Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 28 April 2021, 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

Media

Items
No. Item

122.

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.

 

123.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Drummond and Don Waldron.

124.

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 Trevor Beckwith substituting for Councillor Don Waldron; and

Councillor Rachel Hood substituting for Councillor Andy Drummond

 

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

125.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 192 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2021 (copy attached).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2021 were confirmed as a correct record, with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, subject to the inclusion of the following additional paragraph:

 

020. Planning Application DC/20/1729/HH - Welham House, South Street, Risby (Report No: DEV/WS/21/008)

 

[To be inserted after the list of registered speakers]

Councillor Susan Glossop was invited by the Chair to open the debate and addressed the meeting as Ward Member (Risby) for the application. Councillor Glossop stated that she reserved her right to speak again as a Committee Member if so wished.

126.

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.

 

During consideration of this item, there was an interruption when Councillor Rachel Hood addressed the meeting. The Chair made clear that the interruption was inappropriate and called for order. The Monitoring Officer also spoke and confirmed the advice that was given to Councillor Hood in respect of her declaration.

127.

Planning Application DC/20/1849/FUL - Boyton Hall, Anne Sucklings Lane, Little Wratting (Report No: DEV/WS/21/010) pdf icon PDF 410 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/21/010

 

Planning application - a. Sixty-six bed care home for the elderly including car park, bicycle, refuse and garden stores b. new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Anne Suckling Road (following demolition of existing house)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor David Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he had taken part in Haverhill Town Council’s consideration of the application.  However, Councillor Smith stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

 

Planning application - a. Sixty-six bed care home for the elderly including car park, bicycle, refuse and garden stores b. new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Anne Suckling Road (following demolition of existing house)

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following a call-in request from one of the local Ward Members Councillor Joe Mason (Haverhill North).

 

As part of her detailed presentation to the meeting the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to a typographical error in Paragraph 166 of Report No DEV/WS/21/010.

 

Reference was also made to the supplementary ‘late papers’ that had been circulated after publication of the agenda and which included the following information:

        A paper from the applicant responding to the Committee report;

        An indicative amended site plan showing 40 parking spaces; and

        A zone report providing information on existing care homes in a five-mile radius.

 

The written response and amended site plan sought to address the concerns raised by the Highway Authority in respect of the number of parking spaces, the width of the access road and the required visibility splays. However, the Committee was informed that the content of the late papers had resulted in no change to the assessment and recommendations made in the Officer’s report.

 

Lastly, Members were advised that since the late papers were produced additional neighbour objections had been received in respect of the application raising concerns previously covered in other representations.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 173 of Report No DEV/WS/21/010.

 

Speakers:    Ian Sheppard (neighbouring objector, also speaking on behalf of fellow resident objectors Bill Reynolds, Brad Strachan, Mike Ford and Julie Goodwin) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Elaine McManus (Ward Member: Haverhill North) spoke against the application

                   Tracey Spencer (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

A number of Members spoke on the application, largely voicing support for the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.

 

In response to a question regarding the need for care homes, the Principal Planning Officer explained that a parcel of land had been allocated for such a development as part of the Great Wilsey Park masterplan.

 

Following comments made concerning the removal of trees that would be required to facilitate the development, the Chair invited the Council’s Arboricultural Officer to address the meeting.

 

Councillor Jason Crooks spoke on the impact the development would have on the character and identity of the area. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Johns Burns.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and 1 against, it was resolved that:

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be REFUSED for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

128.

Planning Application DC/21/0325/FUL - The Retreat, Plough Hill, Stansfield (Report No: DEV/WS/21/011) pdf icon PDF 248 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/21/011

 

Planning application - one dwelling with outbuilding

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning application - one dwelling with outbuilding

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because the proposal was a departure from the Development Plan. Stansfield Parish Council had cited no objections to the scheme.

 

The officer report included details of the history of the site and in particular the fallback position of a consented replacement dwelling.

 

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Planning Officer drew attention to an error in Report No DEV/WS/21/011, in that Paragraph 14 could be disregarded as the outstanding comments made reference to were included elsewhere in the report.

 

The Officer also provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Lastly, the ‘late papers’ issued after publication of the agenda were highlighted and which included further comments from the Highways Authority; who stated that in response to changes to the access and the visibility splay plan they no longer had any concerns with the application, subject to the inclusion of four additional conditions.

 

Accordingly, Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 53 of the report and in the late papers.

 

Speaker:      Russell Grant (applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

Councillor Peter Stevens proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, 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.   The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials detailed on the submitted plans dated 17.02.2021.

4.   Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside 18:00 hours to 08:00; hours Mondays to Fridays and 13:00; hours to 08:00; hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, public holidays or bank holidays.

