Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Roger Dicker, Ian Houlder and David Roach. 

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

The following substitutions were declared:

Councillor Andy Neal substituting for Councillor Roger Dicker

Councillor Carol Bull substituting for Councillor Ian Houlder

Councillor Terry Clements substituting for Councillor David Roach

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2019 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/008

Planning Application - Access road to serve residential development comprising 77 no dwellings - (resubmission of DC/17/0339/FUL)

Planning Application - Access road to serve residential development comprising 77 no dwellings - (resubmission of DC/17/0339/FUL)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it related to a major planning application.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council objected to the proposal which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 66 of Report No DEV/WS/19/008.

The application had been submitted following the refusal of a similar application in January 2019 by St Edmundsbury Borough Council’s Development Control Committee (DC/17/0339/FUL).

The application was refused due to the fact that the proposed access road encroached upon the established tree belt alongside the A143 and insufficient information had been submitted by the applicant to establish the full impact that the proposal could have on the tree belt. 

As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the changes that had been to the scheme since the application that was considered in January 2019.

The Committee was also advised that an application for the construction of 77 dwellings on land to the South of the access road was still pending consideration; with the Local Planning Authority in the process of engaging with the applicant on matters relating to viability, design and layout.

Speaker:      Councillor Ben Lord (Chairman, Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Stuart McAdam (Persimmon Homes, applicant) spoke in support of the application

Considerable detailed discussion took place on the application, in response to which the Principal Planning Officer explained:

Ecology – Condition Nos 6 and 7 had been included at the request of the Landscape and Ecology Officer.  Members were also reminded that the tree belt was not protected.

Flooding – the entire site had been assessed for flood risk, including that of the application and the adjacent residential application site.

Road Route / Cycle Path – the road was intended to largely follow the topography of the site with the cycle path to be on the Western side of the road and not adjacent to the tree belt.

Emergency Access / Bollards – the collapsible bollards specified for use at the emergency access were requested by Suffolk County Council Highways and were used as standard.

Condition No 21 – Members were advised of the justification for this condition and informed that it was not possible to link this in any way to the adjacent residential application.  However, Suffolk County Council Highways were mindful of the linkage and both schemes would need to comply with the Highways Authority’s requirements.

Councillor Peter Stevens raised specific concern that the Crown Lane Masterplan was yet to have been confirmed and questioned the validity of the application in light of this.  He therefore, proposed that the application be refused for this reason and this was duly seconded by Councillor Terry Clements.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) appreciated that it would have been preferable for the related masterplan to have been agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/009

Retrospective Planning Application - Change of use from single dwelling house (use Class C3) to a holiday let property (sui generis)

Retrospective Planning Application - Change of use from single dwelling house (use Class C3) to a holiday let property (sui generis)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel where, due to the public interest in the application, Members resolved that it should be presented to the Development Control Committee.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council objected to the application which was in conflict with the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 92 of Report No DEV/WS/19/009.

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer tabled a copy of the noise policy which the applicant’s had implemented for all bookings at the property.

Speakers:    Nigel French (neighbour objector) spoke against the application

                   Robert Snelling (neighbour objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Miranda Martin (Vice Chairman, Market Weston Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Carol Bull (Ward Member: Barningham) spoke on the application on behalf of village residents

                   Juliet Hargrave (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Considerable debate took place by Members with a number commenting on the lack of amenity that village residents received directly from the premises (when operating as a holiday let) together with the limited control the Local Authority had on businesses of this nature.

Some of the Committee also remarked on the distinctive rural nature of Market Weston and how noise travels much further in the countryside, thereby, affecting amenity even if noise levels fell below statutory nuisance legislation.

In response to questions, the Lawyer advising the meeting explained that one of the tests for proposed conditions was enforceability.  Hence, Officers did not recommend the inclusion of a condition in relation to the control of noise levels in relation to when and where music was played as this could be covered by other legislation, however, as referenced in the comments by Public Health and Housing, a condition could be included in respect of external lighting.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) added that a noise management plan could also be requested via a condition.

Councillor Peter Stevens asked if it would be possible for permission to be granted on a temporary basis and the Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that she considered this to be reasonable in this instance and would recommend a temporary period of 1 year.

Accordingly, Councillor Stevens proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, for a temporary period of 1 year, inclusive of a noise management plan and a lighting condition.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Don Waldron.

(Prior to taking the vote the Chair permitted a short comfort break.)

