Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all present to the Development Control Committee and highlighted the fact that the meeting was due to be operated in two parts, as indicated on the agenda.

Members were also reminded that some of the details of the scheme in respect of the HMP Highpoint application were restricted by the Ministry of Justice, but which had been made available to Committee Members. If Members wished to discuss the content of the restricted papers during consideration of the application the Committee would need to formally resolve to exclude any attending press/public to enable those matters to be debated in private. On conclusion, the press/public would be readmitted to the room.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Roger Dicker and Brian Harvey.

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 Richard Alecock substituting for Councillor Roger Dicker; and

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White substituting for Councillor Brian Harvey.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2022 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2022 were confirmed as a correct record, with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, and  were signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

257.      Planning Application DC/22/0021/HH - The Croft, Mildenhall Road, Barton Mills (Report No: DEV/WS/22/026)

Councillor Brian Harvey had mistakenly had his surname omitted from the above Minute No.

255.      Planning Application DC/22/0364/FUL and Listed Building Consent DC/22/0365/LB - The Deanery, 3 The Great Churchyard, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/22/024)

Councillors Mike Chester and Andrew Smith declared non-pecuniary interests in this item in light of the fact that they were members of the congregation Parochial Church Councils of their Parish Churches which came under the St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocese as did the application site, they therefore asked that this be noted in the interests of transparency.

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/22/028

Application for Reserved Matters pursuant to hybrid planning permission SE/09/1283 for Infrastructure comprising of: the internal estate roads, drainage, POS, landscaping, and allotments for Land at North West Haverhill

(Councillors John Burns and David Smith each declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that they had attended Haverhill Town Council’s meeting when the Town Council considered the application. However, both Councillors stressed that they would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Application for Reserved Matters pursuant to hybrid planning permission SE/09/1283 for Infrastructure comprising of: the internal estate roads, drainage, POS, landscaping, and allotments for Land at North West Haverhill

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 July 2022 following a call-in from the local Ward Member (Councillor Joe Mason – Haverhill North). Haverhill Town Council also objected to the application.

At the July meeting the Committee resolved to approve the application subject to the inclusion of an addition to Condition 9 requiring the internal loop road to be completed prior to the connection with Ann Suckling Road being made.

Officers advised that a provision relating to the phasing of the infrastructure could be added but that the advice of the Local Highway Authority would need to be sought to ensure it was a reasonable condition that was necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Following the July meeting Officers sought the advice of Highways Officers in relation to the proposed condition and an alternative phasing plan put forward by the applicant, which had been circulated with the agenda papers for the Committee’s reference.

A Member site visit was held prior to the July Committee meeting.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 10.1 of Report No DEV/WS/22/028, inclusive of the amendments to Condition Nos 8, 10 and 12 as outlined in the supplementary late papers.

Since publication of the August Committee agenda one further representation had been received objecting to the application, which the Principal Planning Officer summarised for the Committee.

Speakers:    Michael Ford (resident objector, also representing a number of other local residents) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Jo Mason (Ward Member: Haverhill North) spoke against the application

                   Isaac Jolly (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor John Burns commenced the debate and made reference to the long-standing planning history of the related relief road.

Two Suffolk County Council Highways Authority Officers were in attendance and were invited by the Chair to address the meeting on highways matters and to respond to the related questions posed by Members.

Councillor Jim Thorndyke made reference to Condition No 12 (set out in the late papers) and asked if the wording could be strengthened from that currently set out. Councillor Burns spoke in favour of this amendment too and the Principal Planning Officer agreed to amend the wording accordingly.

Councillor Jason Crooks proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

Upon being put to the vote and with the 15 voting for the motion and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/029

Planning Application - 141 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure including roads, parking, sustainable drainage, pumping station and public open space, as amended

Planning Application - 141 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure including roads, parking, sustainable drainage, pumping station and public open space, as amended.

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 July 2022 as the proposals were for ‘major’ development and the Parish Council objected to the scheme.

Furthermore, part of the site (the woodland public open space) was situated outside of the limits of the Local Plan allocation and beyond the settlement boundaries of the village.

