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 |
74. |
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.
|
75. |
Apologies for absence
Minutes:
No apologies for absence were received.
|
76. |
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.
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.
|
77. |
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.
|
78. |
Planning Application DC/20/0615/RM - Land North of Ann Suckling Road, Little Wratting (Report No: DEV/WS/20/052) PDF 339 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Reserved Matters
Application -Submission of details under SE/09/1283 - the means of
access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the
construction of 41 dwellings with associated private amenity space,
means of enclosure,
car parking, vehicle and access arrangement and drainage together
with proposed areas of landscaping and areas of open space for
a residential development known as Phase 2A
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following a call-in from the local
Ward Member Councillor Joe Mason (Haverhill North).
In addition, Haverhill Town Council objected
to the application which was in conflict with the Officer’s
recommendation for approval subject to the receipt of an acceptable
noise assessment and conditions, as set out in Paragraph 9.0 of
Report No DEV/WS/20/052.
Members were advised that the application
related to part of the wider North West Haverhill site, one of the
two strategic growth sites for Haverhill identified in the adopted
Core Strategy. It sought approval of the details for part of the
second phase of residential development.
The Committee were informed that the site had
been the subject of significant public engagement through the
preparation and adoption of a concept statement and a masterplan.
Outline planning permission was granted on 27 March 2015 for
residential development, a primary school, local centre including
retail and community uses, public open space, landscaping
infrastructure, servicing and other
associated works alongside full permission for the construction of
a relief road.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that
the application had initially sought approval for all the dwellings
in phase two. However, during the course of the application, the
dwellings in the southern half of the phase were removed and the
red line was reduced in size to allow further work to take place on
the southern parcel (phase 2b) to improve its character, layout and
appearance before the submission of a new reserved matters
application.
The remaining northern parcel (phase 2a) had,
therefore, been amended to address concerns with the layout, house
types, landscaping, and highways. The site included a section of
highway connecting the parcel to the approved road network within
phase one and a strip of land connecting to a proposed drainage
basin to the south, which would serve all of phase two.
As part of her presentation the Principal
Planning Officer made reference to the
supplementary ‘late papers’ which had been circulated
following publication of the agenda.
Lastly, reference was made to a separate
ongoing enforcement matter in connection with the application site
which, the Committee was reminded, was not a material planning
consideration for the determination of the application.
Speakers: Anne & Brad Strachen (neighbouring resident objectors) spoke
against the application
Councillor Joe Mason (Ward Member: Haverhill North) spoke against
the application
Stuart McAdam (Applicant – Persimmon Homes) spoke in support
of the application
(All parties listed did
not connect to the meeting to personally address the Committee and
the Democratic Services Officer read out pre-prepared submitted
statements on their behalf)
Considerable debate ensued with a number of
comments/questions raised by Members ...
view the full minutes text for item 78.
|
79. |
Planning Application DC/20/1222/HH - 31 Acacia Avenue, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/20/053) PDF 181 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/053
Householder planning application - Single
storey detached annexe. As amended by plans received 01 October
2020 and 06 October 2020
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Householder planning
application - Single storey detached annexe. As amended by plans
received 01 October 2020 and 06 October 2020
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel on 3 November 2020.
It was presented to the Delegation Panel due
to the objection from Bury St Edmunds Town Council which was in
conflict with the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to
conditions as set out in Paragraph 43 of Report No
DEV/WS/20/053.
As part of his presentation the Planning
Officer outlined the Permitted Development ‘fallback’
position and provided videos of the site by way of a virtual
‘site visit’.
Speakers: John Brabrook (neighbouring resident
objector) spoke against the application (Mr Brabrook did not
connect to the meeting to personally address the Committee and
instead opted to have the Democratic Services Officer read out a
pre-prepared submitted statement on his behalf)
Councillor Kevin
Hind (Bury St Edmunds Town Council) spoke against the
application
Michaela Cooper
(applicant) spoke in support of the application
During the debate a number
of questions were posed with regard to the parking
provision.
In response, the Planning Officer explained
that whilst the scheme resulted in a technical under-provision of
parking, Suffolk County Council Highways had not objected as there
was on-street parking available at Acacia Avenue and they did not
consider that approval of the application would lead to any
material harm to highway or pedestrian safety.
Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and
this was duly seconded by Councillor Richard Alecock.
Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting
for the motion and 1 against, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED subject
to the following conditions:
- The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than
three years from the date of this permission.
- 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 use shall not commence until the area within the
site shown on Drawing No. 087-20/P/01 Rev A for the purposes of
manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and
thereafter that area shall be retained and used for no other
purposes.
4.
