Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Gathercole and Susan Glossop.

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 Carol Bull substituting for Councillor Susan Glossop

Councillor Dawn Dicker substituting for Councillor David Gathercole

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2019 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendment as identified by Councillor John Burns:

Minute No. 45 (Planning Application DC/19/1010/RM - Land Adj Haverhill Business Park, Bumpstead Road, Haverhill):

“Councillor John Burns asked if it would be possible to:

     i.        Extend the footpath that was to run parallel with Iceni Way along the frontage of the site;

Ensure the outline permission in Bumpstead Road was made good and the footpath was extended along the frontage of the site; and

    ii.        Extend the acoustic fencing to also include the perimeter of Unit 2.”

Report No: DEV/WS/19/032

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access, Appearance and Scale to be considered) - Up to 19no. dwellings as amended by plans and documents received 9th May 2019

The Chair advised that this item had been WITHDRAWN from the agenda.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/033

Planning Application - 6no. dwellings and 45no. parking spaces (following demolition of 60no. garages)

Planning Application - 6no. dwellings and 45no. parking spaces (following demolition of 60no. garages)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was one of four applications across four sites totalling 28 dwellings, which raised issues of significant concern to local residents and Mildenhall High Town Council.

The Committee was advised that in August 2018 (the since dissolved) Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee refused a previous scheme for 8 dwellings on the same site.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions as set out in the supplementary ‘late papers’ circulated after publication of the agenda.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that since the issue of the ‘late papers’ additional objections had been received from residents; largely raising issues with the scheme as covered in previous representations such as traffic, the impact on amenity and the effect construction could have on residents’ mental health.

As part of his presentation the Officer outlined the changes that had been made to the scheme, set out the garage occupancy levels and explained that Suffolk County Council Highways had not raised objection.

Speakers:    Ralph Shingfield (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Russell Leaman (Mildenhall High Town Council) made a joint statement against all four of the garage area applications on the agenda (Items 5, 6, 7 & 8)

                   Councillor Richard Alecock (Ward Member: Mildenhall Great Heath) spoke against the application

                   Nicole Wright (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Palmer opened the debate and advised his fellow Committee Members that he had visited the site in the evening of his own volition and found the parking to be saturated with vehicles, including some on pavements.

A number of Members raised concern at the condition of some of the garage units which had seemingly not been maintained by Flagship.

Comments were also made by some of the Committee on the real need for affordable housing in the locality.

Further debate continued with the Committee posing other questions which were responded to by the Principal Planning Officer as follows:

Sewage – Members were advised that Anglian Water had not objected to the scheme in the basis that there was capacity for the dwellings proposed;

Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) – The Officer explained that the application site was not included in the Council’s five year housing land supply and would therefore be classed windfall housing provision that was within the settlement boundary;

Electric Charging Points – The lack of electric charging points within the scheme was counted against the application in the planning balance, however, in view of the parking being unallocated it was also recognised that there could be logistical difficulties with accessing charging points;

Asbestos Removal – Whilst a Construction Management Plan was conditioned, Members were informed that the removal of asbestos fell outside of the planning process and had to be managed by contractors in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/034

Planning Application - 6 no. dwellings and 30 no. parking spaces (demolition of 39no. lock-up garages) - (Previous Application DC/17/2587/FUL)

Planning Application - 6 no. dwellings and 30 no. parking spaces (demolition of 39no. lock-up garages) - (Previous Application DC/17/2587/FUL)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was one of four applications across four sites totalling 28 dwellings, which raised issues of significant concern to local residents and Mildenhall High Town Council.

The Committee was advised that in August 2018 (the since dissolved) Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee refused a previous scheme for 11 dwellings on the same site.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions as set out in the supplementary ‘late papers’ circulated after publication of the agenda.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that since the issue of the ‘late papers’ additional objections had been received from residents; largely raising issues with the scheme as covered in previous representations such as traffic, the impact on amenity and the effect construction could have on residents’ mental health.

As part of his presentation the Officer outlined the changes that had been made to the scheme and drew attention to Paragraph 30 of Report No DEV/WS/19/034; Members were advised that the figures within this paragraph contained an inaccuracy and the calculation should have demonstrated an over-provision of 4 parking spaces (as opposed to 6), based on what the scheme would provide.

Speakers:    Russell Richards (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   The Chair asked Members to note the earlier joint statement made on all four of the garage area applications by Councillor Russell Leaman (Mildenhall High Town Council)

                   Councillor Andy Neal (Neighbouring Ward Member: Mildenhall Queensway) spoke against the application

                   Nicole Wright (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Don Waldron asked the Chair if it would be possible for Councillor Andy Neal to table some photographs which supported his public speaking statement.  The Lawyer advised that this was not permitted under the Council’s Public Speaking Policy which did not allow handouts or visual aids.

