Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 4 December 2019, 10.00 am

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, College Heath Road, Mildenhall

Contact: Helen Hardinge: Democratic Services Officer  Email: helen.hardinge@westsuffolk.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

63.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Gathercole and Jim Thorndyke.

64.

Substitutes

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

Minutes:

The following substitutions were declared:

 

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White substituting for Councillor Jim Thorndyke

Councillor Andy Neal substituting for Councillor David Gathercole

65.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 288 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2019 (copy attached).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

66.

Planning Application DC/19/1712/FUL - 28-34 Risbygate Street, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/19/044) pdf icon PDF 292 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/19/044

 

Planning Application -  Construction of (i) 50no. apartments (ii) communal facilities (iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by plans received 04 November 2019 (increasing number of apartments by 1no.)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(The Chair agreed for this item to be brought forward on the agenda.)

 

Planning Application - Construction of (i) 50no. apartments (ii) communal facilities (iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by plans received 04 November 2019 (increasing number of apartments by 1no.)

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and at the request of Ward Member (Abbeygate) Councillor Jo Rayner.

 

Contrary to Report No DEV/WS/19/044’s opening paragraph, Bury St Edmunds Town Council did not support the application.  A considerable number of objections had also been received from third parties.

 

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 Paragraph 137 of the report.

 

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which had been circulated following publication of the agenda and which set out an additional condition in respect of solar control glazing and an amendment to condition No 5 (surface water drainage scheme).

 

As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer highlighted the amendments that had been made to the scheme since original submission.

 

The Officer also advised the meeting that she was aware that the applicant had submitted information directly to Members of the Committee and the images they had received were included with her presentation.

 

Speakers:    Celia Lawrence (representing Nelson Road Residents Association) spoke against the application

                   The Case Officer read out a prepared statement, on behalf of Ward Member (Abbeygate) Councillor Jo Rayner, against the application (who had been unable to attend the meeting)

                   Rosie Room (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

Councillor David Roach opened the debate by advising the meeting that he and other Committee Members had been contacted directly by the applicant via the telephone prior to the meeting, and he considered this to be inappropriate.

 

Considerable discussion took place on the application with a number of Members remarking on the level of parking to be provided within the scheme.

 

Comments were also made on the S106 calculations, particularly with regard to the vacant building credit and NHS contribution.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions/comments as follows:

S106 Contributions – the Committee were assured that all calculations were correct and in line with current legislation.  The Officer also advised that the West Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group had confirmed that they would accept £15,000 from the scheme.

Resident Age Restriction – it was clarified to Members that residents of the proposed scheme were to be aged 60 and over.  In addition, the applicant had advised that the average age of residents within their existing premises was 80.

Parking Provision – Members were advised that the average number of parking spaces provided as part of the scheme was 0.46 which was above the applicant’s average of 0.42, based on all their existing UK premises.  The Committee was also advised that similar premises that already existed within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

67.

Planning Application DC/14/2096/HYB - Land at Station Road, Lakenheath (Report No: DEV/WS/19/042) pdf icon PDF 973 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/19/042

 

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 construction of a new primary school, land for ecological mitigation and open space and associated infrastructure (as amended)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair advised the Committee that a letter had been received from a law firm this morning in relation to this application.

 

As a result of the timing of this and the matters raised, this item was WITHDRAWN from the agenda and deferred in order to allow Officers time in which to undertake consideration of the issues raised.

68.

Planning Application DC/19/1392/VAR - Land off Briscoe Way, Lakenheath (Report No: DEV/WS/19/043) pdf icon PDF 156 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/19/043

 

Amendments to condition 20 (measures to mitigate noise impacts) of planning permission DC/13/0660/FUL for the 67no. Dwellings (including 20 affordable dwellings) together with public open space, as amended. The amendments proposed to condition 20 are full removal of sub-parts A (ii) and B

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Amendments to condition 20 (measures to mitigate noise impacts) of planning permission DC/13/0660/FUL for the 67no. Dwellings (including 20 affordable dwellings) together with public open space, as amended. The amendments proposed to condition 20 are full removal of sub-parts A (ii) and B

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as Lakenheath Parish Council had raised objection which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval as set out in Paragraphs 52 and 53 of Report No DEV/WS/19/043.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

 

As part of his presentation to the Committee the Principal Planning Officer - Major Projects explained that the ‘parent’ planning permission for 67 dwellings at the site was granted by (the now dissolved) Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee in October 2018.

 

The application before Members was simply seeking to amend the wording of one condition attached to the permission.

 

Since publication of the agenda one further late representation had been received from Lakenheath Parish Council which reaffirmed their earlier comments made, as set out in the report.

