Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mick Bradshaw, Marilyn Sayer and Jim Thorndyke.

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

The following substitutions were declared:

Councillor Peter Armitage substituting for Councillor Marilyn Sayer; and

Councillor Don Waldron substituting for Councillor Jim Thorndyke

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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/23/037

Planning Application - five dwellings (following demolition of existing house)

Planning Application - five dwellings (following demolition of existing house)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the previous applications on the site were refused by the Committee in September 2020 and June 2021.

The most recent application on the site was refused for the following reasons:

-        harm to the Conservation Area;

-        impact on biodiversity; and

-        impact on neighbouring amenity.

The refusal was then appealed by the applicant in March 2022 and the appeal was dismissed by the Inspector in September 2022. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that the development was acceptable in respect of the impact on the Conservation Area, flood risk, highways matters and biodiversity matters.

The reason for dismissing the appeal was solely due to the conflict found with the Development Plan in respect of the impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings to the site, The Old Bakery and Thistledown Cottage.

In response to the comments made by the Inspector the applicant had made amendments to both Plot 1 and Plot 5 in order to address the concerns.

Withersfield Parish Council objected to the proposal, which Officers were recommending for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 64 of Report No DEV/WS/23/037.

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

Speakers:    Denis Elavia (neighbouring objector, speaking on behalf of himself and other neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Frank Eve (Vice Chair of Withersfield Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Indy Wijenayaka (Ward Member: Withersfield) spoke against the application

                   David Barker (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Smith made reference to Paragraphs 45 and 48 of the report which outlined the changes that had been made to Plots 1 and 5. He raised concerns that the amendments were marginal, with the siting of the Plot 1 dwelling not having been changed at all.

The concerns with Plot 1 in particular were also echoed by Councillors Carol Bull, Jon London and Lora-Jane Miller-Jones.

Remarks were also made by the Committee on the size of the gardens within the scheme and how these were not in keeping with the garden sizes of the adjacent properties.

In response to comments in relation to the potential award of costs associated with a future appeal, the Chair interjected and reminded that the Committee that was not relevant to the determination of the application before them.

Councillor Ian Houlder drew attention to the detailed conditions set out in the report and moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

A question was asked as to whether the Inspector had visited the site and the Service Manager (Planning – Development) drew attention to the date of the Inspector’s visit which was shown in Working Paper 1.

This then prompted further discussion on the merits of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 399.

Report No: DEV/WS/23/039

Planning application - application to vary conditions 2 (approved plans), 4 (insulation details) and 6 (breeding bitch numbers) of DC/17/1652/FUL for the material change in the use of the land from paddock to the breeding and keeping of dogs comprising the following: (a) 2.1 metre high close boarded timber fence and concrete post; (b) car parking area; (c) 2no. dog kennels and (d) 1no. stable block as amended by plans received 15 November 2023

(The Chair agreed to bring this item forward on the agenda, in order to allow additional time in which for one of the registered speakers to arrive for the Newmarket application.)

Planning application - application to vary conditions 2 (approved plans), 4 (insulation details) and 6 (breeding bitch numbers) of DC/17/1652/FUL for the material change in the use of the land from paddock to the breeding and keeping of dogs comprising the following: (a) 2.1 metre high close boarded timber fence and concrete post; (b) car parking area; (c) 2no. dog kennels and (d) 1no. stable block as amended by plans received 15 November 2023

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Stanton Parish Council objected to the application, which was contrary to the Officer recommendation for approval subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 48 of Report No DEV/WS/23/039.

Members were advised that the application was originally validated as a ‘FULL’ planning application and made available for public viewing. Given the proposed changes were to an existing permission, the application was subsequently changed to a variation of condition ‘VAR’ application. Whilst this was occurring in discussion with the planning agent, the application remained accessible on the West Suffolk Public Access website, with an Officer update document to allow members of the public the opportunity to comment. Once the application type and relevant plans were uploaded and changed, a full 21-day consultation was undertaken.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that planning permission was granted on 29 November 2017 for the change of use of the land from paddock to the breeding and keeping of dogs comprising a 2.1-metre-high close boarded timber fence and concrete post, car parking area, two dog kennels and a stable block. The application before the Committee sought variations to Conditions 2, 4 and 6 of the 2017 permission. The application is partially retrospective.

A supplementary ‘late paper’ was issued following publication of the agenda, which set out an additional neighbour representation.  A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

In conclusion, the Principal Planning Officer asked Members to be mindful that licensing requirements and moral/ethical concerns were not Material Planning Considerations.

Speakers:    Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke against the application

                   Charlie Taylor (applicant) spoke in support of the application

                   (Councillor Thorndyke 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)

Councillor Jon London addressed the meeting and advised those Members with licensing concerns in relation to the application to pass these on to the relevant Council department.

Considerable discussion took place in relation to the retrospective elements of the application and the enforcement history associated with the site, particularly in respect of the soft landscaping and acoustic fence that were required as part of the 2017 permission and was yet to have been delivered.

In response to which the Principal Planning Officer explained that enforcement can take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 400.

Report No: DEV/WS/23/038

Planning application - change of use from agricultural land to public open space and associated works

(Councillor Rachel Hood declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that she had attended Newmarket 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.)

Planning application - change of use from agricultural land to public open space and associated works

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Newmarket Town Council objected to the proposal which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 53 of Report No DEV/WS/23/038 and inclusive of an amendment to Condition No 3 to reflect that amended planting plans had been received since publication of the agenda.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Cathy Whitaker (Clerk to Newmarket Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Richard Gee (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Rachel Hood opened the debate and reiterated Newmarket Town Council’s objections to the application. She raised concerns that the proposal would result in the adjacent development becoming denser and referenced the recent Queensbury Lodge appeal decision in respect of the Devil’s Dyke.

In response, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) clarified matters in respect of the Queensbury Lodge appeal and the Devil’s Dyke and also advised the Committee that the open space proposed in the application was in addition to that which was granted within the development site; and the density and number of dwellings proposed on the outline application site would be unchanged.

Councillor Jon London referenced the need for public open space that was accessible to all in Newmarket and he asked if would be possible to include a clause to enable the management company, who managed the open space, to wind up after a set period and transfer the management of the open space to the Town Council, as previously discussed at the November meeting of the Committee in respect of the Lakenheath application that was considered.

The Chair sought clarification as to what had been agreed in respect of the Lakenheath application in question. The Democratic Services Officer read out the minutes and confirmed that a clause was not added to that planning approval and, instead, it was agreed that Officers would investigate Councillor London’s suggestion on receipt of the landscape management plan (required by condition), which would help inform the matter.

It was therefore suggested that the same approach be adopted in this case.

Accordingly, Councillor Jon London proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and with 2 against, 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 401.