Agenda and minutes

The Chair formally commenced the meeting and jointly welcomed all present and those externally viewing the Development Control Committee.

A number of housekeeping matters and remote meeting guidance were highlighted to all by the Chair and he also advised that Agenda Item 6 had been withdrawn from the agenda following receipt of a late representation that the Planning Authority required time in which to consider.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Don Waldron.

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 Don Waldron.

Following which, the Democratic Services Officer verbally outlined all Members of the Committee who were present, together with any attending Councillors and the names of the Officers supporting the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2020 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2020 were unanimously confirmed as a correct record.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/022

Planning Application - (i) 2no drive-through cafe/restaurant units (Use Class A1/A3 for Costa and Use Class A3/A5 for McDonald's) with associated parking and landscaping and (ii) McDonalds Climbing box

Planning Application - (i) 2no drive-through cafe/restaurant units (Use Class A1/A3 for Costa and Use Class A3/A5 for McDonald's) with associated parking and landscaping and (ii) McDonalds Climbing box

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of the Officer recommendation being contrary with the objection from Newmarket Town Council.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and the conditions set out in Paragraph 89 of Report No DEV/WS/20/022.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late paper’ that was circulated following publication of the agenda and which contained an additional condition in respect of litter.  A typographical error within the proposed condition was highlighted and Members were advised that “Littler Management Plan” should have read “Litter Management Plan”. 

The Committee were also informed that the number of electric charge points has been reduced from 4 to 2 (condition No 8).

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer included three videos of the site which he took the Committee through by way of facilitated a virtual ‘site visit’.

Attention was drawn to Suffolk County Council Highways’ initial objection to the scheme and explanation was given with regard to the reasoning behind their subsequent withdrawal of their objection.

Lastly, the Officer made reference to Newmarket Town Council’s objection and responded to this in detail.

Speakers:    Sara Beckett (Newmarket resident) spoke against the application

                   (Some Members and Officers struggled to hear Sara Beckett’s speech therefore, in the interests of clarity, the Chair asked the Democratic Services Officer to re-read the statement to the meeting)

                   Councillor Rachel Hood (Newmarket Town Council) spoke against the application

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

Some Members voiced concerns that, even with the additional condition in relation to litter, if granted the application was likely to result in increased litter in the locality.

Other members of the Committee voiced support for the location and considered the application to be appropriate for an out of town, industrial area.

Councillor Drummond then addressed the Committee and made reference to the nearby skatepark development and the increased traffic the scheme was likely to generate.  He subsequently proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, however the motion failed to achieve a seconder when sought by the Chair and the Lawyer advised the meeting that the debate should therefore continue.

Councillor Peter Stevens raised queries with regard to the design of the scheme and proposed that the application be deferred in order to allow time in which for the applicants to work with Newmarket Town Council in order to establish a design that the Town Council considered in keeping with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/023

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

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 originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 4 December 2019 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 December meeting at which Members resolved to defer the application 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.

Mid Suffolk District Council’s Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 29 January 2020 and resolved to approve the application subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 Agreement.

Subsequently, the application was returned to the Development Control Committee on 13 May 2020.  Members at the meeting resolved that they were ‘minded to’ refuse planning permission contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval as they considered the proposals to be detrimental to highway safety, in particular relation to cyclists.  Members also considered that the proposal was contrary to policies DM2, DM5 and DM13. 

Accordingly, the Decision Making Policy was invoked and a risk assessment had been produced, as attached, for the Committee’s consideration.

The Principal Planning Officer was continuing to recommend that the application before the Committee be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement between the applicants and Mid Suffolk District Council in respect of the planning obligations considered necessary by Mid Suffolk Council and subject to the conditions referenced in Paragraph 40 of Report No DEV/WS/20/023.

Members were advised that following the last Committee meeting the applicants’ Transport Consultants reviewed the issues raised and provided additional information to supplement the application by way of a Technical Note which had been included within the agenda papers.

In summary, the Technical Note covered:

·         Traffic movement on the staggered junction;

·         Highway mitigation of the impact of other significant developments already approved in Thurston; and

·         Cyclist safety.

Attention was also drawn to Paragraph 17 of the report which made reference to the 3m wide corridor alongside the new length of carriageway that could form a future cycleway/footway, thereby improving connections towards Bury St Edmunds.

Members were advised that the applicant had agreed to offer additional land to Suffolk County Council in order to facilitate the future cycleway/footway in the direction of Thurston and that the sum of £75,000 would be paid to the County Council towards the construction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/024

Planning Application - (i) change of use from guest house (Class C1) to house of multiple occupancy Class C4) (ii) conversion of outbuilding to additional self-contained unit of living accommodation

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

Report No: DEV/WS/20/025

Planning Application - Variation of conditions 2 and 11 of DC/19/1817/FUL to allow use of amended plans and amendment to landscaping implementation for (i) 3no. dwellings and associated garages (ii) pedestrian link to public footpath (iii) alterations to existing access

Planning Application - Variation of conditions 2 and 11 of DC/19/1817/FUL to allow use of amended plans and amendment to landscaping implementation for (i) 3no. dwellings and associated garages (ii) pedestrian link to public footpath (iii) alterations to existing access

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 8 January 2020 as the application was contrary to the Development Plan and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

A Member site visit was held prior to the January meeting; at which the Committee determined to grant the application.

This application before the Committee sought to vary conditions 2 (approved plans) and 11 (soft landscaping) of DC/19/1817/FUL; with the principle of development having already been established.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer explained that legal advice was sought with the Council’s Legal Team who advised that the application should be determined by the Development Control Committee, as the previous application represented a departure from the Development Plan. This Section 73 application would, in effect, grant a new permission and also represented a departure from the Development Plan.

As part of her presentation the Officer outlined further detailed wording for Condition 11.

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

Councillor John Burns proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

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

Decision

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 written approval  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.