Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 2 November 2022, 10.00 am

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Conference Chamber, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds IP33 3YU

Contact: Helen Hardinge: Democratic Services Officer  Email: helen.hardinge@westsuffolk.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

287.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jason Crooks, Brian Harvey, Andy Neal and David Roach.

288.

Substitutes

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

Minutes:

The following substitutions were declared:

 

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White substituting for Councillor Brian Harvey; and

Councillor James Lay substituting for Councillor David Roach.

289.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 166 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2022 (copy attached).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2022 were confirmed as a correct record, with 11 voting for the motion and with 3 abstentions, and were signed by the Chair.

 

Councillor Ian Houlder posed a question as to why it was minuted in the resolution where Members made a resolution that was contrary to the Officer recommendation. The Democratic Services Officer responded and explained that it was standard practice for the minutes in line with the Committee’s Decision Making Protocol.

290.

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.

291.

Planning Application DC/21/2337/OUT - Land East of Beeches Road, Beeches Road, West Row (Report No: DEV/WS/22/042) pdf icon PDF 321 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/042

 

Outline planning application (all matters reserved except access) for up to 106 dwellings, parish office and car parking, and green infrastructure including sustainable drainage, amenity green space and ecological habitats

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Andy Drummond declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that he was a Suffolk County Councillor, in view of the applicant for this item being the County Council.)

 

Outline planning application (all matters reserved except access) for up to 106 dwellings, parish office and car parking, and green infrastructure including sustainable drainage, amenity green space and ecological habitats

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee due to a 1.7 hectare section of the application site being outside of the residential site allocation SA14(a) and therefore contrary to the Development Plan.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 legal agreement, as set out in Paragraph 101 of Report No DEV/WS/22/042.

 

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ issued in respect of the application and the Officer also showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the recommendation and the list of conditions therein and outlined amendments to Nos 3, 7, 22, 26 and 32. The Committee was also advised that an Early Years Pre-school contribution of £181,870 had been missed from the S106 list.

 

Speaker:      Neil Hall (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

During the debate a number of questions/comments were posed by Members which the Officer responded to as follows:

Solar Panels – sustainable energy provision would be addressed at the application’s Reserved Matters stage;

Primary School – an expansion to the village primary school was already planned;

Proximity to Pumping Station – no element of the scheme was planned to be situated less than 15m away, although this would be confirmed at Reserved Matters stage;

Noise Contours – the impact of the aircraft from the neighbouring USAF air bases was addressed within the report and an appropriate condition had been included;

Electric Charging Points – no consultee had flagged concerns with the electric charging provision for the scheme, the flats included within the application would have communal charging points;

Roads – the intention was for the roads to be built to an adoptable standard; and

Streetlights – maintenance could be carried out via a private management company or the County Council.

 

In response to specific queries raised, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the discovery of the area of archaeological importance led to the layout changes to the scheme, that was now seeking approval.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) added that it was extremely rare that findings of such significance were not identified during the very early high-level desktop work that is undertaken as part of the local plan process. However, in this case discoveries were not made until the trench work had commenced, which resulted in the application needing to be amended.

 

Councillor Carol Bull proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the amendments as outlined to the relevant conditions and S106, this was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

 

Upon being put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 291.

292.

Planning Application DC/21/2094/OUT - Townsend Nurseries, Snow Hill, Clare (Report No: DEV/WS/22/043) pdf icon PDF 281 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/043

 

Outline planning application (means of access to be considered) - 20 dwellings

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Outline planning application (means of access to be considered) - 20 dwellings

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following call-in by one of the Clare, Hundon and Kedington Ward Members (Councillor Nick Clarke).