Councillor David Palmer opened the debate and again advised his fellow Committee Members that he had visited the site in the evening of his own volition and found the parking to be saturated with vehicles, including some on pavements.

Further debate continued with the Committee posing questions which were responded to by the Principal Planning Officer as follows (this was in addition to the same comments being made as referenced under the previous application in respect of electric charging points and asbestos):

Flooding – A map showing surface water flooding was shown as part of the Officer’s presentation and the proposed scheme was not considered to be likely to exacerbate the problem.  On the contrary, the replacement of some of the existing hardstanding with garden areas could assist;

Water Consumption – The Officer provided explanation on the figures referenced within the report; and

Uplift of Existing Properties/Grass Verge Parking – Comments had been made from some Members as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/035

Planning Application - 11no. dwellings and 57no. parking spaces (following demolition of 70no. garages) - Previous Application DC/17/2586/FUL

Planning Application - 11no. dwellings and 57no. parking spaces (following demolition of 70no. garages) - Previous Application DC/17/2586/FUL

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was one of four applications across four sites totalling 28 dwellings, which raised issues of significant concern to local residents and Mildenhall High Town Council.

The Committee was advised that in August 2018 (the since dissolved) Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee refused a previous scheme for 11 dwellings on the same site.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement (which contained prescribed contributions in light of this application being classified as a major) and conditions as set out in the supplementary ‘late papers’ circulated after publication of the agenda.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that since the issue of the ‘late papers’ additional objections had been received from residents; largely raising issues with the scheme as covered in previous representations such as traffic, the impact on amenity and the effect construction could have on residents’ mental health.

As part of his presentation the Officer outlined the changes that had been made to the scheme, displayed photographs of parking in Emmanuel Close in the evening and drew attention to Paragraph 32 of Report No DEV/WS/19/035; Members were advised that the figures within this paragraph contained an inaccuracy and a total of 59 parking spaces would be provided within the new development (as opposed to 57).

Lastly, the Committee was advised that the Officer had been in further dialog with Suffolk County Council Highways who had verbally stated that they were now content that their concerns could be mitigated via conditions and, as such, withdrew their holding objection as made reference to in Paragraph 12.

Speakers:    James Power (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   The Chair asked Members to note the earlier joint statement made on all four of the garage area applications by Councillor Russell Leaman (Mildenhall High Town Council)

                   Councillor Andy Neal (Neighbouring Ward Member: Mildenhall Queensway) spoke against the application

                   Nicole Wright (agent) spoke in support of the application

During the debate the Committee posed questions which were responded to by the Principal Planning Officer as follows (this was in addition to the same comments being made as referenced under the previous applications in respect of electric charging points, disabled parking spaces and asbestos):

Location and Condition of Alternative Garages – the Officer read out the locations at which there were vacant garages that could be rented by tenants who had occupied those cited for demolition within the scheme.  He presumed that these were of a similar size and condition as those within the four application sites;

Overlooking of No. 32 – The Committee was advised that whilst the overlooking of No 32 was a material consideration Members needed to be mindful that the property already experienced some degree of overlooking currently;

Withdrawal of Holding Objection – In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/036

Planning Application - 5no. dwellings and 33no. parking spaces (following demolition of 43no. garages) - Previous Application DC/17/2585/FUL

Planning Application - 5no. dwellings and 33no. parking spaces (following demolition of 43no. garages) - Previous Application DC/17/2585/FUL

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was one of four applications across four sites totalling 28 dwellings, which raised issues of significant concern to local residents and Mildenhall High Town Council.

The Committee was advised that in August 2018 (the since dissolved) Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee refused a previous scheme for 7 dwellings on the same site.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions as set out in the supplementary ‘late papers’ circulated after publication of the agenda.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that since the issue of the ‘late papers’ additional objections had been received from residents; largely raising issues with the scheme as covered in previous representations such as traffic, the impact on amenity and the effect construction could have on residents’ mental health.

As part of his presentation the Officer outlined the changes that had been made to the scheme and displayed photographs of parking in Downing Close in the evening.

Lastly, the Committee was advised that the Officer had been in further dialog with Suffolk County Council Highways who had verbally stated that they were now content that their concerns could be mitigated via conditions and, as such, withdrew their holding objection as made reference to in Paragraph 9.

Speakers:    June Billings (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   The Chair asked Members to note the earlier joint statement made on all four of the garage area applications by Councillor Russell Leaman (Mildenhall High Town Council)

                   Councillor Richard Alecock (Ward Member: Mildenhall Great Heath) spoke against the application

                   Nicole Wright (agent) spoke in support of the application

During the debate the Committee posed questions which were responded to by the Principal Planning Officer as follows (this was in addition to the same comments being made as referenced under the previous applications in respect of electric charging points, disabled parking spaces and asbestos):

Location of Sub-Station – Members were advised that the proximity of the sub-station to the proposed dwellings could be mitigated with boundary treatment and the sub-station would not generate noise;

Informal Access – The Members who attended the site visit had noted that 14 Downing Close appeared to have informal access to the rear of their property.  The Officer explained that this was not addressed as part of the planning process and was civil matter between the owner of the property and the applicant; and

Vulnerable Resident – The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised the Committee that West Suffolk Council had been made aware of a vulnerable resident in the vicinity with existing medical conditions.  The Council had contacted all relevant authorities (including Flagship) in order to make them aware of the situation.

