Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 5 April 2023, 10.00 am

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Conference Room, Mildenhall Hub, Sheldrick Way, Mildenhall, IP28 7JX

Contact: Helen Hardinge: Democratic Services Officer  Email: democratic.services@westsuffolk.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

332.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carol Bull and David Palmer.

333.

Substitutes

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

Minutes:

The following substitution was declared:

 

Councillor Nick Clarke substituting for Councillor David Palmer.

334.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 240 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2023 (copy attached).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2023 were confirmed as a correct record, with 14 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, and were signed by the Chair.

335.

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.

336.

Planning Application DC/22/2107/FUL - The New Croft, Chalkstone Way, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/WS/23/008) pdf icon PDF 339 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/23/008

 

Planning application – creation of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with landscape bund, perimeter fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights, access footpath with fence and bollard lighting, acoustic fence and footpath link to north-west

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.)

 

Planning application – creation of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with landscape bund, perimeter fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights, access footpath with fence and bollard lighting, acoustic fence and footpath link to north-west

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because it was on land owned by West Suffolk Council.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting and the Officer also showed a video of the site during her presentation.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 94 of Report No DEV/WS/23/008.

 

The Committee was advised that the application had been subject to a full re-consultation as the red line was amended to include a footpath to the north-west which provided a link to the Samuel Ward Academy car park.

 

Speakers:    Mr and Mrs Gant (neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

                   (Neither Mr or Mrs Gant were in attendance to personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on their behalf.)

                   Councillor John Burns (Ward Member: Haverhill East) spoke on the application

                   Peter Betts (Haverhill Community Sports Association - applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

During the debate a number of Members commended the use of the neighbouring car park at Samuel Ward Academy (outside of school hours) as an overflow car park.

 

Some questions were posed in respect of the hours of operation. Attention was drawn to Paragraph 67 of the report, which explained that Public Health and Housing had recommended that the hours proposed by the applicant should be reduced slightly to remove noise impacts between 08.00- 09.00hrs and 21.00-22.00hrs. Accordingly, the operating hours set out in the conditions (No 16) aligned with that proposed by Public Health and Housing.

 

Discussion also took place on the no whistles after 7pm policy outlined in condition No 17. Members were advised that this would mainly affect evening training sessions as the majority of matches were held earlier in the day.

 

Councillor John Burns proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

 

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       The strategy for the disposal of surface water (dated 12th January 2023, ref: SIS028-09-00) and the Flood Risk Assessment (dated 13th  ...  view the full minutes text for item 336.

337.

Planning Application DC/22/2034/FUL - Porters Farm, Queens Lane, Chedburgh (Report No: DEV/WS/23/009) pdf icon PDF 343 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/23/009

 

Planning application - change of use of land to well-being centre comprising of a. central hub, b. therapy building, c. pets as therapy building, d. replacement storage building and animal enclosure e. installation of four camping domes f. remodelled access, parking and associated works g. replacement garage

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning application - change of use of land to well-being centre comprising of a. central hub, b. therapy building, c. pets as therapy building, d. replacement storage building and animal enclosure e. installation of four camping domes f. remodelled access, parking and associated works g. replacement garage

 

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee by the Delegation Panel following a call-in request by Councillor Mike Chester (Ward Member for Chedburgh and Chevington).

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

 

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 84 of Report No DEV/WS/23/009.

 

Speakers:    Winifred Evans (neighbouring objector on behalf of herself and other neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

                   David and Karen Sturgeon & William, Neil and Jean Milne (neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

                   (Neither the Sturgeons or the Milnes were in attendance to personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out joint a pre-prepared statement on their behalf.)

                   Matt Plummer (architect) and Jon Cardy (applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

During the debate a number of Members commended the aims of the scheme and recognised the real need for mental health support services such as those proposed.

 

Some of the Councillors that attended the site visit also remarked on the way in which the proposal would benefit the site visually from its current condition.

 

However, concerns were also raised in respect of the loss of trees proposed, the location (some of which is outside the settlement boundary) and the practicalities of the scheme in relation to waste removal, staffing and the number of individuals who would be on the site at any one time.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to questions/comments in connection with the following topics:

Policy – DM5 and DM34 permitted development such as that proposed outside of the settlement boundary;

Animals – whilst not a Material Planning Consideration, it was confirmed that use of the animals on site in the proposed facility would require a licence from the Licensing Authority. Irrespective of the outcome of the application the existing animals would remain on site and if granted there was no intention to increase the number of animals housed;

Refuse – the Council’s waste team had been consulted and they had not raised objection to the proposal;

Listed Building – the proposed layout gave three distinct areas on the site with various areas of screening. Due to the relative lack of intervisibility the Council’s Conservation Officer had therefore not raised concerns in respect of the Listed Building’s setting;

Trees – a condition had been proposed for landscaping which included replacement trees, however, those seeking removal were not good quality examples;

Staffing – the facility was mainly to be operated by the two applicants, with one or two specialists being utilised where required, together with potentially one or two other part-time supplementary staff members for services such as housekeeping; and

Surfacing – a condition had been included for hard surfacing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 337.

338.

Planning Application DC/22/1378/FUL - All Saints Hotel, The Street, Fornham St Genevieve (Report No: DEV/WS/23/010) pdf icon PDF 392 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/23/010

 

Planning application - outdoor gymnasium including open sided exercise shelter, moveable exercise equipment and equipment storage container

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning application - outdoor gymnasium including open sided exercise shelter, moveable exercise equipment and equipment storage container

 

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 Parish Council had raised objections to the proposal which was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 104 of Report No DEV/WS/23/010 together with those in the supplementary ‘late papers’ and inclusive of the amendments as advised in the presentation to the meeting.

 

Since publication of the agenda and late papers further representations had been received objecting to the proposal. The content of which was outlined to the Committee alongside visual aids (photographs/maps) to demonstrate the points raised.

 

Members were also informed that an extension to the acoustic fence had been agreed by the applicant in order to further mitigate the impact on neighbouring properties.

 

Lastly, attention was drawn to the comments set out in the late papers from the Place Services Tree Officer and Natural England.

 

Speakers:    Lizzi Flaherty (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

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

                   Caroline Merrett (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger (Ward Member: The Fornhams and Great Barton) spoke against the application and read out a statement on behalf of 19 neighbouring objectors

                   Molly Bedford (Health Club Assistant Manager – Applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

Prior to the Chair opening the debate, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting and reminded Members that the fact the application was retrospective and had been subject to enforcement investigations was not a Material Planning Consideration and the scheme seeking determination was to be judged on its planning merits and against the policies of the development plan and any other material considerations.

 

In response to queries as to whether the existing structure was compliant with building regulations, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this was also not a Material Planning Consideration. Moreover, the structure may not have required building regulations. Members were advised that Officers would raise this with the Council’s Building Control Team directly, however, the Committee needed to be mindful that building control services were also offered by various companies in the private sector. Lastly, it was highlighted that building regulations had a separate enforcement process to that of planning applications.

 

The Committee was informed that Officers would provide a written update to Members outside of the meeting in respect of the discussions held with building control and to provide more detail on the enforcement element connected with the site.

 

Councillor Andy Drummond proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to:

1.   The inappropriate location and the impact on residential amenity;

2.   The significant loss of and potential impact on trees; and

3.   Because he did not believe the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 338.

 

In this section