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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
|