Agenda and minutes

The Chair formally commenced the meeting, welcomed all present to the Development Control Committee and reminded Members that a short post-Committee briefing session would be undertaken on close of the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Drummond and Peter Stevens.

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

The following substitutions were declared:

Councillor James Lay substituting for Councillor Andy Drummond; and

Councillor Nick Clarke substituting for Councillor Peter Stevens.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2021 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2021 were confirmed as a correct record, with 14 voting for the motion and with 2 abstentions, and were signed by the Chair.

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.

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

Report No: DEV/WS/21/037

Planning application - removal of conditions five and six and variation of condition two of DC/17/1614/FUL to allow the use of UPVC windows

(Councillor Roger Dicker asked that it be noted, in the interests of transparency, that he was acquainted with the applicant purely by way of the individual in question being a patron at the shop/Post Office he operated in Kennett.)

Planning application - removal of conditions five and six and variation of condition two of DC/17/1614/FUL to allow the use of UPVC windows

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in view of the objection by Newmarket Town Council, which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 20 of Report No DEV/WS/21/037.

Speakers:    Harry Dibden (architect) and Darren Moffat (surveyor) jointly spoke in support of the application

(NB: Registration had been made in advance of the meeting for one of the Ward Members (Newmarket East) to speak on the application, however, due to unforeseen circumstances neither Councillor was able to attend and this was verbally confirmed to the Chair during the meeting by the Democratic Services Officer.)

Councillor James Lay drew attention to the comments made by Newmarket Town Council and stressed the importance of the Newmarket Neighbourhood Plan and the designated Conservation Area.

Councillor Susan Glossop echoed these comments and highlighted the need to listen to local communities when considering planning applications.

Councillor Mike Chester inquired as to the reason for the application (to remove the conditions in question), however, he was reminded that the reasoning for an application being made was not a material planning consideration.

The Principal Conservation Officer was in attendance and was invited by the Chair to address the meeting. The Officer explained that the building in question was not a listed building; it was a modern new build.

Attention was drawn to her comments in Paragraph 5 of the report and the Committee was advised that ‘traditional features’ were still able to be in-keeping and of benefit to a Conservation Area whilst using modern materials.

A number of Members made reference to the energy efficiency benefits the proposal would bring about.

Councillor Roger Dicker spoke in support of the proposal which he considered appropriate and of high-quality design. He proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

With 9 voting for the motion, 6 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Having regard to the existing planning permission and its conditions, some of which have been discharged, 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 shall be completed in accordance with the drainage details submitted under condition 3 of permission DC/17/0614/FUL, discharged by DCON(C)/17/1614, and as approved by this varied permission.

4.     The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

Report No: DEV/WS/21/038

Planning Application - 53no. dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping

(Councillor Nick Clarke advised the meeting, in the interests of transparency, that he had originally registered to speak as Ward Member on the application. Subsequently he was then asked to act as substitute at the meeting by Councillor Peter Stevens. Accordingly, Councillor Clarke withdrew his registration to speak as Ward Member, which was now being undertaken by Councillor Marion Rushbook.)

Planning Application - 53no. dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping

Members were advised that this application was originally submitted in 2017 but its determination was delayed due to landownership issues which were now resolved.

The Committee were informed that the proposal had been reassessed against current policy and a fresh and full consultation had been carried out.

The site had also previously been the subject of consultation with key stakeholders and the local community as part of the preparation and adoption of a Development Brief, which was formally adopted by the Council in 2016.

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee following a call-in from Ward Member Councillor Nick Clarke (Clare, Hundon and Kedington).

Clare Town Council had also raised concerns with the proposal which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 9.0 of Report No DEV/WS/21/038.

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the following conditions which required amendment:

·         Condition 2 – the most up to date drawing numbers for the elevations and floor plans were included in the supplementary ‘late papers’ issued after publication of the agenda;

·         Condition 9 – a second drawing number was to be inserted (as it only referenced one); and

·         Conditions 26 and 28 – were to be reworded to reflect that development, and therefore occupation, would take place in phases.

As part of her presentation the Officer showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speakers:    Margaret Goodwin (Clare Society) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Paul Bishop (Chair, Clare Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Marion Rushbrook (Ward Member: Clare, Hundon and Kedington) spoke against the application

                   Henrik Darlington (developer) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Nick Clarke spoke on the application and stressed the importance of encouraging foot and cycle access from the site into central Clare; which required further thought in view of the narrow and partially blocked (with telegraph poles) pavement.

