Agenda and 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 |
299. |
Welcome
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.
|
300. |
Apologies for absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillors Mike Chester, Andy Drummond, David Roach and Jim
Thorndyke.
|
301. |
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 Nick Clarke substituting for
Councillor Mike Chester;
Councillor James Lay substituting for
Councillor Andy Drummond; and
Councillor David Nettleton substituting for
Councillor Jim Thorndyke.
|
302. |
Minutes PDF 213 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
2 November 2022 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 2 November
2022 were confirmed as a correct record, with 12 voting for the
motion and with 3 abstentions, and were signed by the Chair;
subject to the following addition, which had been mistakenly
omitted:
292. Planning
Application DC/21/2094/OUT - Townsend Nurseries, Snow Hill, Clare
(Report No: DEV/WS/22/043)
Councillor Glenn Patullo (Clare Town Council)
spoke against the application
|
303. |
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.
|
304. |
Planning Application DC/21/2094/OUT - Townsend Nurseries, Snow Hill, Clare (Report No: DEV/WS/22/047) PDF 361 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/047
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 originally referred to
the Development Control Committee on 2 November 2022 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.
At the November Committee meeting Members
resolved to defer consideration of the application in order to
allow a Committee site visit to be
undertaken and to allow time for Officers to have further
discussions with Anglian Water.
Accordingly, a Member site visit was held on 5 December 2022. The
Senior Planning Officer also showed videos of the site by way of a
virtual ‘site visit’.
As part of her presentation to the meeting the
Senior Planning Officer drew attention the supplementary
‘late papers’ which were issued following publication
of the agenda and which set out comments
from Anglian Water.
Officers were continuing to recommend that the
application be approved, subject to conditions and the completion
of a S106 legal agreement, as set out in Paragraph 18 of Report No
DEV/WS/22/047.
Speakers: Gary Brown (objector, speaking on
behalf of himself and other neighbouring resident objectors) spoke
against the application
Councillor Glenn Patullo (Clare Town
Council) spoke against the application
Councillor Nick Clarke (Ward Member: Clare, Hundon and Kedington)
spoke on the application
Phil Cobbold (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:
Air Quality – Environmental Health had
not flagged any air quality related concerns in respect of the
application;
Electric Charging Points – the relevant
condition could be reworded as requested by Councillor John Burns,
in relation to occupation of individual units;
Courtesy Crossing – the type of crossing
specified in the conditions was requested by the Local Highways
Authority and was considered proportionate to the development;
Education Contribution – the
contribution within the recommendation was requested by Suffolk
County Council as Education Authority.
Considerable discussion again 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 Service Manager (Planning –
Development) explained that Anglian Water was a statutory consultee
and without a technical objection from them or evidence which
contradicted their response, the Planning Authority could not
refuse the application on this basis.
Councillor Ian Houlder spoke in support of the
application which he considered to be a good use of the site in
question. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be approved
as per the Officer recommendation and inclusive of the amendment to
the condition regarding electric vehicle charging points. This was
duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey.
Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting
for the motion, 4 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved
that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED subject
to:
A signed S106 Agreement to secure the
following:
|
305. |
Planning Application DC/22/1447/RM - Land NW of Haverhill, Anne Sucklings Lane, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/WS/22/048) PDF 538 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/048
Reserved matters application - submission of
details under outline planning permission SE/09/1283 - all matters
reserved for the construction of 113 dwellings, with associated
private amenity space, means of enclosure, parking, vehicle and
access arrangements, and proposed areas of landscaping and areas of
open space for phase 3b. The application includes the submission of
details to enable the discharge of conditions B4, B8, B9, B16, B17,
B20, B21, B24
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillors John
Burns and David Smith both declared, in the interests of openness
and transparency, that they had attended Haverhill Town
Council’s meeting when the Town Council considered the
application. However, they stressed they would keep an open mind
and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)
Reserved matters
application - submission of details under outline planning
permission SE/09/1283 - all matters reserved for the construction
of 113 dwellings, with associated private amenity space, means of
enclosure, parking, vehicle and access arrangements, and proposed
areas of landscaping and areas of open space for phase 3b. The
application includes the submission of details to enable the
discharge of conditions B4, B8, B9, B16, B17, B20, B21, B24
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel and in light of
Haverhill Town Council having objected to the application.
