Agenda and minutes

This being the first meeting of the Development Control Committee since the Authority’s Annual Meeting in May 2022, the Lawyer opened the meeting and asked for nominations for the Chair of the Committee for 2022/2023.

Councillor Peter Stevens nominated Councillor Andrew Smith as Chair and this was seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

There being no other nominations and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Andrew Smith be elected Chair for 2022/2023.

Councillor Smith then took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

The Chair then sought nominations for the two positions of Vice Chair.

Councillor Susan Glossop nominated Councillor Mike Chester and this was seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.

Councillor Peter Stevens nominated Councillor Jim Thorndyke and this was seconded by Councillor David Palmer.

There being no other nominations and with the votes both being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillors Mike Chester and Jim Thorndyke be elected Vice Chairs for 2022/2023.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carol Bull, Roger Dicker and Andy Drummond.

The Democratic Services Officer also advised the meeting that since the agenda was published the Independent Group had appointed Councillor Phil Wittam to their group’s vacancy on the Committee. However, Councillor Wittam was unable to attend the meeting this month and had asked that his apologies also be noted.

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 Trevor Beckwith substituting for Councillor Roger Dicker; and

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White substituting for Councillor Carol Bull.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 4 May 2022 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 May 2022 were confirmed as a correct record, with 13 voting for the motion and 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/22/016

Hybrid Application - i) Outline application (with all matters reserved except for access) - for up to 1375 dwellings, access (including two new roundabouts onto A143 and creation of new foot and cycleway links into the site which would include new cycle/pedestrian crossings of the A143 and cycle/pedestrian link through the existing railway underpass), public open space (including buffer to Cattishall and Great Barton) and landscaping; new local centre (which could include the following uses A1; A2; A3; A4; A5; B1; D1; or D2); primary school; and associated infrastructure and works (including access roads, drainage infrastructure and substations), and ii) Planning Application - Full details for Phase 1 of the outline application for 287 dwellings (which are part of the overall up to 1375 dwelling proposal), garages, access roads, parking, open space, drainage infrastructure and associated infrastructure and works

Hybrid Application - i) Outline application (with all matters reserved except for access) - for up to 1375 dwellings, access (including two new roundabouts onto A143 and creation of new foot and cycleway links into the site which would include new cycle/pedestrian crossings of the A143 and cycle/pedestrian link through the existing railway underpass), public open space (including buffer to Cattishall and Great Barton) and landscaping; new local centre (which could include the following uses A1; A2; A3; A4; A5; B1; D1; or D2); primary school; and associated infrastructure and works (including access roads, drainage infrastructure and substations), and ii) Planning Application - Full details for Phase 1 of the outline application for 287 dwellings (which are part of the overall up to 1375 dwelling proposal), garages, access roads, parking, open space, drainage infrastructure and associated infrastructure and works

The Committee was advised that this application was submitted to West Suffolk Council in December 2019 and was validated in January 2020.  It relates to a major strategic development site within the town of Bury St Edmunds and formed one of the five residential sites identified for growth in the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy 2010 and Bury St Edmunds Vision 2031.

The application had been subject to extensive scrutiny and lengthy discussions between the applicant, the Local Planning Authority and consultees, in particular the Local Highway Authority. The application was accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a number of subsequent detailed technical notes and a comprehensive walking and cycling strategy. The technical notes and walking and cycling strategy were submitted by the applicant during the course of the application as a direct result of discussions with the Local Highway Authority. 

The Local Highway Authority, supported by National Highways, had reached the conclusion that the development would be contrary to Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. The applicant had provisionally agreed a package of highway mitigation measures in order to address the highway impacts of the scheme, however, the local Highway Authority did not consider that the package was sufficient to fully mitigate the impacts of the development and as such both the Local Highway Authority and National Highways object to the application.

The applicant had declined to negotiate further with the local Highway Authority and on 27 April 2022 the applicant formally notified the Local Planning Authority that it had submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the non-determination of the application. Members were verbally informed that the Local Planning Authority had received a formal ‘start letter’ from the Planning Inspectorate for the appeal to start on 13 September 2022.