The extension/annex hereby permitted shall be
occupied only in conjunction with and for purposes ancillary to the
residential use of the existing dwelling known as 31 Acacia Avenue
to which it is associated and together
they shall form a single dwelling house.
|
80. |
Planning Application DC/20/1063/HH - 60 The Street, Barton Mills (Report No: DEV/WS/20/054) PDF 172 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/054
Householder Planning Application -
(i) Garage (ii) vehicular driveway
improvements
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Householder Planning
Application - (i) Garage (ii) vehicular driveway improvements
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel on 20 October 2020.
It was presented to the Delegation Panel due
to the support from the Parish Council which was in conflict with
the Officer’s recommendation of refusal, for the reason set
out in Paragraph 41 of Report No DEV/WS/20/054.
As part of her presentation to the Committee
the Planning Officer drew attention to the supplementary
‘late papers’ that had been issued since publication of
the agenda and presented videos of the site by way of a virtual
‘site visit’.
Speakers: Councillor Brian Harvey (Ward Member:
Manor) spoke in support of the application
Les Belsberg (applicant) spoke in support of the application (by
way of a pre-recorded audio file)
Councillor David Roach spoke in support of the
application which he considered not to be in conflict with polices
CS5, DM2, DM17 and DM24 and would not create an adverse impact on
the Conservation Area.
Accordingly, he proposed that the application
be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was
duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) addressed the meeting and reminded the Committee that
the support from the community for the proposal was not a material
planning consideration.
On the basis of the reasons given by
Councillor Roach for approving the application she also advised
that the proposal would not be ‘minded to’ and the
Decision Making Protocol would not be invoked in this instance.
Following which, the Planning Officer verbally
outlined the conditions that could be appended to a planning
permission, if granted.
(Prior to taking a
vote on this item Councillor Peter Stevens raised a query with
regard to the recorded vote process which the Service Manager
– Democratic Services responded to.)
Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting
for the motion and 8 against, the Chair exercised his casting vote
against and the motion for approval was therefore lost.
Councillor Roger Dicker then proposed that the
application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this
was duly seconded by Councillor Don Waldron.
Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting
for the motion and 7 against it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be REFUSED for the
following reason:
- The pattern of development in this particular part of the
conservation area comprises of large, detached properties that are
set back from the highway with large front gardens which offer a
sense of openness. This spaciousness is considered to contribute to
the special character and appearance of the area. The proposed
garage is considered to be a large, bulky and visually prominent
addition that will compromise the open character of this part of
the conservation area. The proposed garage is considered to be in
material conflict with policy CS5 of the Core Strategy, policies
DM2, DM17 and DM24 of the Joint Development Management Policies
Document, and the advice contained within ...
view the full minutes text for item 80.
|
81. |
Planning Application DC/20/1074/OUT - Proposed Dwelling, 9 Glebe Close, Ingham (Report No: DEV/WS/20/055) PDF 350 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/055
Outline Planning Application (all matters
reserved) - 1no. dwelling (previous application DC/19/1273/OUT)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Susan
Glossop addressed the meeting as Ward Member for the application
and stressed that she would keep an open mind and listen to the
debate prior to voting on the item.)
Outline Planning
Application (all matters reserved) - 1no. dwelling (previous
application DC/19/1273/OUT)
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel on 3 November 2020.
It was presented to the Delegation Panel
following a call-in from the Ward Member (Ingham) Councillor Susan Glossop and in light of
the objection from Ingham Parish
Council which was in conflict with the Officer’s
recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in
Paragraph 55 of Report No DEV/WS/20/055.
As part of his presentation the Planning
Officer outlined the planning history of the site and related
appeal position and provided videos of the site by way of a virtual
‘site visit’.
Speakers: Hannah Ellis (neighbouring resident
objector) spoke against the application
Councillor Adrian Dawson (Ingham Parish
Council) spoke against the application (by way of a pre-recorded
audio file)
Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the
application be approved, 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 and 8 against the Chair exercised his casting vote
in favour and it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED subject
to the following conditions:
-
Application for the approval of the
matters reserved by conditions of this permission shall be made to
the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted
shall be begun not later than whichever is the latest of the
following dates:- i) The expiration of
three years from the date of this permission; or ii) The expiration
of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters; or,
In the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of
the last such matter to be approved.
-
Prior to commencement of development details of the
access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter
called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
be carried out as approved.
- The development hereby permitted shall not be carried
out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the
approved plans and documents.
- 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.
- The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the
optional 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.
-
Prior to the dwelling hereby
permitted being first occupied, the vehicular accesses onto the
highway for the proposed dwelling ...
view the full minutes text for item 81.
|
|
In this section
|