At the July meeting the Committee resolved to defer consideration of the application in order to seek clarification and/or information in relation to the following matters:

1. To carry out a visit to the site;

2. To enable discussions between the applicant and Highway Authority with regard to ensuring the main road and foot/cycleways were designed to adoptable standards to conclude and the outcome reported to the Committee via amended plans (if amended plans are necessary);

3. To clarify the approach to maintaining secondary emergency vehicle access to serve the existing development to the South of the application site (the planning permission for that development made provision for emergency vehicle access through the application site);

4. To seek clarity from the Highways Authority at Suffolk County Council about whether there was a need to provide for formal parking restrictions along the existing Thistle Way approach into the application site and/or the new spine road to be provided as part of the development to deter inappropriate on-street parking. The Committee also requested information about whether there was sufficient parking available for residents with dwellings located along Thistle Way; and

5. To agree a more appropriate boundary treatment strategy to the eastern site boundary.

Report No DEV/WS/22/029 set out a response in relation to the above matters and a Member site visit was held prior to the meeting. 

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to:

     i.        A positive (subsequent) ‘Appropriate Assessment’ of the project to accord with the strict provisions of Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations;

    ii.        Completion of a S106 Agreement; and

   iii.        Conditions as set out in Paragraph 274 of the report, yet subject to a number of varied amendments as outlined during the Officer’s presentation and inclusive of two additional conditions (details of the fencing to the east boundary and precluding vehicular access onto the public open spaces).

All of the above were to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Director (Planning and Growth) in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Committee and Ward Members.

Speakers:    Shazia Shujah (Clerk – Red Lodge Parish Council) spoke in support of the application

                   Kath Slater (agent) spoke in support of the application

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

Councillor Andy Drummond questioned why the application was before Committee for determination in light of the Parish Council now having withdrawn  ...  view the full minutes text for item 265.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/030

Planning Application - Construction of 3 x 4 storey houseblocks, new pharmacy, property store, healthcare, education/ vocational training, kitchen, commercial workshop and laundry buildings, 3 x MUGA1s and running track, extension to gatehouse and gym within the secure perimeter fence, together with additional car parking, a new off-site property store, landscaping and external lighting

Attention is also drawn to Agenda Item 11 in respect of this application

i(Councillor David Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he had attended Haverhill Town Council’s meeting when the Town Council considered the application. However, he stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.

Councillor Smith further advised, in the interests of transparency, that his wife was currently employed by a firm sub-contracted by HMP Highpoint. The Lawyer informed the meeting that advice had been sought from the Council’s Monitoring Officer who confirmed that this was not an interest which needed to be declared.)

Planning Application - Construction of 3 x 4 storey houseblocks, new pharmacy, property store, healthcare, education/ vocational training, kitchen, commercial workshop and laundry buildings, 3 x MUGA1s and running track, extension to gatehouse and gym within the secure perimeter fence, together with additional car parking, a new off-site property store, landscaping and external lighting.

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the proposals are for ‘major’ development and Little Thurlow Parish Council had objected to the proposal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting. At that site visit a question was asked with regard to bats. The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects advised that the ecology survey that had been undertaken did not detect bats and the site was deemed as having “low to moderate bat suitability”.

The Committee was further advised that since publication of the agenda a further representation had been received from Suffolk Constabulary which referred to Paragraphs 127 and 128 of Report No DEV/WS/22/030. The Constabulary’s Business Liaison Manager asked that it be clarified to Members that whilst it was not appropriate for additional Police funding to be secured from this specific development proposal via the planning system, this did not in any way prejudice any other future proposal where funding could be sought.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 171 of the report and inclusive of a further three additional conditions as requested by the Highways Authority (as referenced in Paragraph 24 of the report and subject to the wording being agreed to the satisfaction of the Director (Planning and Growth), in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Committee and Ward Members).

Speakers:    Owner of Broxted Estate (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Nick Clarke (Ward Member: Claire, Hundon & Kedington) spoke against the application

                   Charlotte Tucker (agent) spoke in support of the application

                   (The owner of Broxted Estate was not in attendance to personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on their behalf.)

Councillor Peter Stevens addressed the meeting in his capacity as adjacent Ward Member (Withersfield) and raised concerns principally in relation to the impact of the security lighting and highways matters.

In respect of the lighting, the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects drew attention to the conditions proposed in relation to this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 266.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/031

Householder Planning Application - Installation of solar panels to rear roof of central barn

Application for Listed Building Consent - Installation of solar panels to rear roof of central barn

Householder planning application - Installation of solar panels to rear roof of central barn

Application for Listed Building Consent - Installation of solar panels to rear roof of central barn

The applications were referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel, having been called-in to the Panel by Ward Member (Rougham) Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.

