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 discussion session would be undertaken on close of the meeting.

It was also highlighted that an engineer was present in the Conference Chamber in order to carry out monitoring of the audio visual system.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Richard Alecock, Andy Drummond and David Palmer.

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 Andy Neal substituting for Councillor Richard Alecock; and

Councillor James Lay substituting for Councillor Andy Drummond.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2021 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2021 were confirmed as a correct record, with 14 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, 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/21/041

Hybrid Planning Application - A. Full planning for 205 dwellings, garages, new vehicular accesses, pedestrian/cycle accesses, landscaping and associated open space and B. Outline planning - early years education facility

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

Hybrid Planning Application - A. Full planning for 205 dwellings, garages, new vehicular accesses, pedestrian/cycle accesses, landscaping and associated open space and B. Outline planning - early years education facility

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee in September as the Officer’s recommendation of approval was contrary to the view of Exning Parish Council.

The Senior Planning Officer had advised that the site in question was allocated in the Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) 2019 under Policy SA12(a) which was adopted in September 2019. This site was known in the SALP document as Land South of Burwell Road and West of Queens View. Policy SA12(a) of the SALP 2019 document sets out that 15 hectares of land is allocated for residential development, with an indicative capacity of 205 dwellings.

At the September meeting of the Committee Members resolved to defer consideration of the application in order to allow Officers additional time in which to work with the applicant to address some of the concerns raised by the Committee relating to:

•        The wider highways concerns and impact;

•        The conflict with the landscape buffer and perceived overdevelopment; and

•        To allow the applicant and Officers to engage with Exning Parish Council.

Following the September Committee amended plans had been submitted by the applicant revising the width of the landscape buffer along the western boundary, the inclusion of a permissive footpath to the south and relocation of a substation. Additional information was also provided in relation to off-site cycle routes into the centre of Exning.

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Senior Planning Officer went through the changes made to the application in detail. She also advised that the applicants had met with Exning Parish Council and had undertaken extensive local engagement.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which set out a technical note submitted by the Highways Authority in relation to the application.

Members were also informed that an additional representation had been received from 26 Glebe Close after the late papers had been issued; the Senior Planning Officer read this out in full to the meeting.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms and conditions, as set out in Paragraph 83 of Report No DEV/WS/21/041, with the addition of a further plan to be added to condition 2 which had been omitted from the list.

Speakers:    Dr Jean Whitaker (local resident) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Terry Wood (Chair of Exning Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Darren Cogman (agent) spoke in support of the application

                   (Dr Whitaker did not attend the meeting to personally address the Committee and instead the Democratic Services Officer read out a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

Report No: DEV/WS/21/042

Planning Application - Specialist dementia care village for up to 120 residents, including: 20 x 6 bedroom apartments provided within five buildings; central amenity building containing shop, restaurant, pub, communal hall, offices and staff accommodation; club/hobby rooms; treatment/counselling rooms; vehicle and cycle parking; landscaping proposals and associated works

(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, he stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.

Councillors John Burns, David Roach and Susan Glossop asked that it be noted, in the interests of transparency, that they were aware of the applicant by way of their involvement with the ONE Haverhill Partnership.

Lastly, it was acknowledged that the applicant had forwarded supporting documentation directly to all Members of the Committee in advance of the meeting.)

Planning Application - Specialist dementia care village for up to 120 residents, including: 20 x 6 bedroom apartments provided within five buildings; central amenity building containing shop, restaurant, pub, communal hall, offices and staff accommodation; club/hobby rooms; treatment/counselling rooms; vehicle and cycle parking; landscaping proposals and associated works

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as a result of it being called-in by the Ward Member (Withersfield) Councillor Peter Stevens.

The development was also in conflict with the main spatial policies relating to this type of development and was therefore considered to be a departure from the Development Plan.

Furthermore, Haverhill Town Council had raised objections to the proposal which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 10.0 of Report No DEV/WS/21/042, with the addition of four further plans to be added to condition 2 which had been omitted from the list.

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

Members were also advised that since publication of the agenda two additional representations had been received; one from District Councillor Pat Hanlon (Ward: Haverhill East) largely citing highway safety concerns and a further one from Haverhill Town Council querying the need for the proposed facility in the local area.

