Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 7 December 2022, 10.00 am

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 icon 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 icon 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 icon 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 icon 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:

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 icon 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 icon 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:

 

  1. Time limit

The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

  1. 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 icon 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 icon 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 icon 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