Councillor John Burns raised specific concern at having to accept verbal assurance from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/037

Hybrid planning application DC/14/2096/FUL - 1) Full application for the creation of new vehicular access onto Station Road, and entrance to a new primary school, 2) Outline application for up to 375 dwellings (including 112 affordable homes), and the provision of land for a new primary school, land for ecological mitigation and open space and associated infrastructure (as amended).

(Councillor David Roach declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in view of having already voted in favour of the primary school element of the scheme at a meeting of Suffolk County Council.  He would remain in the meeting but would not take part in the debate and would abstain from the voting thereon.)

Prior to the Principal Planning Officer making their presentation to the Committee, Councillor Don Waldron proposed from the floor that consideration of this application be deferred in order to allow Members to undertake a site visit.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that Officers had not scheduled a site visit for this application as they considered that there was very little to gain by visiting the site in that the only full part of the application was in relation to the proposed road and there were no directly adjoining properties.  However, if Members wished to defer in order to visit the site then they were able to do so.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion and with 5 abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED to an alternative meeting of the Development Control Committee in order to allow Members to undertake a site visit.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/038

Planning Application - (i) Demolition and rebuilding of Palace Street annexe building including creation of additional guest bedrooms (ii) Refurbishment to High Street building (iii) Detached garage adjacent Nell Gwynne House; and

Application for Listed Building Consent - (i) Demolition and rebuilding of Palace Street annexe building including creation of additional guest bedrooms (ii) Refurbishment to High Street building

Planning Application - (i) Demolition and rebuilding of Palace Street annexe building including creation of additional guest bedrooms (ii) Refurbishment to High Street building (iii) Detached garage adjacent Nell Gwynne House; and

Application for Listed Building Consent - (i) Demolition and rebuilding of Palace Street annexe building including creation of additional guest bedrooms (ii) Refurbishment to High Street building

These applications were referred to the Development Control Committee as Suffolk County Council Highways Authority objected to the scheme which was contrary to the Officer recommendations of approval, subject to conditions as set out in the supplementary ‘late papers’ circulated following publication of the agenda.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speaker:      Noel Byrne (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Andy Drummond advised the meeting that he had taken part in Newmarket Town Council’s consideration of the applications when they resolved to support the scheme.  However, Councillor Drummond stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.

Considerable discussion took place in relation to the loss of the flying link/pedestrian bridge which currently connected the two buildings over Palace Street.  Some Members raised safety concerns at pedestrians now having to cross the highway.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that there was to be refuge area by the door that opened onto Palace Street from the main building and the crossing would be denoted by a different surface, with an additional condition required for details of the materials to be submitted.

In response to comments made in connection with the loss of some spaces at the Council owned Rous Road Car Park, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this arrangement between the applicant and the Council as landowner was not a material planning consideration.

The Chair invited the Principal Conservation Officer to address the meeting in respect of her consultation response to the application.  In answer to a question that was raised with regard to the windows of the main building (which did not form part of the application before Members) the Officer outlined the many various ways in which heat loss could be reduced without the need for replacement glazing.

Councillor Drummond made reference to the ‘soft crossing’ that already existed nearby at the Clock Tower Roundabout, which he stated worked well.  He moved that the applications be approved as per the Officer recommendations and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

Upon putting the Listed Building Consent to the vote and with 15 voting for and 1 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Listed Building Consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1        The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this notice.

 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 ground level shall take place until details in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/039

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling with detached garage

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling with detached garage

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and at the request of Councillor Don Waldron, one of the Ward Members for The Rows.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council supported the application which was in conflict with the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 81 of Report No DEV/WS/19/039.

Speaker:      Rebecca Young (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Don Waldron opened the debate and made reference to an adjacent plot which had received planning permission for a dwelling, he also highlighted that the planning application in question had been submitted in June of this year with the Local Plan not having been adopted by West Suffolk Council until September 2019.

In response to which the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that each application was to be considered on its own merit.  Furthermore, with regard to the Local Plan, if the application had been before Committee at the time of submission then significant weight would have still been attributed to it as it had been in a very advanced stage by June.  Members were also advised that planning law required applications to be determined against policies that are in force at the time of determination.

Whilst some Members expressed sympathy at the specific need/family circumstance as made reference to by the applicant under the public speaking, a number of the Committee were mindful that it fell outside of the settlement boundary and that the application did not qualify as an exception site.