Members were advised that the application was
part of the wider North-West Haverhill site, which is one of the
two strategic growth sites for Haverhill identified in the adopted
Core Strategy. The application before the Committee sought approval
of details for parcel 3b of residential development.
Outline planning permission was granted on 27
March 2015 for residential development, a primary school, local
centre including retail and community uses, public open space,
landscaping infrastructure, servicing
and other associated works alongside full permission for the
construction of a relief road.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that
since the agenda was published a revised plan has been received for
the house type ‘Greenwood – village green’ as
used on plots 72 and 75. The change substituted an area of
brickwork for render. The list of approved plans would be updated
to reflect this change.
In addition, the description of the
application within Report No DEV/WS/22/048 stated that it sought to
discharge condition B4 of the outline application (SE/09/1283).
However, this had now been removed from the description and the
condition would be discharged separately.
As part of her presentation to the meeting the
Senior Planning Officer made reference
to the Town Council’s frustrations on the progress of the
wider infrastructure related to the strategic growth sites. For the
benefit of the Committee she outlined
the delivery timetable and the progress made to date.
Officers were recommending that the
application be approved, subject to conditions as outlined in
Paragraph 11.0 of the report.
Speakers: Councillor Tony Brown (Haverhill Town
Council) spoke against the application
Isaac Jolly (Persimmon – applicant) spoke in support of the
application
During the debate Members posed questions in
relation to the management of the green spaces, street lighting and
public transport which were responded to by the Senior Planning
Officer.
Councillor Jason Crooks raised a specific
query with regard to how the
biodiversity net gain was calculated and the Service Manager
(Planning – Development) provided an explanation.
Councillor Peter Stevens proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This
was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.
Upon being put to the ...
view the full minutes text for item 305.
|
306. |
Planning Application DC/21/0427/FUL - Sports Direct Fitness, Easlea Road, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/22/049) PDF 289 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/049
Planning application - change of use from gym
(class E) to retail (class E commercial, business and service)
Additional documents:
-
DEV.WS.22.049 Sports Direct, BSE - Working Paper 1 , item 306.
PDF 3 MB
-
DEV.WS.22.049 Sports Direct, BSE - Working Paper 2 , item 306.
PDF 609 KB
-
DEV.WS.22.049 Sports Direct, BSE - Working Paper 3 , item 306.
PDF 182 KB
-
DEV.WS.22.049 Sports Direct, BSE - Working Paper 4 , item 306.
PDF 310 KB
-
DEV.WS.22.049 Sports Direct, BSE - Working Paper 5 , item 306.
PDF 487 KB
- There are a further 5 documents.View the full list of documents for item 306.
Minutes:
(Councillor John
Burns declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that
he was a shareholder of a gym in Haverhill. However, it did not
have any members from Bury St Edmunds and would not influence his
ability to keep an open mind on the item.)
Planning application
- change of use from gym (class E) to retail (class E commercial,
business and service)
This planning application was referred to the
Development Control Committee as it proposed ‘major’
development and Bury St Edmunds Town Council had objected, as had
Bury St Edmunds BID.
In addition, the consideration of the merits
of the application involved complex policy matters relating to
retail, employment and community/leisure facilities.
The Principal Planning Officer advised the
Committee that since the agenda papers were published a further 33
late representations had been received objecting to the proposal;
these largely covered matters previously raised by objectors which
were briefly summarised to the meeting.
