Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones.

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

The following substitution was declared:

Councillor Donna Higgins substituting for Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2023 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendments:

363.  Planning Application DC/22/1294/FUL - Land off Compiegne Way,      Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/23/017)

The sentence “the Committee was also displayed visual mock-ups” be amended to read “the Committee was also shown visual mock-ups”.

364. Planning Application DC/23/0211/FUL - The Packhorse Inn, Bridge Street, Moulton (Report No: DEV/WS/23/018)

The misspelling of “lourve” be corrected to “louvre”.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registerable or non-registrable 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/23/022

Planning application - animal feed mill and associated development including ancillary offices, silos, warehouse, improved access route and parking

(Councillor Diane Hind declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that she had attended Bury St Edmunds Town Council’s

meeting when the Town Council considered the application. However, she

stressed that she would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.

Councillor Donna Higgins also advised, for clarity, that whilst she was also on the Town Council she had not been present when this application was discussed.)

Planning application - animal feed mill and associated development including ancillary offices, silos, warehouse, improved access route and parking

The application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 2 August 2023 as the proposed development was of a substantial scale and on an edge of town location, where it was likely to have significant impact on the landscape and character of the area. 

Bury St Edmunds Town Council objected to the application. A Member site visit was held prior to the August Committee.

At the August meeting Members resolved that they were minded to grant the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to the local and regional economic benefits that would be brought about by the scheme which outweighed the harm to the countryside landscape.

Accordingly, the Decision Making Protocol was invoked, requiring a risk assessment to be produced which set out the potential risks that might arise should planning permission be approved contrary to Officer recommendation.

The preparation of a risk assessment report also enabled Officers to seek a further response from the Council’s Landscape Consultant in respect of mitigation, to produce a list of proposed conditions, and to confirm the views of the application site from the Abbey Gardens (as queried during the debate on the application by Members in August).

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused, for the reason set out in Paragraph 25 of Report No DEV/WS/23/022.

Reference was made to a letter sent by the applicants to all Members of the Development Control Committee following the August meeting. The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised in the letter within his presentation.

The Principal Planning Officer also drew attention to correspondence he had received from Eastgate Community Association who raised queries as to whether the conveyor system within the proposed feed mill would generate noise audible in the surrounding area. In response the Officer highlighted the conditions included in order to control any noise impact from the scheme.

Speakers:    Sarah Broughton (objector) spoke against the application

(The Chair explained that whilst Councillor Broughton was a West Suffolk District Councillor she was speaking on the application in a personal capacity.)

Danny Johnson (applicant) spoke in support of the application

During the ensuing debate, a number of Members again remarked on the historic and economic importance of British Sugar to the local area.

Some of the Committee also argued that the existing sugar beet factory did not impact on the tourism brought to the region and by definition they did not believe the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 372.

Report No: DEV/WS/23/023

Planning application - change of use of existing residential swimming pool to be used by swim school (sui generis)

(Councillor Rachel Hood declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this item and advised that as she had made a personal representation in respect of the application she had sought the Monitoring Officer's advice and would be withdrawing from the meeting during the Committee's consideration of the application.)

Planning application - change of use of existing residential swimming pool to be used by swim school (sui generis)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel on 1 August 2023.

Newmarket Town Council objected based on their suggested conditions not being applied to the application.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 46 of Report No DEV/WS/23/023 and inclusive of a further proposed condition outlined in the Principal Planning Officer’s presentation, to require the windows and doors of the swimming pool building to remain shut during use of the pool for lessons.

The Principal Planning Officer also showed videos of the site by way of a virtual site visit and reminded the Committee that whilst the application was retrospective in nature, this was not a Material Planning Consideration. 

Speakers:    Tim Merrell (on behalf of Patricia Merrell, neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Rachel Hood (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Stephen Redhead (applicant) spoke in support of the application

(Whilst Councillor Hood was a West Suffolk District Councillor she was speaking on the application in a personal capacity and, as previously advised to the meeting, she left the room when the public speaking concluded.)

During the debate some Members posed questions in respect of the rules and regulations required to operate a private pool as a commercial venture. The Principal Planning Officer explained that this was not a Material Planning Consideration and did not form part of the application before the Committee.

The Officer also confirmed, in response to further questions, that the application was to be assessed on a permanent basis and it was not considered appropriate to grant a one-year trial permission, as suggested by the Town Council.