In response to questions posed as to whether the applicant could resubmit the application identifying the site as an exception for gypsy and travellers, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that whilst the applicant was at liberty to do this the permanent dwelling as applied for (as opposed to a mobile home or similar) fell foul of the Gypsies and Travellers Policy CS8.

Other Members asked if the applicant could put the site forward for development and/or the Parish Council could seek to move the settlement boundary as part of the Local Plan process.  Again, the Service Manager responded and explained that both of these avenues could be pursued by the parties concerned, however, they needed to be mindful that the review of the Local Plan had only just commenced and any new sites/changes to settlement boundaries would not be implemented for some considerable time.

Lastly, a question was posed in respect of the L-shaped agricultural building that existed on the site and as to whether this could be converted into residential use under Class Q permitted development rights.  Whilst being mindful that this did not form part of the proposal before Members, the Service Manager again advised that was something the applicant would be at liberty to explore.

Councillor Don Waldron made reference to the local support the application received and proposed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Report No: DEV/WS/19/040

TPO218(1972) - Tree Preservation Order - Beech T1 - Fell

TPO218(1972) - Tree Preservation Order - Beech T1 - Fell

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

The application was considered by the Panel in light of Councillor David Nettleton, one of the Ward Members for Tollgate, supporting the felling of the tree which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal for the reason set out in Paragraph 30 of Report No DEV/WS/19/040.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Councillor David Nettleton (Ward Member: Tollgate) spoke in support of the application

                   Gary Fowler (applicant) spoke in support of the application

The Committee was largely sympathetic to the applicant, with Members commenting on the inappropriate size of the tree for a modest residential garden.  However, if the tree was to be removed Members asked that a more appropriate replacement was planted within the garden in a better location.

Councillor John Burns proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

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

Decision

Tree Preservation Consent for the T1 Beech Tree be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.   The authorised works shall be carried out to the latest arboricultural standards (ref BS 3998:2010 Tree Works: recommendations)

2.   The works which are the subject of this consent shall be carried out within two years of the date of the decision notice.

3.   The 1no. Beech (Fagus sylvatica) tree, the removal of which is authorised by this consent, shall be replaced by 1no. Silver Birch (Betula pendula) tree(s) within 6 months of the date on which felling is commenced or during the same planting season within which that felling takes place (whichever shall be the sooner) and the Local Planning Authority shall be advised in writing that the replanting has been carried out. If any replacement tree is removed, becomes severely damaged or becomes seriously diseased it shall be replaced with a tree of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

(On conclusion of this item the Chair permitted a short comfort break at which point (3.25pm) Councillor Jason Crooks left the meeting.)

Report No: DEV/WS/19/041

Planning Application - (i) Redevelopment of old Post Office site with retention of historic facade (ii) 12 no. flats (iii) 2 no. commercial units at ground floor and (iv) enlargement and repaving of public realm/footpath

Planning Application - (i) Redevelopment of old Post Office site with retention of historic facade (ii) 12 no. flats (iii) 2 no. commercial units at ground floor and (iv) enlargement and repaving of public realm/footpath

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as West Suffolk Council is the applicant.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the former Post Office site was an important town centre site on a critical link between the old market square on Cornhill and the new development along St Andrews Street South.

The site was purchased by West Suffolk Council in order to improve and enhance the public realm along this critical link and to the conserve the heritage of the Post Office.

The proposal was subject to a design competition, had been developed through a process of public and stakeholder consultation and was subject to a pre-application enquiry with Planning Officers.

The Town Council supported the proposal which was recommended for approval by Officers, subject to the completion of a legal agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 110 of Report No DEV/WS/19/041.

For the sake of transparency, Councillors Andy Drummond and Carol Bull advised the meeting that they had been part of the decision making process when Cabinet considered the acquisition of the property.

In response to which, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised the Committee that a Council owned planning application was subject to the same process as all other applications made to the Planning Authority.

A number of Members spoke in support of the application and welcomed the provision of a commuted sum for 30% affordable housing, which the Service Manager provided further explanation on.

Councillor David Palmer raised a query with regard to the lack of electric vehicle charging points.  The Planning Officer explained that irrespective of the site being Council owned any conditions to be attached to a planning approval had to meet the six tests under the NPPF.  Given that the units would not have allocated parking where the charging points would be directly related to the proposal, Officers did not consider that charging points could be justified via the scheme proposed.

Councillor Andy Drummond 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 the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

A.   The completion of a legal agreement to secure financial contributions towards enhanced education and library provision and the provision of a commuted sum for 30% affordable housing.

          Heads of Terms:

·         Primary school contribution £33,192

·         Pre-School Provision £16,596

·         Libraries £192

·         Affordable Housing £454,000

B.   And 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 shall take place on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.