5.   Prior to first occupation, all dwellings with off street parking shall be provided with an operational electric vehicle charge point at reasonably and practicably accessible locations, with an electric supply to the charge point capable of providing a 7kW charge. 

6.   The dwelling(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until the requirement for water consumption (110 litres use per person per day) in part G of the Building Regulations has been complied with and evidence of compliance has been obtained.

7.   Prior to occupation details of biodiversity enhancement measures to be installed at the site, including details of the timescale for installation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such measures as may be agreed shall be installed in accordance with the agreed timescales and thereafter retained as so installed. There shall be no occupation unless and until details of the biodiversity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

129.

Planning Application DC/20/2047/ADV - Advertising Board, 98 High Street, Newmarket (Report No: DEV/WS/21/012) pdf icon PDF 246 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/21/012

 

Application for advertisement consent - two internally illuminated digital totem signs with static BID map to replace existing signage

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Rachel Hood declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that she was a member of Newmarket Town Council who had discussed the application and had also attended the Delegation Panel meeting when the application was discussed.  However, Councillor Hood stressed that she was not a member of Newmarket BID and would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item. The Monitoring Officer also informed the Committee of the advice she had given Councillor Hood in relation this matter and was satisfied with Councillor Hood’s position.

Councillor Susan Glossop also declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that she was West Suffolk Council's representative on the Newmarket BID's Board of Directors. She therefore would not take part in the discussion or voting thereon in respect of this application.)

 

Application for advertisement consent - two internally illuminated digital totem signs with static BID map to replace existing signage

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in view of the support given by Newmarket Town Council and neighbouring premises; which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of refusal for the reason set out in Paragraph 53 of Report No DEV/WS/21/012.

 

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Planning Officer also provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Speakers:    Steve Elsom (local resident and business owner) spoke in support of the application

                   Councillor Michael Jefferys (Newmarket Town Council) spoke in support of the application

                   Paul Brown (Newmarket BID, applicant) spoke in support of the application

(Councillor Jefferys did not connect to the meeting to personally address the Committee and instead the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared submitted statement on his behalf.)

 

During the debate a number of Members made comments on the application recognising that the entirety of Newmarket High Street fell within the wider designated Conservation Area yet also giving weight to the much-needed economic benefit the signage could provide to the town.

 

Councillor John Burns voiced support for the application and disagreed with the Officer’s reason for refusal in that he did not consider that the proposed development will cause harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Richard Alecock.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised the Committee that if they were minded to approve the application contrary to the Officer recommendation a Risk Assessment would not be required.

 

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

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting for the motion and with 2 abstentions, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This consent shall expire at the end of a period of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

130.

Planning Application DC/21/0528/FUL - Haverhill House, Lower Downs Slade, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/WS/21/013) pdf icon PDF 151 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/21/013

 

Planning application - a. external wall insulation to all elevations with coloured render finish b. replacement fenestration to the south east, north east and north west elevations c. replace one window on south west elevation

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning application - a. external wall insulation to all elevations with coloured render finish b. replacement fenestration to the south east, north east and north west elevations c. replace one window on south west elevation

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because West Suffolk Council was the applicant.

 

The Planning Officer advised Members that the consultation period expired on 15 April 2021 and no further comments had been received.

 

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Planning Officer also provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 23 of Report No DEV/WS/21/013.

 

Speaker:      Oliver Ingwall-King (West Suffolk Council Energy Advisor, applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

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

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no 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. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials detailed on the submitted plan / drawing No.(s) – application form and proposed elevations.

 

131.

Planning Application DC/21/0527/FUL - Bus Station, St Andrews Street North, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/21/014) pdf icon PDF 152 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning application - Installation of one air source heat pump including siting of external unit adjacent to North elevation

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because West Suffolk Council was the applicant.

 

The Planning Officer drew attention to the supplementary ‘late papers’ that had been circulated since publication of the agenda and which contained the consultation response received from Bury St Edmunds Town Council, who cited no objection to the scheme.

 

The Planning Officer advised Members that the consultation period expired on 13 April 2021 and no further comments had been received.

 

As part of his presentation to the meeting the Planning Officer also provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 22 of Report No DEV/WS/21/014.

 

Speaker:      Oliver Ingwall-King (West Suffolk Council Energy Advisor, applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

Councillor Jim Thorndyke proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation, this was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

 

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

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no 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.

 

(Councillor Roger Dicker re-joined the meeting at 12.54pm during the preliminary discussion of this item. The Chair advised Councillor Dicker that he would be unable to take part in the voting on this item as he had not been privy to the entirety of the Officer’s presentation.)

 

In this section