Councillor Clarke also echoed the concerns raised by the Town Council in respect of the impact on the highways network and highlighted the need for some form of mitigation.

Councillor John Burns also highlighted highways concerns and referenced photographs that Clare Town Council/the Clare Society had emailed Committee Members with. He asked if a condition could be added to the recommendation in respect of amending the relevant Traffic Regulation Order to extend the 30mph speed limit eastwards.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that it would not be possible to add a condition in this regard because Suffolk County Council, acting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

Report No: DEV/WS/21/039

Planning application - Three dwellings (following demolition of existing dwellings) Amended plans submitted 24^th August

Planning application - Three dwellings (following demolition of existing dwellings) Amended plans submitted 24^th August

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee in September 2021 following consideration at the Delegation Panel.

Following receipt of amended plans on 24 August 2021 the application was subsequently withdrawn from the September agenda in order for further consultation to be carried out.

The Committee was advised that the scheme now seeking determination was a resubmission of a previously refused proposal determined at a previous Development Control Committee and subsequently dismissed at appeal.

Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reason set out in Paragraph 58 of Report No DEV/WS/21/039, which was in conflict with the view of the Parish Council who cited no objections.

As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speakers:    Councillor John Griffiths (Ward Member: Ixworth) spoke in support of the application

                   Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application

                   (Councillor Griffiths did not attend 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 Members posed questions in respect of the Permitted Development ‘fallback’ position. To aid their understanding the Chair invited the agent to advise on the property boundaries/curtilage.

A number of the Committee voiced support for the proposal which they considered to be an improvement to the existing properties on the site.

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as he (i) considered the location to be within a cluster of development, (ii) the proposal to be a proportionate replacement for the existing dwellings and, (iii) in view of the scheme having reduced the dwellings now proposed from 5 to 3, he considered it to accord with policy. This was duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

The Principal Planning Officer made reference to the reasons given for approval and advised Councillors Roach and Harvey that whilst reasons (ii) and (iii) were subjective, he would advise caution with regard to reason (i) as there were clear definitions as to what was deemed a cluster and this site had been assessed by the recent Appeal Inspector as not being within a cluster.

Furthermore, if the proposer and seconder were content to withdraw reason (i) from their motion then the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked and a risk assessment would not be required.

Accordingly, Councillors Roach and Harvey confirmed to the Chair that they were happy to withdraw this element from their proposal.

The Principal Planning Officer then outlined conditions that could be appended to a permission, if granted.

Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion and 8 against and it was resolved on the Chair’s casting vote that 

Decision 

Planning permission be GRANTED, contrary to the Officer recommendation, subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.

Report No: DEV/WS/21/040

Planning application - Installation of battery container, and associated foundations and fencing

Planning application - Installation of battery container, and associated foundations and fencing

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 4 August 2021 as West Suffolk Council is the applicant.

The matter was deferred at the August meeting in order to allow Officers additional time in which to explore an alternative location for the container.

The Planning Officer highlighted the alternative locations that the applicant had considered and the reasons for discounting these.

The Committee was also advised that works towards the setting up of the site compound for the works to the substation, which had been confirmed as Permitted Development, had commenced in late September 2021. These works did not relate to the application before Members seeking determination.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 28 of Report No DEV/WS/21/040.

Attention was drawn Condition No 4; Members were informed that since publication of the agenda a Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan had been submitted by the applicant. The Council’s Tree Officer had assessed the documentation and was in agreement with what was proposed and the condition would therefore be amended to reflect this.

As part of his presentation the Planning Officer showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speaker:      Luke Simpkin (West Suffolk Council Environment and Energy Officer, applicant) spoke in support of the application

Considerable debate took place on the application with some Members raising concern at the impact the proposal would have on visibility at the adjacent junction splay within the car park.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Suffolk County Council Highways had not considered this to be an issue due to it being an internal junction within a car park where vehicles would not be travelling at any speed.

Some of the Committee also voiced reservations at the visual impact of the battery container and were assured by the Solicitor that any advertisements would require separate consent and would be controlled by way of that separate application.

A number of technical questions were posed in respect of power storage, security, fire safety and ventilation. Two representatives from the architect firm who developed the scheme were in attendance and the Chair invited one to come forward in order to directly respond on these matters.

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

Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, 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.   On or before the 08 day of October 2025 the building hereby permitted shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.