Whilst members of the Committee recognised the need for additional swimming lesson capacity in the District, particularly for those with additional needs who may be more suited to a smaller facility, concerns were also raised on the amenity impact of the surrounding residential area, especially at the start/end of the lessons when there was likely to be increased vehicle movements.

Accordingly, Councillor Andy Neal proposed that consideration of the application be deferred in order to allow a Member site visit to take place. 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

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED, in order to allow a Member site visit to take place.

(On conclusion of this item Councillor Rachel Hood rejoined the meeting.)

Report No: DEV/WS/23/024

Planning application - Change of use from residential dwelling (class C3) to a residential children's home (class C2)

(Councillor David Smith declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, 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.)

Planning application - Change of use from residential dwelling (class C3) to a residential children's home (class C2)

This application was considered by the Delegation Panel on 1 August 2023 at the request of the Ward Member, where it was decided that the application should be determined at the Development Control Committee. 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting and as part of her presentation to the Committee the Planning Officer also showed videos of the site.

The Planning Officer also advised Members that one further neighbour objection had been received since publication of the agenda; which largely reiterated the points/comments raised in previous representations and summarised in the report.

Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in Paragraph 45 of Report No DEV/WS/23/024 and inclusive of one further suggested condition in respect of the details of the ground works required to facilitate the proposed parking areas.

Speaker:      Paddy Capell (neighbouring resident objector) spoke against the application

                   (Ms Capell was not present at the meeting in order to address the Committee, instead the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on her behalf)

In response to comments made by Members, particularly in respect of the parking provision proposed as part of the scheme, the Chair reminded the Committee that they were to determine the application before them and not seek to “redesign” the proposal.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) also highlighted that Suffolk County Council as the Highways Authority were content with the parking as proposed in the plans.

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

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

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED 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.

2. Compliance with 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. Parking and manoeuvring

The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on the proposed site plan, submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 12 July 2023 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.

4. Cycle storage

Prior to the first use of the dwelling as a children’s home, details of the areas to be provided for the secure, covered and lit cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 374.

Report No: DEV/WS/23/025

Planning application - change of use from residential (C3) to residential children's home (C2)

(Councillor David Smith declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, 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.)

Planning application - change of use from residential (C3) to residential children's home (C2)

This application was considered by the Delegation Panel on 1 August 2023 at the request of the Ward Councillor, where it was decided that the application should be determined at the Development Control Committee. 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting and as part of her presentation to the Committee the Planning Officer also showed videos of the site.

The Planning Officer also advised Members that one further neighbour objection had been received since publication of the agenda; which largely reiterated the points/comments raised in previous representations and summarised in the report.

Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in Paragraph 38 of Report No DEV/WS/23/025.

Speaker:      John Edwards (neighbouring resident objector, speaking on behalf of himself and other fellow residents in Tasman Road) spoke against the application

Robert Smith (neighbouring resident objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Tony Brown (Ward Member: Haverhill South East) spoke against the application

                   (Mr Smith was not present at the meeting in order to address the Committee, instead the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on his behalf)

Considerable discussion took place on the application, with a number of Members raising concerns principally in relation to the parking provision and the impact of the scheme on neighbouring amenity; in view of the property being within a relatively small residential cul-de-sac.

Whilst comments were also made on the outside amenity space of the property in question, it was recognised that the premises could be used as a domestic residential property and the residents would have access to the same outside amenity space. It was further appreciated that the outside space could be amended/improved and that did not require planning permission.

A number of questions were posed in relation to safeguarding and the regulations required to operate a residential children’s home.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this was not a Material Planning Consideration and did not form part of the application before the Committee.

Councillor Phil Wittam proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to the Committee’s concerns in relation to parking and the amount of amenity space for the intended residents. This was duly seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked and the motion would be ‘minded to’ and subject to the production of a Risk Assessment for future consideration by the Committee.

This would also enable Officers to seek a further response from the Highways Authority, in relation to the specific concerns raised by Members in relation to vehicle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 375.

Report No: DEV/WS/23/026

Householder planning application - a. first floor side extension b. flat roofs replaced with pitched roofs c. replacement cladding to all elevations c. insert window to rear elevation first floor

Householder planning application - a. first floor side extension b. flat roofs replaced with pitched roofs c. replacement cladding to all elevations c. insert window to rear elevation first floor

This application was considered by the Delegation Panel on 15 July 2023 as the Officer recommendation for refusal was contrary to the Parish Council’s support for the proposal.

