Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 4 November 2020, 10.00 am

Agenda and minutes

Venue: To be held remotely via video conferencing facilities (Microsoft TeamsLive)

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

Note: The link to view the live stream of the meeting is shown in 'Media' below together with a supporting guidance document. The Public Speaking Protocol for remotely held Development Control Committees can also be found under 'Media' below 

Media

Items
No. Item

66.

Welcome

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.

67.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Burns and David Palmer.

68.

Substitutes

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

Minutes:

The following substitution was declared:

 

Councillor Andy Neal substituting for Councillor David Palmer.

 

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.

69.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 308 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2020 and 7 October 2020 (copies attached).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 2 September 2020 and 7 October 2020 were both confirmed as a correct record.

70.

Declarations of interest

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary or local non pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda, no later than when that item is reached and, when appropriate, to leave the meeting prior to discussion and voting on the item.

Minutes:

Members’ declarations of interest are recorded under the item to which the declaration relates.

71.

Planning Application DC/19/2265/FUL - Stock Corner Farm, Stock Corner, Beck Row (Report No: DEV/WS/20/049) pdf icon PDF 325 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/049

 

Planning Application - (i) 9no. dwellings (ii) vehicular access (following demolition of existing agricultural buildings)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Application - (i) 9no. dwellings (ii) vehicular access (following demolition of existing agricultural buildings)

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because it represented a departure from the development plan due the proposal being beyond the settlement boundary.

 

The Senior Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the fact that the site already benefitted from planning permission granted at appeal, following refusal by the Local Planning Authority in 2016.

 

The Committee was advised that the permission granted by the Inspector had not expired and it was therefore to be taken as a material consideration within the determination of the planning application before them.

 

The Parish Council offered support to the application, which Officers were recommending for approval subject to the conditions set out in Paragraph 101 of Report No DEV/WS/20/049.

 

As part of his presentation the Officer took Members through videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Councillor Don Waldron addressed the meeting as Ward Member (The Rows) for the application and stressed that he would not wish for any further development to take place in that area of Beck Row beyond the application site and thus yet further from the settlement boundary.

 

During the debate Members posed questions in relation to the relevant policies concerned in the determination of the application; together with highways/access matters.  All of which the Officer responded to.

 

Lastly, some comments were made with regard to the objections raised in the third party representations concerning construction.  In response to which the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded Members that this was a material consideration.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Mike Chester that the application be granted, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and 1 against, 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 three 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 above slab level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials to be used on plots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 as approved by this permission have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4        The site preparation and construction works, including road works, shall only be carried out between the hours of:

         

          08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays

          08:00 - 13.30 Saturdays

          And at no times during Sundays or Bank Holidays without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

5        Prior to the occupation of any unit/dwelling approved by this planning permission, all of the noise protection and mitigation works relevant to the application site which are detailed in the noise report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

72.

Application for Advertisement Consent DC/20/0817/ADV - Land adjacent to Tesco Petrol Station, Willie Snaith Road, Newmarket (Report No: DEV/WS/20/050) pdf icon PDF 384 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/050

 

Application for Advertisement Consent - 1 no. internally illuminated freestanding totem sign

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Andy Drummond declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact 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.)

 

Application for Advertisement Consent DC/20/0817/ADV – Land adjacent to Tesco Petrol Station, Willie Snaith Road, Newmarket

 

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 2 September 2020 following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

 

The proposal related to the site upon which planning permission had recently been granted by the Development Control Committee on 3 June 2020 for 2no. drive-through cafe/restaurant units (DC/18/2210/FUL).

 

At the September meeting the Committee resolved to defer the item to allow an opportunity for the applicant to address the objections of Newmarket Town Council.

 

Following liaison with the Town Council amended plans were submitted to the Local Planning Authority by the applicant which sought advertisement consent for a re-designed proposal.

 

Newmarket Town Council continued to object to the proposal which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 65 of Report No DEV/WS/20/050.

 

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer made reference to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which had been circulated following publication of the agenda.

 

The Committee was further advised that since the late papers were produced the Town Council had submitted further comments reiterating that they would prefer no totem pole signage at all.  But, if granted, would ask that it was made no taller than 3m and to be designed in the same way as the Ely (Cambridgeshire) McDonalds totem pole sign.  The details of the Town Council’s comments were summarised in the Officer’s PowerPoint presentation to the meeting which, for Members’ benefit, included images of said signage.

 

Speaker:      Douglas Hall (resident objector) spoke against the application

 

Councillor Andy Drummond drew attention to the concerns raised by Newmarket Town Council in respect of the sign’s design and proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation.  However, this motion failed to achieve a seconder.

 

During the continuation of the debate a number of Members remarked on the changes that had been made and the efforts the applicant had taken to work with the Town Council on the matter.

 

Councillor David Roach asked if it would be possible to condition the height of the signage to 3m but was advised by the Service Manager (Planning – Development) that it was not possible to change details of an application by way of conditions.

 

Councillor Andy Neal proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion and with 4 against, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

1             The development hereby permitted shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

73.

Planning Application DC/20/1003/FUL - Abbots Hall, Smallwood Green, Bradfield St George (Report No: DEV/WS/20/051) pdf icon PDF 300 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/051

 

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling (following demolition of existing dwelling)

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Application - 1no. dwelling (following demolition of existing dwelling)

 

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

 

The Parish Council supported the proposal which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 54 of Report No DEV/WS/20/051.

 

A typographical error was highlighted in Paragraph 28 of the report, where all references to ‘metres squared’ should have read ‘square metres’.

                 

As part of her presentation the Planning Officer took Members through videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Speakers:    Councillor Sara Mildmay-White (Ward Member: Rougham) spoke in support of the application

                   Jonny Rankin (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

Councillor Peter Stevens voiced support for the application and stated that he did not consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact on its surroundings.

 

Accordingly, he moved that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the Committee and explained that the Decision Making Protocol would not be invoked in this instance; meaning that the motion would not be ‘minded to’.

 

The Planning Officer then verbally outlined the conditions that could be appended to a permission.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 7 voting for the motion and 8 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

 

Councillor Ian Houlder then moved that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion, 6 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

 

  1. The pattern of development in the area is of relatively isolated and sporadic dwellings in the countryside. The existing property on the site is of a simple design and of a modest scale and is not considered to be of any particular historic or architectural merit. Given that the proposed dwelling is of a significantly and materially larger scale and form, it will appear dominant and visually prominent within the open, rural street scene. In particular, the combined scale, height and massing of the building would have an urbanising effect on the rural location, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. Overall The proposed dwelling is judged to be in material conflict with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy Document, policies DM1, DM2 and DM5 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document, and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that new development is sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

 

In this section