 

During the debate there was some discussion as to the noise contours and the future aircraft to be stationed at RAF Lakenheath.  Whilst the Principal Planning Officer - Major Projects responded to these comments and provided explanation, he also reiterated that the dwellings in the scheme had permission and the application before Members purely related to the wording of one condition.

 

Councillor Andy Drummond 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 12 voting for the motion and 4 against, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

1.   Following completion of a S106 Agreement (or equivalent) to secure the planning obligations captured from the related planning permission DC/13/0660/FUL planning permission be GRANTED; and

 

2.   The planning permission shall be subject to the same conditions as attached to planning permission DC/13/0660/FUL with the exception of condition 20 which shall be amended as follows:

 

Condition 20 - No construction for any dwelling shall commence until details in respect of each of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

 

i) Details of the development that demonstrate for each unoccupied dwelling and its associated sound insulation that noise levels with windows closed shall not exceed a daytime level of 35 Db (16hrs) within living rooms between 07.00 and 23.00 hours, and a night-time level of 30 Db laEQ (8hrs) within bedrooms between 23.00 and 07.00 hours, using the methodology advocated within BS 8233:2014 'Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings' (2014). The development shall adopt the proposed sound insulation measures as stated.

 

(On conclusion of this item, and Part A of the agenda, the Chair permitted an interval before proceeding with Part B of the agenda at 1.00pm.  During the interval Members of the Committee received a short training seminar where Officers delivered an update on West  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

69.

Planning Application DC/19/1019/FUL - Garages, Paske Avenue, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/WS/19/045) pdf icon PDF 166 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/19/045

 

Planning Application - 9no. dwellings (Demolition of existing garages)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Application - 9no. dwellings (Demolition of existing garages)

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel; having been referred to the Panel at the request of Ward Member (Haverhill Central) Councillor Aaron Luccarini.

 

Haverhill Town Council had raised objections to the scheme which was in contrast to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 62 of Report No DEV/WS/19/045.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Attention was drawn to the supplementary late paper which had been circulated following publication of the agenda and which set out a superseded site plan.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that further public late representations had been received which largely covered earlier points raised by local residents.  These had been forwarded to Members of the Committee for their reference.

 

Speakers:    Donna Anderson (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   The Chair advised that Ward Member (Haverhill Central) Councillor Aaron Luccarini had registered to speak at the Committee but had been unable to attend the meeting.  Instead, Councillor Luccarini had emailed all Members of the Committee directly with his written representation

                   Scott Bailey (Havebury – applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

A number of Members voiced comment on the application with the majority raising concerns in respect of the scheme being out of keeping with the surrounding area and overbearing.

 

Councillor Jason Crooks proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, on the basis of it being inappropriate for the site and overdevelopment.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Don Waldron.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that if Members were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked.  She further advised on the Policies that could be appended to the reasons for refusal as being: CS3 DM2 and DM22.

 

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

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, for the following reasons:

1.   Existing development in Paske Avenue is characterised by small two-storey red brick semi-detached houses generally of a uniform scale and appearance. The scale, design and appearance of the 3-storey flat block is out-of-keeping with the adjoining development,  resulting in an awkward and dominant relationship harmful to the appearance of the street scene.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS3, Joint Development Management Policies DM2 and DM22, and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2.   This small (0.14 hectare) site is at the end of a residential cul-de-sac adjacent to a large bus-depot building and has a narrow tapered shape at its southern end. The need to accommodate parking, access, cycle storage and turning space has resulted in a flat block with no outside amenity garden space. The proposed 3-storey flat block would also dominate the site and have an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

70.

Planning Application DC/19/0514/FUL - Offices, James Reinman Marine Ltd, The Broadway, Pakenham (Report No: DEV/WS/19/046) pdf icon PDF 198 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/19/046

 

Planning Application - 2 no. dwellings (following demolition of existing work sheds) and associated works (as amended by email received 31.07.2019 to reduce the scheme from 3 dwellings to 2)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Application - 2 no. dwellings (following demolition of existing work sheds) and associated works (as amended by email received 31.07.2019 to reduce the scheme from 3 dwellings to 2)

 

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

 

Both Pakenham Parish Council and the Ward Member (Pakenham and Troston) Councillor Simon Brown supported the application, which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 102 of Report No DEV/WS/19/046.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  As part of her presentation to the Committee the Senior Planning Officer spoke in detail on the planning and appeal history of the site.

 

Speaker:      James Platt (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

Following discussion by the Committee, the Officer gave further explanation on the lawful use of the site, the subdivision of the site and the buildings on the site that had been converted under Permitted Development rights.

 

Members were also advised that as the application was not for a change of use this did not trigger the marketing criteria  for loss of a commercial use.

 

Councillor David Roach spoke in support of the scheme and moved that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) clarified with Members what their reasoning was for supporting the application.  Members agreed that their reasons for support related to the complex nature of the planning history of the site, whether there was a fallback position and the unsuitability of local roads for commercial vehicles.