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 7 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 1 YEAR subject to the following conditions:

1        The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/010

Householder Planning Application (i) single storey side extension (following demolition of existing conservatory) (ii) install sound attenuation fence (Previous Application DC/16/1930/HH)

Householder Planning Application (i) single storey side extension (following demolition of existing conservatory) (ii) install sound attenuation fence (Previous Application DC/16/1930/HH)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it related to the previous agenda item (Planning Application DC/19/0344/FUL) and was also considered by the Delegation Panel where Members resolved that it should be presented to the Development Control Committee.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council objected to the application which was in conflict with the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 24 of Report No DEV/WS/19/010.

As part of her presentation the Planning Officer explained that the application site had been subject to a number of planning applications over the years, notably an application for a single storey extension to the South East elevation (DC/16/1930/HH) which was granted in November 2016.

Subsequently, an application was submitted to regularise a discrepancy between the approved plan and the constructed extension – which formed the matter under consideration by the Committee.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) made reference to the related previously (temporarily) approved agenda item for the same premises and advised Members that all considerations within the report were still relevant together with the addition of policy DM34 which specifically related to extensions to tourism premises.

Speakers:    Nigel French (neighbour objector) spoke against the application

                   Juliet Hargrave (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Andy Drummond proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.

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.   Time limit

2.   Compliance with plans

Report No: DEV/WS/19/011

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling

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

Newmarket Town Council objected to the scheme which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 47 of Report No DEV/WS/19/011.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting. 

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the following:

·         The ‘late papers’ that had been issued following publication of the agenda and which set out comments from the Council’s Tree Officer and one further associated condition;

·         The planning application previously submitted for the site which was considered by Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee in February 2019 and refused.  The amendments which had been made to this scheme were highlighted to the Committee; and

·         The agent for the application had revisited the site in recent days and surveyed the two trees that were to be removed to accommodate the proposed property’s driveway, namely T004 Yew tree and T005 Oak tree.  It had transpired that the trees were 2.5m nearer to the Fordham Road boundary than previously understood, hence, these trees could now be retained and the only tree loss would be a small group of young Yew trees.

Speakers:    Andrew Fleet (on behalf of neighbour objector Edd Dunlop Racing) spoke against the application

                   Keith Warth (KWA Architects, agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Andy Drummond spoke on the application and clarified that whilst he was a member of Newmarket Town Council’s Development and Planning Committee he had abstained from voting on the item when considered by the Town Council in order to allow him to take part in the District Council’s Committee.

Councillor Drummond objected to the application due to the location of the proposed property, close to a stable block, and the impact it could have on the amenity of the future residents.  He therefore proposed, contrary to the Officer recommendation, that the application be refused.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Gathercole.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised that if Members were minded to refuse the application then the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked and Officers would undertake a Risk Assessment prior to a final decision being made on the application by the Committee.

Upon being put to the vote and with 2 voting for the motion and 14 against the Chair declared the motion lost. 

Councillor John Burns raised a question in respect of Condition No 12 and the Construction Method Statement.  In response, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) clarified that in applications where the Jockey Club Estates were consulted this bespoke condition was included to enable parties to liaise and come to a mutually appropriate arrangement.

Councillor Burns then proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the additional condition within the late papers, this was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Neal.

Upon being put to the vote  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/012

DC/18/2152/FUL Planning Application - Provision of 1 no. agricultural worker's dwelling including conversion of existing single storey outbuilding (following demolition of existing pole barn and shed); change of use of agricultural land to garden.  As amended by plans received on 6th and 20th December 2018

DC/18/2153/LB Application for Listed Building Consent - (i) Demolition of pole barn and shed (ii) Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide 1 no. agricultural worker's dwelling. As amended by plans received on 6th and 20th December 2018

DC/18/2152/FUL Planning Application - Provision of 1 no. agricultural worker's dwelling including conversion of existing single storey outbuilding (following demolition of existing pole barn and shed); change of use of agricultural land to garden.  As amended by plans received on 6th and 20th December 2018.

DC/18/2153/LB Application for Listed Building Consent - (i) Demolition of pole barn and shed (ii) Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide 1 no. agricultural worker's dwelling. As amended by plans received on 6th and 20th December 2018.

These applications were referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

The Parish Council supported both applications which, in the case of the planning application, was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal for the reasons set out in Paragraph 57 of Report No DEV/WS/19/012.

