Agenda and minutes

Development Control Committee - Wednesday 13 May 2020 10.00 am

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document // Public speakers are directed to the Protcol document at Agenda Item 4 // Please note Agenda item 9 has been WITHDRAWN from the agenda 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Welcome

Minutes:

The Chair formally commenced the meeting and jointly welcomed all present and those externally viewing the first remotely held West Suffolk 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and remote meeting guidance were highlighted to all by the Chair and he also advised that Agenda Item 9 had been withdrawn from the agenda following receipt of a late representation that the Planning Authority required time in which to consider.

2.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received.

3.

Substitutes

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

Minutes:

No substitutions were declared.

 

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.

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 175 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2020 (copy attached).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2020 were unanimously confirmed as a correct record.

5.

Public Speaking Protocol pdf icon PDF 255 KB

Members are requested to APPROVE the attached document “Guide to Having Your Say on Planning Applications” which has been created for use whilst Development Control Committee meetings are being held remotely.

Minutes:

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised the Committee that in light of the meetings currently taking place remotely it had been necessary to update the Committee’s Public Speaking Protocol to reflect the new arrangements.

 

Approval was now sought by the Committee to formally adopt the revised protocol for use.

 

It was proposed, duly seconded and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

The attached document “Guide to Having Your Say on Planning Applications” be APPROVED for use whilst Development Control Committee meetings were being held remotely.

6.

Planning Application DC/19/1519/OUT - Land Adjacent to Fishwick Corner, Thurston Road, Rougham (Report No. DEV/WS/20/017) pdf icon PDF 660 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/017

 

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 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.

 

Accordingly, 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 97 of Report No DEV/WS/20/017.

 

Members were advised that since publication of the agenda a ‘late paper’ had been produced which set out the representation received from Thurston Parish Council and a Suffolk County Council Highways Officer was present in the meeting in order to respond to any highways related queries.

 

Speakers:    Councillor Keith Towers (Thurston Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Sara Mildmay-White (Ward Member for Rougham) spoke against the application

                   Robert Eburne (Bloor Homes - applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

Considerable debate took place on the application with a number of Members expressing concerns in connection with; the lack of a designated cycle path, the proposed visibility splay, speed restrictions, drainage/flooding in the area, the impact of other pending large scale applications in Thurston and the legal challenge which had been lodged against the Mid Suffolk element of the scheme.

The Council’s Lawyer responded in connection with the Mid Suffolk legal challenge.  She advised the Committee that Mid Suffolk had been served with a ‘pre action’ protocol letter which West Suffolk Council had been given sight of and there was nothing within said letter that prevented the Development Control Committee from determining the application before them.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that all aspects of drainage/flooding had been considered in respect of the application and how the cross-boundary element of the schemes impacted each other.  Members were assured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Planning Application DC/19/1952/FUL - Land at The Grove, Beck Row (Report No. DEV/WS/20/018) pdf icon PDF 261 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/018

 

Planning Application - 2no. dwellings with associated access and parking area (following demolition of existing bungalow)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Application - 2no. dwellings with associated access and parking area (following demolition of existing bungalow)

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because, despite there being no conflict between the Officer recommendation and the Parish Council’s view, the proposal being recommended for approval (subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions in Paragraph 77 of Report No DEV/WS/20/018) technically represented a departure from the Development Plan. However, in this instance, the material considerations weighing in favour of the proposal significantly outweighed the technical departure from the Development Plan.

 

During his presentation to the meeting the Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the responses received to the application, both from statutory consultees and third parties, and highlighted the planning balance considered when reaching his recommendation.

 

On commencing the debate, Councillor Don Waldron (one of the Ward Members for The Rows) reiterated the support of the Parish Council and endorsed the scheme.

 

Other Members also spoke in favour of the application and congratulated the Case Officer on a detailed presentation.

 

Councillor Roger Dicker 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 the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement to secure the required 30% contribution towards affordable housing:

 

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        No development above slab level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials (bricks and tiles) to be used on plot 1 and plot 2 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 commencement of development, including any works of demolition, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

          i)       The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

          ii)       Loading and unloading of plant and materials  

          vi)      Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction 

          vii)     A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

          viii)    Hours of construction operations including times for deliveries and the removal of excavated materials and waste

6        The development hereby approved shall be carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Planning Application DC/20/0168/HH - 81D London Road, Brandon (Report No. DEV/WS/20/019) pdf icon PDF 142 KB

Householder Planning Application - (i) single storey front extension and (ii) two storey side front and rear extension

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Householder Planning Application - (i) single storey front extension and (ii) two storey side front and rear extension

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of the Officer recommendation for refusal (for the reasons set out in Paragraph 29 of Report No DEV/WS/20/019) being contrary with the ‘support’ offered by Brandon Town Council.

 

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

 

Members were also advised that since publication of the agenda an email had been received from Brandon Central Ward Member Councillor Victor Lukaniuk who stated that he supported the view of Brandon Town Council; in that the plot was sizeable and he did not think the proposal would be overbearing.  He also highlighted that there had been no representations made by neighbours. 

 

The Planning Officer further advised that an email had also been received from fellow Brandon Central Ward Member Councillor Phil Wittam who concurred with all comments made by Councillor Lukaniuk.

 

Speaker:      James Betts (applicant) had submitted a statement in support of the application which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer

 

Councillor David Palmer commenced the debate by speaking in favour of the application and stressing that no neighbouring residents had objected to the application.  He, therefore, 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) explained that if Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then the decision making policy would be invoked and a risk assessment would be produced for further consideration by the Committee in order to carefully consider the impact on amenity which the Planning Authority were duty bound to do, irrespective of whether neighbouring residents had made representations.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 6 voting for the motion (minded to approve, contrary to the Officer recommendation) and with 10 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

 

Further debate then took place with a number of the Committee voicing concern at the proposed scheme. 

 

Questions were posed as to whether the applicant would consider amending the proposal; in response to which the Planning Officer explained that the Planning Authority sought to negotiate with the applicant in order to explore mitigation in the design, however, the applicant had stated that they did not wish to amend their application.

 

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

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting in favour and 6 against it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

  1. Policies DM2 and DM24 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015) permit development in locations such as this providing that the proposal respects the scale and design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Planning Application DC/20/0231/FUL - Haverhill Leisure Centre, Lordscroft Lane, Haverhill (Report No. DEV/WS/20/020) pdf icon PDF 140 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/020

 

Planning Application - (i) replacement cladding (ii) replacement glazed screens and doors (iii) replacement steel louvered doors

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor John Burns declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in view of being the owner of a gym within Haverhill.  He would remain in the meeting during consideration of the application and would take part in the discussion and voting thereon.)

 

Planning Application - (i) replacement cladding (ii) replacement glazed screens and doors (iii) replacement steel louvered doors

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it had been submitted by the West Suffolk Council on West Suffolk Council owned land.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 23 of Report No DEV/WS/20/020.

 

Some Members posed questions with regard to the cladding proposed and the safety measures surrounding this, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this did not form part of the planning process and would be addressed via Building Regulations. She also advised that the applicant would be informed about the comments made relating to appropriate noise insulation.

 

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

 

Planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Time Limit - The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.
  2. Approved Plans - The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents.

10.

Planning Application DC/20/0420/FUL - 35 St Andrews Street North, Bury St Edmunds (Report No. DEV/WS/20/021) **WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA** pdf icon PDF 248 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/20/021

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

11.

Conclusion

Minutes:

On conclusion of the meeting the Chair thanked all present and welcomed feedback on the conduct of the first remotely held Committee.