In the light of the continuing objections from the Local Highway Authority and National Highways, Officers had taken the view that the application could not be supported and had it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 243.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/017

Planning application - nine dwellings

Planning application - nine dwellings

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel, having been called-in by the Ward Members (Tollgate).

Bury St Edmunds Town Council objected to the scheme which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 91 of Report No DEV/WS/22/017, inclusive of an amendment to No 18 and four additional conditions as outlined in the Officer presentation.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

(On conclusion of the Principal Planning Officer’s presentation the Chair permitted a very short adjournment to allow a Member of the Committee to briefly step outside the meeting room. On their return the meeting was continued.)

The Committee undertook considerable discussion on the application, with a number of Members referencing the existing planning permission, which was granted for the site in 2019, for 8 dwellings and 2 cartlodges.

Concern was also raised in respect of the parking provision offered by the scheme, however, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that Suffolk County Council Highways had not objected on this basis.

Comments were also made in relation to waste collection, the contrived nature of the layout and impact on amenity.

Councillor Mike Chester moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to overdevelopment, impact on amenity, the contrived nature of the layout including the waste collection arrangements (Policies DM2 and DM22). This was duly seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and 2 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, for the following reasons:

Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy and policy DM2 and DM22 of the Joint Development Management Policies Policy together seek to produce designs that respect the character, scale, density and massing of the locality, to create coherent and legible places. DM22 states that residential development should be laid out to optimise amenity, with streets and parking facilitating this primary objective. Policy DM46 further requires all proposals for redevelopment, including changes of use, to provide appropriately designed and sited car and cycle parking, plus make provision for emergency, delivery and service vehicles.

The NPPF at para 135 advises that Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme.

The proposed redevelopment of nine new dwellings, on a site that is within the defined settlement boundary for Bury St Edmunds which benefits from permission for 8 dwellings, would result in overdevelopment which is demonstrated by the contrived and cramped layout of the site with excessive bin dragging distances and contrived tandem parking serving the rear plots, making manoeuvring difficult.

The dwellings positioning in proximity to the site boundaries would cause overbearing impacts on neighbouring properties to the detriment of residential amenity contrary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 244.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/018

Planning application - six dwellings with access, parking and associated site work

Planning application - six dwellings with access, parking and associated site work

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

Ward Member (The Rows) Councillor Don Waldron had raised queries with regard to the commencement of a previous permission and subsequent fallback position.

West Row Parish Council objected to the scheme on highway safety grounds which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 58 of Report No DEV/WS/22/018, inclusive of amendment to Nos 5 and 9 plus an additional condition as outlined in the Officer presentation.

Attention was drawn to a supplementary paper which had been circulated the day prior in relation to the application. The Chair permitted Councillors a few minutes in which to read the documentation.

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

Speakers:    Anthony Knight (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Sarah Carter (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Don Waldron (Ward Member: The Rows) spoke against the application

                   Jamie Palmer (agent) spoke in support of the application

                   (Sarah Carter was not in attendance to personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on her behalf.)

Considerable debate took place on the application; in response to the legalities surrounding the extant permission on the site, the Principal Planning Officer explained that legal advice had been sought and Officers had been informed that trenches having been dug on site, even if refilled, did constitute as commencement.

Councillor John Burns raised a specific query in relation to private waste collection arrangements. The Officer explained that she would suggest including an additional condition to reflect this, together with an informative in order to advise future purchasers.

Some concerns were raised in relation to Paragraph 43 of the report and the Highways Authority having stated that there was no recorded accident data in the past 10 years, when this conflicted with statements made by local residents, the Ward Member and the Parish Council.

Councillor Andy Neal made a statement on the benefits that a physical site visit would have afforded the Committee in determining the application.