Furthermore, Councillor Birgitte Mager (one of
the Ward Members for Moreton Hall) had emailed some Members of the
Committee objecting to the application. This was read out in full
so that those Members who had not received it were aware of the
content.
As part of her presentation to the meeting the
Principal Planning Officer explained that the Council had a duty to
determine planning applications submitted to them and could only
assess the proposed change of use in planning terms. Theoretically,
the existing facility was a commercial operation and could cease
operation irrespective of this application and the Council would
have no influence on this.
Officers were recommending that the
application be approved, subject to a S106 Agreement and conditions
as set out in Paragraph 72 of Report No DEV/WS/22/049, subject to
an amendment to the wording of condition 1 and with an additional
condition in relation to the Gross Internal Area.
Speakers: Melanie Soanes (member of Sports
Direct Fitness, speaking on behalf of herself and fellow members)
spoke against the application
Michael Crichton (member of Sports Direct Fitness, speaking on
behalf of himself and fellow members) spoke against the
application
Councillor Trevor Beckwith (Ward Member: Moreton Hall) spoke
against the application
(Councillor Beckwith 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 Members voiced
concern at the loss of a well-used sports facility, particularly in
light of the importance of supporting healthy communities.
Councillor John Burns raised specific
reservations with the independent retail assessment that had been
submitted, in light of it having been carried out 18 months ago.
Officers referred Members to the numerous working papers which set
out the chronology of the retail impact assessment since the
application was submitted, culminating in more recent comments from
the Council’s retail consultant earlier this year.
Councillor Nick Clarke highlighted the fact
that the premises was not a purpose-built facility and had
previously had retail uses.
Councillor Peter Stevens questioned why
planning restrictions had ...
view the full minutes text for item 306.
|
307. |
Planning Application DC/22/0994/FUL - The Old Blacksmiths, The Street, Gazeley (Report No: DEV/WS/22/050) PDF 249 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/050
Planning application - Reconstruct existing
building, extension and conversion of
forge to create two dwellings
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning application
- Reconstruct existing building, extension and conversion of forge to create two
dwellings
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel on 15 November 2022, having been referred to the
Panel at the request of the Ward Member (Councillor Roger
Dicker).
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting. The Planning Officer also showed videos of the site by way
of a virtual ‘site visit’.
Within the Officer’s presentation it was
highlighted that the scheme included no on-site parking; with all
parking having to take place on-street. However, the Local Highways
Authority had not objected to the proposal on
the basis of the parking provision.
The Committee was also advised that, if
granted, Permitted Development rights would be removed (as per
conditions 9 and 10) in order to further
safeguard the character and appearance of the area and protect the
residential amenity of neighbours.
Officers were recommending that the
application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in
Paragraph 49 of Report No DEV/WS/22/050.
Speakers: Hilary Appleton (Gazeley resident) spoke against the application
Pat Spillane (Landlord of The Chequers Public House, Gazeley) spoke against the application
Councillor Robert Connelly (Gazeley
Parish Council) spoke against the application
Councillor Roger Dicker, as Ward Member for
the application (Kentford and Moulton)
was invited by the Chair to open the debate. Councillor Dicker
highlighted the history of the site; with the existing building
being subject to ongoing enforcement investigations and the
subsequent issue of a Notice under Section 215, for which
compliance had been outstanding since July 2021.
Councillor Dicker explained that residents of
the village were in support of the building on the site being
remedied as it was considered an eyesore in its current condition
and also posed a safety risk. Therefore,
whilst there were some reservations with scheme proposed, there was
also support for the application as it would enable work to
commence.
Lastly, reference was made to the bus stop
that sat towards the south of the site and which was fenced off due
to the current condition of the building. Councillor Dicker asked
if this could be protected in some way.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) advised that the issue of parking in the vicinity of
the bus stop would be raised directly with Suffolk County
Council.
Councillor Brian Harvey raised a question in
connection with the construction of the scheme, in light of the constrained nature of the site and
the need for construction vehicles to use the adjacent highway.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) agreed that an additional condition could be added to
request the applicant to submit a Construction Method Statement to
the Planning Authority.