Officers were also recommending that the application for Listed Building Consent be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 58 of the report.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Councillor Carol Bull (Ward Member: Barningham) spoke on the application on behalf of the applicants

                   Paul Nunn (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Peter Stevens raised questions in relation to Class Q Permitted Development rights in respect of the application site which the Service Manager (Planning – Development) responded to.

Councillor Andy Drummond asked if it would be possible to condition the planning application’s dwelling to ensure occupancy was restricted to the farm business and Officers confirmed that this could be done.

Councillor Drummond then proposed that the planning application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, as he considered the dwelling for a key worker to be essential to the operation, and that the Listed Building Consent application be approved as per the Officer recommendation.  These were duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised that if Members were minded to approve the planning application then the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked and Officers would undertake a Risk Assessment prior to a final decision being made on the application by the Committee.

Accordingly, the Chair agreed to take the vote on each application separately.

With 13 voting for the motion and with 3 against it was resolved that

Decision

Members be MINDED TO APPROVE PLANNING PERMISSION CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF REFUSAL as they considered the dwelling for a key worker to be essential to the agricultural operation.  The application was therefore DEFERRED in order to allow a Risk Assessment to be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting.

And, with the vote being unanimous it was resolved that

Decision

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.   Standard time limit

2.   Schedule of repairs/works to single storey building to be agreed

3.   Samples of materials and finishes to be agreed

Report No: DEV/WS/19/013

TPO/2007/02 - TPO/1996/06 - Tree Preservation Orders - (i) T1 - 1no. Oak - Fell  (ii) T8 - 1no Scots Pine - Fell

TPO/2007/02 - TPO/1996/06 - Tree Preservation Orders - (i) T1 - 1no. Oak - Fell (ii) T8 - 1no Scots Pine - Fell

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

Officers were recommending to grant consent for the felling of the T1 Oak and to refuse consent for the felling of the T8 Scots Pine.

The Town Council objected to the felling of both trees.  A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

As part of his presentation the Planning Officer advised Members that negotiation sought to secure changes to the proposal so that limb reduction works took place instead to the Scots Pine. 

However, the applicant did not agree to the suggested change from Officers, therefore making the recommendation the split decision as set out in Paragraphs 29 and 30 of Report No DEV/WS/19/013.

Speakers:    Bruce Talbot (neighbour objector) spoke against the application

                   Brenda Carey (applicant) spoke in support of the application

A number of Members made comment, largely opposing the felling of the Oak tree and posing a number of questions in relation to the tree.

In response to which, the Chair invited the Council’s Assistant Arboricultural Officer to address the meeting who advised the Committee that:

·         The Oak tree was considered to be of medium public amenity value.  On balance the replacement planting with a Lime tree would add to the Lime tree avenue that lined the adjacent Thetford Road and this enhancement was considered to be of high public amenity value; and

·         Whilst it was difficult to age trees accurately he considered the Oak tree to be over 100 years old and to have entered the last stage of its life.

Councillor Peter Stevens remarked on the Oak tree appearing to straddle the applicant’s property and that of the immediate neighbour. 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised that if Members granted the felling of the tree then both parties would have to agree to the works, however, this was a matter of common law and not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Andy Neal proposed that the Tree Preservation Order Consent for the felling of the T1 Oak Tree be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, due to the high amenity value he considered the tree to provide.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.

Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that

Decision

The Tree Preservation Order Consent for the felling of the T1 Oak Tree be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, due to the high amenity value the tree provided.

And, Councillor Neal also proposed that the Tree Preservation Order Consent for the felling of the T8 Scots Pine be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

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

Decision

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/014

Householder Planning Application - Installation of fencing

Householder Planning Application - Installation of fencing

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

The Parish Council supported the application and Officers were recommending that it be approved, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 22 of Report No DEV/WS/19/014.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that throughout the report the fence had been referenced as being 2.2m when in fact it should have read 2.02m.

The Committee were also advised of the ‘fallback’ Permitted Development option that the applicants could pursue if permission was not granted.

Speaker:      Councillor David Gathercole (Ward Member: Lakenheath) spoke on the application

Further to questions/comments made in respect of the property’s covenant restrictions in relation to fencing, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised Members that this was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Gathercole proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, as he considered it not to comply with policies DM24 and DM2.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, as it did not comply with policies DM24 and DM2.