the Chair declared the motion lost.

Councillor Peter Stevens spoke in support of the Officer’s recommendation of refusal and commented on the harm the application could have on the character of the site.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) stated that the second reason for refusal could be expanded in order to include the impact upon the character of the site as a consequence of the elevated position.

Henceforth, Councillor Stevens proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the expansion to the second reason.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

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

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Policies CS1 and CS4 of the Core Strategy between them establish the spatial strategy and the settlement hierarchy for development within West Suffolk. Both seek to resist, in conformity with the provisions of Para. 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), residential development outside of settlement boundaries in otherwise unsustainable areas. Furthermore, Policy DM5 states that areas designated as countryside will be protected from unsustainable development and Policy DM27 sets out the circumstances where dwellings will be permitted outside of settlement boundaries. Hepworth is a lower order settlement and the provision of a dwelling outside of the designated settlement boundary represents an unsustainable form of development. The proposal does not meet the provisions of policy DM27 in that it is not within a cluster and neither is it considered to be a small undeveloped plot within an otherwise continuous built up frontage. There are no material considerations that outweigh this significant conflict with the Development Plan; and

2. Policy DM2 (Creating Places - Development Principles and Local Distinctiveness) states that proposals should recognise and address key features, characteristics and landscape of the area, supporting the provisions of DM13, and Policy CS4 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely affect the setting of a settlement.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.