Councillor Jason Crooks proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and
inclusive of the additional condition in relation to construction.
This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.
Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting
for ...
view the full minutes text for item 307.
|
308. |
Planning Application DC/22/0359/FUL - Green Farm, The Green, Hargrave (Report No: DEV/WS/22/051) PDF 201 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/051
Planning application - a. change of use of
land to domestic garden b. all weather tennis court with associated
fencing
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning application
- a. change of use of land to domestic garden b. all weather tennis
court with associated fencing
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting. The Planning Officer also showed videos of the site by way
of a virtual ‘site visit’.
Hargrave Parish Council had voiced support for
the proposal, which was contrary to the Officer’s
recommendation of refusal for the reasons set out in Paragraph 22
of Report No DEV/WS/22/051.
Speakers: Councillor Mike Chester (Ward Member:
Chedburgh and Chevington) spoke in support of the application
Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application
(Councillor Chester was not in attendance to personally address
the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read
out a pre-prepared statement on his behalf.)
Councillor Peter Stevens spoke in support of
the application and proposed that it be approved, contrary to the
Officer recommendation, as he did not consider that the scheme
would have a detrimental impact on the views in/out of Hargrave and
it was therefore not in conflict with Policies HAR6 and HAR10. This
was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) advised that the Decision Making Protocol would not be
invoked in this instance as the impact on the distinct key views
was a subjective consideration.
Councillor John Burns drew attention to the
Parish Council’s comments in respect of lighting and asked
that this was picked up within the conditions.
Likewise, other Members made comment on the
fencing within the proposal and they were advised that a further
condition could be added for the Planning Authority to request
fencing details.
The Chair then invited the Planning Officer to
outline a list of conditions that could be appended to a
permission, if granted.
Upon being put to the vote and with the vote
being unanimous, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTARY TO
THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION subject to the following
conditions:
- Time
limit
The development hereby
permitted shall be commenced no later than 3 years from the date of
this permission.
- Approved
plans
The development
hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete
accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and
documents:.
3.
Soft landscaping
No
development above ground level shall take place until a scheme of
soft landscaping for the site drawn to a scale of not less than
1:200, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall include accurate indications
of the position, species, girth, canopy spread and height of all
existing trees and hedgerows on and adjacent to the site and
details of any to be retained, together with measures for their
protection during the course of development. Any retained trees
removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within
five years of commencement shall be replaced within the first
available planting season thereafter with planting of similar
...
view the full minutes text for item 308.
|
309. |
Planning Application DC/22/0511/FUL - 104 High Street, Newmarket (Report No: DEV/WS/22/052) PDF 179 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/052
Planning application - change of use from Bank
(Class E) to Adult Gaming Centre (Sui Generis)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor James
Lay declared a non registerable
interest in this item in view of his comments made in respect of
the application, as referenced in the report and late paper.
Following advice from the Monitoring Officer he would abstain from
taking part in the debate and the voting thereon.)
Planning application
- change of use from Bank (Class E) to Adult Gaming Centre (Sui
Generis)
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration at the
Delegation Panel. It was presented to the Panel due to the concerns
from Newmarket Town Council, as well as from Councillor James Lay
and Councillor Andy Drummond (Ward Members: Newmarket West).
Officers were recommending that the
application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in
Paragraph 33 of Report No DEV/WS/22/052.
During the Senior Planning Officer’s
presentation to the meeting he drew
attention to Paragraph 23 of the report and explained that the
applicant had 7 other sites within Suffolk and Essex, and not 10 as
inaccurately referenced in the papers.
Speakers: Newmarket Town Council spoke against
the application
Amanda Usher (agent) spoke in support of the application
(A representative from Newmarket Town Council did not attend to
personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic
Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on the Town
Council’s behalf.)