Accordingly, Councillor Trevor Beckwith moved that consideration of the application be deferred in order to allow Officers to liaise with Suffolk County Council in respect of accident data and to allow the Committee to undertake a physical site visit. This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Neal.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and 2 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order to allow Officers to liaise with Suffolk County Council in respect of accident data and to allow the Committee to undertake a physical site visit.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/019

Planning application - a. two dwellings and associated works; b. access

Planning application - a. two dwellings and associated works; b. access

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because technically it represented a departure from the Development Plan.

The Parish Council had objected to the scheme on the grounds of inadequate access, which was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 62 of Report No DEV/WS/22/019 and with an additional condition to secure implementation of the boundary treatment shown on the site plan as recommended in the Officer’s presentation.

Members were advised that as the press notice did not expire until 10 June 2022 the recommendation was subject to no further material representations being received prior to that date; it was therefore recommended that the decision be delegated to the Director (Planning and Growth).

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

Councillor John Burns suggested that a further additional condition be included in respect of demolition/construction works permitted hours of operation. The Officer agreed that this would be reasonable and appropriate.

On this basis, Councillor Burns then proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Neal.

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

Decision

On the basis of no further material representations being received prior to the expiration of the press notice, the decision be delegated to the Director (Planning and Growth) and 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        No development above slab level shall take place until details of the facing and roof materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4        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. 

5        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.

6        All ecological measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Arbtech Preliminary Ecology Report as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the Local Planning Authority prior to determination.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 246.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/020

Planning application - a. partial change of use to a timber supplies business (sui generis); b. stable block; c. office building; d. timber store; e. workshop; f. open fronted storage barn; g. open fronted timber store and; h. associated ancillary development

Planning application - a. partial change of use to a timber supplies business (sui generis); b. stable block; c. office building; d. timber store; e. workshop; f. open fronted storage barn; g. open fronted timber store and; h. associated ancillary development

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel, as a result of call-in by Ward Member (Whepstead & Wickhambrook) Councillor Sarah Pugh.

The Parish Council objected to the scheme which was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 46 of Report No DEV/WS/22/020, inclusive of an amendment to the wording of No 2 as referenced in the Officer’s presentation.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Councillor Garry Corcoran (Whepstead Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Sarah Pugh (Ward Member: Whepstead & Wickhambrook) spoke against the application

Lucy Smith (Agent) spoke in support of the application

A number of questions were posed in relation to the stud operation at the premises and the Senior Planning Officer explained that the business offered seasonal grazing and there were around 13 horses on site when it was visited by the Council. However, Members were reminded that the equine use of the site was outside the planning application before them.

The Officer also confirmed, in response to other related questions, that the workshop in question was soundproofed and it existed in its current form when the noise assessment referenced in the report was undertaken. There were also separate mechanisms in which noise related concerns could be raised with the Council.

Lastly, in response to questions regarding restricting the routing of traffic to the site the Committee was advised that it was not possible to restrict this via condition as the Highways Authority had not requested this and it was not considered to be an enforceable condition.

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

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 approved is defined by the approved plans and documents and no alterations or extensions shall take place without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

2.   No deliveries to or from the timber supplies business shall be taken or despatched outside the hours of 08:00 - 17:00 Mondays to Saturdays and no deliveries shall be taken or despatched on Sundays and Bank Holidays unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

(On conclusion of this item the Chair permitted a short comfort break during which Councillors Trevor Beckwith, Brian Harvey and Sara Mildmay-White left the meeting at 1.35pm.)

Report No: DEV/WS/22/021

Planning application - Installation of two metre high security fencing to external boundary (previous application DC/21/1536/FUL)

Planning application - Installation of two metre high security fencing to external boundary (previous application DC/21/1536/FUL)

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

The application represented an extension to the provision of security fencing previously approved by the Committee on 1 September 2021 under planning reference DC/21/1536/FUL.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 26 of Report No DEV/WS/22/21.

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

Councillor Jim Thorndyke proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and 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:

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 following approved plans and documents, unless otherwise stated.

3.   The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) submitted 01 April 2022, drawing no. P4291.2.0 dated 15 November 2021. The protective measures contained within the scheme shall be implemented, maintained and retained until the development is completed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.