In addition, Ward Member Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger requested that the application be bought forward to the Development Control Committee. It was agreed by the Delegation Panel that this application should be referred to Development Control Committee for determination.

Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reason as set out in Paragraph 29 of Report No DEV/WS/23/026.

As part of his presentation to the meeting the Planning Officer provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speaker:      Phil Cobbold (on behalf of the agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Jon London proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as he did not consider the proposal to be visually intrusive/dominant and would not harm the character of the area. This was duly seconded by Councillor Phil Wittam.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked, as the impact on the character of the area was a subjective consideration, and the motion for approval would not be ‘minded to’ and not subject to the production of a Risk Assessment.

Accordingly, the Case Officer then outlined conditions which could be appended to a planning permission.

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

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, subject to the following conditions:

1.   Time Limit – Detailed

The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than three years from the date of this permission.

2.   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, unless otherwise stated.

Report No: DEV/WS/23/027

Planning application - one dwelling

(The Service Manager (Planning Development) informed the meeting that she had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer and in order to avoid the potential perception of conflict/bias she would leave the meeting during the Committee’s consideration of this application.)

Planning application - one dwelling

This application was considered at the Delegation Panel on 18 July 2023 as the Officer recommendation for refusal was contrary to the Parish Council’s support for the proposal.

In addition, Councillor Don Waldron (Ward Member) requested that the application be brought forward to Development Control Committee. It was agreed by the Delegation Panel that this application should be referred to Development Control Committee for determination.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting. Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which were issued after publication of the agenda and which set out the correct site plan and outlined a correction to the measurements referred to in Paragraph 2 of Report No DEV/WS/23/027.

The Committee was advised that planning permission had been originally sought for a larger two-storey dwelling with a pitched roof. The scale of the dwelling had since been reduced and was reflected within the amended proposed site layout, floor plans and elevations.

Officers were recommending that planning permission be refused for the reason set out in Paragraph 50 of the report.

Speakers:    Councillor Don Waldron (Ward Member: The Rows) spoke in support of the application

                   Kevin Watts (agent) spoke in support of the application

Some Members who attended the site visit spoke on their reservations over the size of the proposed dwelling, the small rear garden and its proximity to the neighbouring residences. Whilst the current family ownership of the surrounding properties was noted members of the Committee recognised that this may not always be the case.

In contrast, other Committee members highlighted that properties within large scale major developments were often far more densely populated within a site and located much closer to each other.

Councillor Mick Bradshaw, fellow Ward Member for The Rows, spoke in support of the application which he considered would fit well into the surrounding area and was appropriate for the location. This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder who spoke in support of the design of the proposed dwelling.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked, as the impact on Policies DM2 and DM33 was subjective, and the motion for approval would not be ‘minded to’ and not subject to the production of a Risk Assessment.

Accordingly, it was suggested the Director (Planning and Growth) be given delegated authority to agree final wording of relevant conditions to be appended to a permission, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Committee.

Councillor Donna Higgins advised the meeting that as she had not attended the site visit she would abstain from the vote on this occasion.

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting for the motion, 4 against and with 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 377.

Report No: DEV/WS/23/028

Householder planning application - a. replacement of the existing roof coverings b. replacement of the existing rainwater goods and c. insulating render to the exterior walls

Householder planning application - a. replacement of the existing roof coverings b. replacement of the existing rainwater goods and c. insulating render to the exterior walls

This application was considered by the Delegation Panel on 15 August 2023 as Hopton Parish Council objected to the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval.

The Panel agreed the matter should be referred to Development Control Committee for a decision.

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Planning Officer provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which were issued after publication of the agenda and which set out further supporting information from the applicant.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 24 of Report No DEV/WS/23/028.

Councillor Carol Bull made reference to an omission from the report, in that she as Ward Member for the application attended the Delegation Panel in question and had requested that it be determined by the Development Control Committee.

Speakers:    Councillor Carol Bull (Ward Member: Barningham) spoke on the application

                   Rex Thornborough (applicant) spoke in support of the application

During the debate a number of Members made reference to the modifications that had previously been made to the property such as the solar panels on the outbuildings. The fact that the Council’s Conservation Officer had not objected to the scheme was also remarked upon.

However, other Committee members spoke on the importance of historic thatched properties in the Suffolk landscape and highlighted the fact that the dwelling was a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA).

Councillor Mike Chester proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Diane Hind.

Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting for the motion, 5 against and with 1 abstention 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.