Following some questions and comments raised
during the debate, the Service Manager (Planning –
Development) reminded the Committee that the licensing process was
entirely separate to the Development Control Committee’s role
in determining planning applications. Questions of ethics and
morals relating to gambling were also not a material planning
consideration.
Councillor Roger Dicker made reference to the need for high street premises
to diversify in the current economic climate and proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This
was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull.
Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting
for the motion and 4 abstentions, 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 The opening hours of
the premises shall be restricted to the following
hours:
Between 08:00 and 23:00 Monday to Thursday, 08:00 and 02:00 on
Fridays and
Saturdays and 08:00 to 23:00 on Sundays and Bank
Holidays.
|
310. |
Planning Application DC/22/1439/TPO - 66 Woodlands Way, Mildenhall (Report No: DEV/WS/22/053) PDF 139 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/053
Tree preservation order TPO 097 (1969) - one
Sweet Chestnut (indicated on plan, within area A1 on order)
fell
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Tree preservation
order TPO 097 (1969) - one Sweet Chestnut (indicated on plan,
within area A1 on order) fell
This application was referred
to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel.
The application came before the
Panel as the Officers’ recommendation of approval, subject to
conditions as set out in Paragraph 20 of Report No DEV/WS/22/053,
was contrary to the Town Council’s objection to the
application.
As part of her presentation to
the meeting the Planning Assistant showed videos of the site by way
of a virtual ‘site visit’.
Speaker: Charlotte Nivet (applicant) spoke in support of the
application
Councillor Andy Neal spoke
against the application and was of the view that the tree should
remain in situ and be regularly managed.
In response to a question from
Councillor James Lay, the Service Manager (Planning –
Development) explained that, although irrelevant to the
consideration of this application, whilst there was a vacancy for a
West Suffolk Tree Officer the work was being carried out by
consultants at present. In any event, this application had been
considered by one of the Council’s Trees Officers.
Councillor David Nettleton
spoke in support of the application in view of a condition being
that the tree was replaced with a recommended species. Accordingly,
he proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer
recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor David
Palmer.
Upon being put to the vote and
with 11 voting for the motion, 1 against and with 1 abstention it
was resolved that
Decision
Consent be GRANTED subject to the following
conditions:
1.
The authorised works shall be carried out to the latest
arboricultural standards (ref BS
3998:2010 Tree Works: recommendations).
2.
The works which are the subject of this consent shall be carried
out within two years of the date of the decision notice.
3.
The 1 No. Sweet Chestnut tree, the removal of which is authorised
by this consent, shall be replaced by 1 No. standard tree of 8-10cm
girth, planted anywhere within the bounds of the applicant’s
property, from the following list: Liquidambar styraciflua; Acer
campestre; Prunus avium; Acer
buergerianum; Davidia involucrate; or Amelanchier arborea
‘Robin Hill’; within 6 months of the date on which
felling is commenced or during the same planting season within
which that felling takes place (whichever shall be the sooner) and
the Local Planning Authority shall be advised in writing that the
replanting has been carried out. If any replacement tree is
removed, becomes severely damaged or becomes seriously diseased it
shall be replaced with a tree of similar size and species unless
the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any
variation.
|
311. |
Planning Application DC/22/1631/FUL - Abbotts House, 2 Newmarket Road, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/22/054) PDF 162 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/054
Planning application - a. single storey rear
extension (demolition of existing conservatory) b. external wall
insulation c. re roofing d. PV solar panels to south and east
elevation e. free-standing pergola in rear garden
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning application
- a. single storey rear extension (demolition of existing
conservatory) b. external wall insulation c. re roofing d. PV solar
panels to south and east elevation e. free-standing pergola in rear
garden
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee as the applicant is West Suffolk
Council.
The Town Council had raised no objections to
the application and Officers were recommending that it be approved,
subject to conditions.
Councillor John Burns proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This
was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.
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.
|
|
In this section
|