In addition, the Parish Council had voiced support for both applications which was contrary to the Officer’s recommendations of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 33 of Report No DEV/WS/22/031; subject to a minor amendment to reflect that the power generated by the solar panels would have modest public benefit.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to Paragraph 30 of the report where it incorrectly stated that the solar panels would be situated on the Eastern facing roof slope, when the elevation in question was actually facing West.

Following the Officer’s presentation the Lawyer advising the meeting addressed the Committee and confirmed that whilst it had been verbally stated in the presentation that Ward Member Councillor Sara Mildmay-White “supported the application”, she had not in fact made a statement to this effect and had purely requested that the application be called-in to Delegation Panel.

Speakers:    Councillor Sara Mildmay-White (Ward Member: Rougham) spoke on the application

                   Philip Doe (applicant) spoke in support of the application

A number of Members voiced support for the applications, in response the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that as the proposal was contrary to the NPPF and policy, together with the duty Planning Authorities had in respect of listed buildings, any contrary recommendation would invoke the Decision Making Protocol and a Risk Assessment would be produced for further consideration by the Committee.

Councillor Peter Stevens therefore proposed that the applications be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm; furthermore, he considered that the alternative proposal (supported and suggested by the Planning Authority) of relocating the solar panels to the grounds of the property would cause more harm than being situated on the roof. 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

Members be MINDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATIONS, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm; furthermore, the alternative proposal (supported and suggested by the Planning Authority) of relocating the solar panels to the grounds of the property would cause more harm than being situated on the roof.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/032

Planning application - one dwelling above garages with integral staircase

Planning application - one dwelling above garages with integral staircase

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

It was referred to the Delegation Panel as Stanton Parish Council did not object to the proposal which was contrary to the Officers’ recommendation of refusal for the reasons set out in Paragraph 42 of Report No DEV/WS/22/032.

As part of the Officer’s presentation attention was drawn to the extant permission which applied to the site.

Speaker:      Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke on the application

A number of the Committee referenced other similar nearby developments, in response the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded Members of the need to determine each application on its own merits.

Councillor Ian Houlder voiced reservations with the design of the proposal and proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.

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

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Policy DM5 (Development in the countryside) sets out forms of development that will be permitted in the countryside (affordable, rural workers dwellings, replacement dwellings and infill where there is a cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings).

Policy DM27 permits dwellings in the rural area subject to certain criteria, amongst which are a requirement for dwellings to be proposed adjacent to or fronting an existing highway. In this regard, therefore, conflict with DM27 is identified. The dwelling is proposed above a garage, in a location where a single storey garage structure was previously proposed. However, the position of the proposed dwelling is set back behind those dwellings at the front, away from the road frontage in a way that does not comply with the requirement for it to be within a ‘frontage’ and ‘adjacent to or fronting a road’.

In this case the dwelling is proposed back from the road, behind the extant dwellings on the frontage and it does not therefore comply with the provisions of DM27. As a consequence of this, conflict is also identified with the requirements of Policies DM5 and CS1.

2. The NPPF states development should be “visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping”, should be “sympathetic to local character history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting” and maintain a strong sense of place… building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live”. It further states “Development that is not well designed should be refused.

Local policies in DM2 and DM22 further support these principles, as does DM27. It is considered that the proposal with its lack of fenestration, high eaves line and blank rear elevation, along with its scale, would have a hostile and intrusive impact within this location to the rear of the consented properties, and as a result is considered to be discordant and out of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 268.

Report No: DEV/WS/22/033

Planning application - one dwelling and cart lodge

Planning application - one dwelling and cart lodge

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was a departure from the Development Plan.

As part of the Officer’s presentation attention was drawn to the extant permission which applied to the site.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 35 of Report No DEV/WS/22/033.

Councillor John Burns 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 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       No development above slab level shall take place until details of the exterior 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       Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. 2292/LO(-)01B with an X dimension of 2.4 metres and a Y dimension of 42 metres [tangential to the nearside edge of the carriageway] and thereafter retained in the specified form. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction to visibility shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow over 0.6 metres high within the areas of the visibility splays.

 5       The areas to be provided for the storage and presentation of refuse and recycling bins as shown on Drawing No. 2292/LO(-)01B shall be provided in their entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.

 6       The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on Drawing No. 2292/LO(-)01B for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area(s) shall be retained and used for no other purposes.

 7       Before the development is commenced details of electric vehicle charging infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained

          thereafter and used for no other purpose.

 8       Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for the secure, covered and lit cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought

          into use and shall be retained thereafter and used for no other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 269.