Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Gathercole.

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

The following substitution was declared:

Councillor Andy Neal substituting for Councillor David Gathercole

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2019 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/001

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)

(Councillor David Roach declared a local non-pecuniary interest in this item as a Member of Suffolk County Council's Development and Regulation Committee who had previously determined the application in respect of the new primary school which also formed part of the scheme.  He would remain in the meeting but would not take part in the debate and would abstain from voting on the item.)

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)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was a proposal for ‘major’ development and Lakenheath Parish Council objected to the scheme.

Members were advised that the application had been considered previously by (the now dissolved) Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee who resolved to grant planning permission at their meeting in September 2018.

The application was returned to Committee in light of material changes in circumstances which had occurred since the previous determination.  These included the adoption into the Development Plan of two new documents, namely; the Single Issue Review of Core Strategy CS7 and the Site Allocations Local Plan.

Furthermore, recent European case law and the Local Plan policy relevant to housing allocations at Lakenheath had compelled the Council to carry out a new ‘Appropriate Assessment’ under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations.

The Committee were informed that the paper before them was a comprehensive and stand-alone Committee report and that no regard should be given to previous reports presented to the (now dissolved) Forest Heath District Council’s Development Control Committee.

Members were asked to consider the planning application afresh and to reach a new resolution, with no weight to be given to the resolution to grant planning permission made in September 2018.

In addition, Members were reminded that the application had been deferred from the November 2019 meeting of the Committee to enable a site visit to be undertaken. 

It was then withdrawn from the subsequent meeting in December 2019 to enable a short consultation to take place following a minor change to the description of the development.  The need to slightly change the description arose from amendments made to the planning application in 2015.

The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects informed the meeting that errors had been identified in the S106 Agreement associated with the development (in that it mistakenly referred to Mildenhall and Red Lodge instead of Lakenheath) and this was in the process of being corrected.

The Officer recommendation for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 418 of Report No DEV/WS/20/001, was therefore subject to the completion of a satisfactory Dead of Variation to correct the errors in the S106.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which were issued following publication of the agenda  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/002

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)

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 originally referred to the Development Control Committee in December 2019 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.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting in December.

At the Committee meeting Members resolved that they were ‘minded to approve’ the application contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal. 

Accordingly, the Decision Making Protocol was invoked in order for a Risk Assessment to be produced for Members’ further consideration and as set out in the report before the Committee.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused, for the reason set out in Paragraph 16 of Report No DEV/WS/20/002.

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

Whilst some of the Committee voiced support for the application, other Members spoke on the importance of rural employment sites and considered the application to be premature in light of the site currently being used by an existing business.

In response to a question posed, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the West Suffolk Local Plan was currently in infancy stage, therefore, no weight could be attributed towards it in respect of the site in question.

Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.

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 REFUSED for the following reason:

1.    The site is in the open countryside in a location remote from services and facilities. Policy RV3 of the Rural Vision 2031 states that residential development will be permitted within housing settlement boundaries where it is not contrary to other policies in the plan. There are exceptions to allow for housing development in the countryside as set out under DM5 (affordable, rural workers dwellings, replacement dwellings and infill where there is a cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings), but this proposal does not satisfy any of these exceptions. The site is also not allocated for residential development in the Local Plan. West Suffolk can demonstrate a deliverable five year housing land supply and therefore the development plan can be considered up to date. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy RV3 of the Rural Vision 2031, Core Strategy policy CS1 and CS4 and Policy DM5 of the Joint Development Management Policies Local Plan and the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 11, 77 and 79 and is considered unacceptable as a matter of principle. Moreover the proposal would result in the loss of an existing employment site. Without sufficient justification the proposal is contrary to policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/003

Planning Application - (i) 3no. dwellings and associated garages (ii) pedestrian link to public footpath (iv) alterations to existing access

Planning Application - (i) 3no. dwellings and associated garages (ii) pedestrian link to public footpath (iv) alterations to existing access

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the application was contrary to the Development Plan and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 92 of Report No DEV/WS/20/003.

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 history of the site and referenced site comparisons within West Suffolk. 

Speaker:      Michael Hendry (agent) spoke in support of the application

Considerable discussion took place, with some Members raising concern at the recommendation being contrary to the Development Plan.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained to Members that previous applications had been in outline form, unlike the scheme before the Committee which was a full application; meaning that full details of the scheme were available and so relevant material considerations emanating from the detailed scheme could be applied in the planning balance when coming to a recommendation that was contrary to the Development Plan.

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

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

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 1       The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

 2       The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents.

 3       Prior to commencement of development the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

          i)       A site investigation scheme,

          ii)       The results of a site investigation based on i) and a detailed risk assessment, including a revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM),

          iii)      Based on the risk assessment in ii), a remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The strategy shall include a plan providing details of how the remediation works shall be judged to be complete and arrangements for contingency actions.

 4       No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works as set out in the remediation strategy is submitted to and approved, in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 5       If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/004

Planning Application - 1no dwelling and cart lodge

Planning Application - 1no dwelling and cart lodge

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of the Parish Council supporting the scheme which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 47 of Report No DEV/WS/20/004.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

As part of his presentation to the Committee the Planning Officer outlined the planning history of the site and explained how the scheme was contrary to the Development Plan.

Councillor Peter Stevens praised the use of a table within the PowerPoint presentation which highlighted the planning balance and requested that this visual form be included in future Committee reports.

Speakers:    Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke on the application

                   Graham Bettany (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Debate ensued, with some Members voicing support for the application.

Councillor Jim Thorndyke made reference to errors within the report before the Committee and highlighted that, contrary to Paragraph 31, there was a pedestrian footpath that reached the application site.

In response to a question, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that settlement boundaries would be looked at as part of the development of the West Suffolk Local Plan.

Councillors David Roach and Andy Drummond spoke in support of the application.  They considered it to be a sustainable development, highlighted that a ‘cluster of dwellings’ was subjective and remarked upon the marginal increase the scheme would contribute to the District’s housing supply and economy.

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

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) 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 13 voting for the motion and 3 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.