 

In addition, Clare Town Council objected to the application which was in conflict with the Officers’ recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 legal agreement, as set out in Paragraph 74 of Report No DEV/WS/22/043.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that two additional archaeological conditions would need to be included within the recommendation and also showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

Speakers:    Gary Brown (objector, speaking on behalf of himself and other neighbouring resident objectors) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Nick Clarke (Ward Member: Clare, Hundon and Kedington) spoke against the application

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

                   Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application

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

 

During the debate a number of questions/comments were posed by Members which the Officer responded to as follows:

Air Quality – Environmental Health had not flagged any air quality related concerns in relation to the application;

Subsidence and Soil Conditions – would be covered by the Building Regulations process;

Visibility Splays/Highways – the Local Highways Authority was satisfied with the visibility splays as proposed, they had also not requested the inclusion of double-yellow lines as a result of the scheme, however, this could be pursued separately by local Members if desired;

Electric Charging Points – the relevant condition could be reworded in relation to the communal charging points to mirror that of the previous (West Row) application considered by the Committee, if Members wished;

Nursery Use – it had been some considerable years since a nursery operated on the site, therefore a marketing exercise was not required; and

NHS West Suffolk CCG – Officers confirmed that the CCG asked to only be consulted on schemes with 50 or more dwellings proposed, hence, they had not commented on this application.

 

Considerable discussion took place on the drainage/flooding issues experienced in Clare and the concerns that the scheme would exacerbate the problem, as raised by the Ward Members, Town Council and resident objectors.

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that Suffolk County Council as the lead local authority for flooding was content with the relevant conditions proposed. Furthermore, Anglian Water had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity for the scheme.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the issue currently being experienced in Clare was understood to be due to the age of the pipes concerned. It would not be reasonable or appropriate to require the applicant to address this in connection with this application. The applicant could only be required to provide mitigation measures necessary for the development itself to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 292.

293.

Advertisement Application DC/22/0988/ADV - Dragonfly Hotel, Symonds Road, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/22/044) pdf icon PDF 174 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/044

 

Application for advertisement consent - one internally illuminated totem sign

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application for advertisement consent - one internally illuminated totem sign

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel; having been referred to the Panel due to the support from Bury St Edmunds Town Council, which was in conflict with the Officers’ recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 31 of Report No DEV/WS/22/044.

 

Speaker:      Tony Osbourne (applicant) spoke in support of the application

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

 

In response to comments made by the Committee during the debate, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that in terms of the advertisement regulations the Local Planning Authority has a duty to consider them in relation to highway safety and public amenity, only. Members were also reminded that each application was to be considered on its own merits.

 

Councillor Andy Drummond spoke in support of the application which he considered did not adversely affect amenity. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that Members’ interpretation of Policy DM38 was subjective, meaning the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked as a Risk Assessment would not be considered necessary.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then verbally advised on the conditions that could be appended to a permission, if granted.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as it was considered that the application did not adversely affect amenity, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This consent shall expire at the end of a period of five years beginning with the date of this notice.

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.   The maximum luminance from the internally illuminated sign shall not exceed 350 candela/m2.

294.

Planning Application DC/22/1003/HH & Listed Building Consent Application DC/22/1004/LB - 4 Wrenshall Farm Barns, Cart Lodge, Upthorpe Road, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/22/045) pdf icon PDF 242 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/045

 

Householder planning application - single storey side extension with addition of gable to existing roof

Application for listed building consent - single storey side extension with addition of gable to existing roof

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(In the interests of openness and transparency, Councillor Jim Thorndyke advised the Committee that he had spoken to both the applicant and agent in order to advise on the Delegation Panel process.)

 

Householder planning application - single storey side extension with addition of gable to existing roof

Application for listed building consent - single storey side extension with addition of gable to existing roof

 

These applications were referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel; having been referred to the Panel due to the support from Stanton Parish Council, which was in conflict with the Officers’ recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 32 of Report No DEV/WS/22/045.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

 

Speakers:    Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke on the applications

                   Julie Todd (applicant) spoke in support of the applications

 

During the debate Councillor Thorndyke further highlighted the perceived confusion with the location of the historic access track.

 

Councillor John Burns spoke in support of the applications, which he considered did not harm the listed building as the courtyard was no longer intact. Accordingly, he proposed that the applications be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that Members’ interpretation of Policy DM15 was subjective, meaning the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked as a Risk Assessment would not be considered necessary.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then verbally advised on the conditions that could be appended to the permissions, if granted.

 

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

 

Decision

 

Planning permission and Listed Building Consent be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as it was considered that the application did not harm the listed building, subject to the following conditions:

 

Planning Application DC/22/1003/HH:

 

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.

 

Listed Building Consent Application DC/22/1004/LB:

 

1.   The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than three years from the date of this notice.

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.

 

In this section