Attention was drawn to Paragraph 9.70 of the report and an inaccuracy therein, where the following sentence should have read:

“…and it is considered that the scheme will NOT result in significant landscape and/or visual harm”.

Lastly, Members were advised that whilst the County Council had requested a contribution towards libraries, given the nature of the development it was extremely unlikely that residents of the proposed scheme would access local public libraries. In light of which, it was Officers’ view that this request was unlikely to be CIL compliant and further evidence and justification on this point would be sought from the County Council if it was to be included within the S106.

Speaker:      Richard Sykes-Popham (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Smith addressed the meeting and raised concern at the site in question in view of it being outside the settlement boundary and in the countryside. He also highlighted the significant impact the facility could have on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.

Report No: DEV/WS/21/043

Planning application - change of use of agricultural storage building to (class B8) storage and distribution as amended by plans received 25th August 2021 specifying a new access driveway

Planning application - change of use of agricultural storage building to (class B8) storage and distribution as amended by plans received 25th August 2021 specifying a new access driveway

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

Furthermore, the Parish Council had submitted objections to the proposal which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 30 of Report No DEV/WS/21/043.

Attention was drawn to the ‘late papers’ that had been circulated supplementary to the agenda and which contained the correct site plan for the application.

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Senior Planning Officer highlighted the changes that had been made to the scheme over the life of the application, principally in relation to the new access driveway proposed.

Speakers:    Darron McRandal (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Nick Clarke (Ward Member: Clare, Hundon & Kedington) spoke on the application

Considerable debate took place on the application with Members posing a number of questions which the Case Officer responded to as follows:

·         External lighting – would be controlled by condition;

·         The bund – was to protect visual amenity and was not to mitigate noise; and it was not considered reasonable to require an acoustic fence to be constructed;

·         Road construction – the Committee were advised as to the reasoning for the six-month period allowed for construction; and

·         Local Plan – the site had been submitted as part of the Local Plan process for housing.

In response to the additional conditions suggested by Councillor Clarke under the public speaking part of the meeting, the Senior Planning Officer explained that fire suppression measures such as a sprinkler system would be covered by the Building Regulations process and couldn’t be applied to a planning permission. Secondly, it would not meet the test of reasonableness to require the applicant to replace the windows referenced, as part of a planning permission.

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to the proposal being retrospective in nature and not being an appropriate use of a former agricultural building. This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Neal.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that she cautioned use of both refusal reasons given and reminded the Committee that retrospective applications were to be determined in the same way as non-retrospective proposals. Furthermore, there were specific policies which related to the re-use of redundant agricultural buildings and the scheme seeking determination was considered to be in accordance with those.

Therefore, if Members were minded to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked and a risk assessment would be produced for future consideration by the Committee.

Accordingly, Councillors Roach and Neal withdrew their proposal to refuse the application.

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

Upon being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

Report No: DEV/WS/21/044

Planning application - one dwelling and alterations to existing access following demolition of existing garage/office and containers

Planning application - one dwelling and alterations to existing access following demolition of existing garage/office and containers

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of West Row Parish Council not having objected to the proposal, which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of refusal for the reason set out in Paragraph 32 of Report No DEV/WS/21/044.

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

Members were advised that a late representation in support of the scheme was received following publication of the agenda, the contents of which were verbally summarised for the Committee.

Councillor Roger Dicker proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

Upon being put to the vote and with 3 voting for the motion, 11 against and with 1 abstention the Chair declared the motion lost.

The debate continued with some Members voicing support for the application which they considered would be an improvement to the existing containers currently on site.

Accordingly, Councillor Jim Thorndyke proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as he did not consider that the proposal would have a dominant/overbearing or adverse effect on the street scene. This was duly seconded by Councillor James Lay.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that as the reasons cited for approval were reasonable and subjective the Decision Making Protocol would not be invoked.

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

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

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, 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, unless otherwise stated.

3.   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.

4.   No development above ground level shall take place until details of the treatment of the boundaries of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall specify the siting, design, height and materials of the screen walls/fences to be constructed or erected and/or the species, spacing and height of hedging to be retained and / or planted together with a programme of implementation. Any planting removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by soft landscaping of similar size and species to those originally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193.