 

The Service Manger then explained that if Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then the Decision Making Protocol would need to be invoked and a risk assessment would be produced for consideration by the Committee at a subsequent meeting.

 

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

 

Decision

 

Members be MINDED TO APPROVE PLANNING PERMISSION CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF REFUSAL.  The application was therefore DEFERRED in order to allow a Risk Assessment to be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting.

71.

Planning Application DC/18/0544/HYB - Land North of Green Acre, Thetford Road, Ixworth Thorpe (Report No: DEV/WS/19/047) pdf icon PDF 160 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/19/047

 

Hybrid Planning Application - (i) Full Planning permission - Demolition of 3no. existing dwellings and (ii) Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - for up to 5no. Dwellings as amended by the drawings received 30.11.2018

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Hybrid Planning Application - (i) Full Planning permission - Demolition of 3no. existing dwellings and (ii) Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) - for up to 5no. Dwellings as amended by the drawings received 30.11.2018

 

This application had been originally referred to the Development Control Committee of (the now dissolved) St Edmundsbury Borough Council in January 2019 at the request of the Assistant Director (Planning and Regulatory Services) on behalf of Councillor John Griffiths (Ward Member: Ixworth).

 

At the January meeting the Committee resolved that they were ‘minded to approve’ the application contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal.  The Decision Making Protocol was invoked and a Risk Assessment was produced, as set out in Report No DEV/WS/19/047.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting for the West Suffolk Committee.  The Parish Council supported the proposal.

 

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused for the reason set out in Paragraph 36 of the report.

 

Speakers:    Councillor Ben Lord (Chairman, Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council) spoke in support of the application

                   Councillor Andrew Smith (neighbouring Ward Member of Bardwell) read out a statement in support of the application on behalf of Ward Member (Ixworth) Councillor John Griffiths

                   Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

In response to comments made by the Committee during the debate, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) made reference to Policy DM27 and asked Members to give particular consideration to those recent appeal decisions made in connection with this policy.

 

The Committee was also advised that Ixworth was currently in the process of developing its Neighbourhood Plan; small developments such as the application site could be addressed as part of the Plan’s development as well as having the potential to be put forward as part of the consultation on the emerging West Suffolk Local Plan.

 

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 4 voting for the motion and 12 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

 

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

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion, 3 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

 

The broad overall aim of paragraphs 77 and 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to promote sustainable development in rural areas by locating housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, by supporting its three dimensions - economic, social and environmental. This approach is also set out in the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy (CS), and the Joint Development Management (DM) Policy DM1 and DM5 which aims to protect the countryside from unsustainable and unjustified housing. In addition to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

72.

Planning Application DC/19/1519/OUT - Land Adjacent to Fishwick Corner, Thurston Road, Rougham (Report No: DEV/WS/19/048) pdf icon PDF 811 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/19/048

 

Outline Planning Application (means of access to be considered) - (i) proposed improvement to Fishwick Corner in West Suffolk Council and (ii) 210no. dwellings means of access, open space and associated infrastructure, including junction improvements with all proposed development located within Mid Suffolk District Council

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Outline Planning Application (means of access to be considered) - (i) proposed improvement to Fishwick Corner in West Suffolk Council and (ii) 210no. dwellings means of access, open space and associated infrastructure, including junction improvements with all proposed development located within Mid Suffolk District Council

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the development related to a cross boundary application with Mid Suffolk Council.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the development within West Suffolk concerned the realignment of the junction known as Fishwick Corner.  The remainder of the development was within Mid Suffolk and related to the delivery of up to 210 dwellings, means of access, open space and associated infrastructure on land at Beyton Road, Thurston.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Since publication of the agenda a late representation had been received from Thurston Parish Council which the Officer had circulated to all Members of the Committee.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 91 of Report No DEV/WS/19/048 and subject to Mid Suffolk Council approving the remainder of the cross-boundary application at their Committee meeting in January 2020.

 

Speakers:    Councillor Sara Mildmay-White (Ward Member for Rougham) spoke against the application

                   Sophie Waggett (applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

A number of Members voiced concern at the application and objected to determining it prior to Mid Suffolk Council considering their element of the scheme.

 

The Committee also expressed disappointment that the Suffolk County Council Highways representative who was due to attend the meeting had, at the last minute, been unable to do so.

 

Councillor David Roach proposed that consideration of the application be deferred in order to allow the scheme to be firstly determined by Mid Suffolk Council and to also ensure that a Highways Officer was able to attend West Suffolk’s Development Control Committee during their determination.  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

 

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order to allow the scheme to be firstly determined by Mid Suffolk Council and to also ensure that a Highways Officer was able to attend West Suffolk’s Development Control Committee during their determination.

 

In this section