Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Rachel Hood.

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 Charlie Lynch substituting for Councillor Rachel Hood

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2023 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 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/24/001

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

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

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 December 2023 as the previous applications on the site were refused by the Committee in September 2020 and June 2021.

At the December meeting of the Committee, Members resolved to defer consideration of the application in order to allow the Committee the opportunity to visit the site. A Member site visit was therefore held on Tuesday 2 January 2024.

Withersfield Parish Council objected to the proposal, which Officers were continuing to recommend for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 64 of Report No DEV/WS/24/001.

As part of his presentation to the meeting the Principal Planning Officer also provided videos of the site by way of a further 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 Plots 1 and 5 and stated that the Member site visit had reaffirmed his concerns in relation to the proximity of these plots, in particular, to the existing neighbouring premises. He considered the proposal to be overdevelopment and also referenced highway safety concerns. Councillor Smith therefore moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones.

During further discussion other Members made similar comments, with Councillor Sara Mildmay-White highlighting that the separation distance between Plot 1 and the neighbouring premises had simply not been addressed.

Councillor Carol Bull further highlighted the impact the proposed scheme would have on the amenity of the future residents of Plot 1 due to the proximity of that dwelling to the road/access into the development.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting on the motion for refusal. She highlighted that there was no evidence from the Highways Authority, who had been consulted on the proposal, to support a refusal on a highways safety basis and she would therefore recommend that was removed from the reasons for refusal.

In relation to overdevelopment and the overbearing impact on the residential amenity of The Old Bakery and Thistledown Cottage brought about by Plots 1 and 5, in particular, this would relate to policies DM2 and DM22 and would not require the Decision Making Protocol to be invoked.

Furthermore, the proposer and seconder of the motion were asked if they also wished to include the impact on the amenity of the future residents of Plot 1 (due to the proximity of that dwelling to the road/access) as a further reason for refusal, as referenced by Councillor Bull. Councillors Smith and Miller-Jones confirmed that they supported this additional inclusion and the removal of the reference to highway safety.

Accordingly, upon being put to the vote and with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 406.

Report No: DEV/WS/24/002

Planning application - change of use of agricultural land to enclosed field for dog training and exercising and associated access and parking

Planning application - change of use of agricultural land to enclosed field for dog training and exercising and associated access and parking

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

Officers were recommending that the application be refused, for the reason set out in Paragraph 60 of Report No DEV/WS/24/002, which was contrary to the support given by the Parish Council and District Ward Member.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting. As part of her presentation to the meeting the Senior Planning Officer also provided videos of the site by way of a further virtual ‘site visit’.

The Committee was advised that during the course of the application two consultations had taken place with statutory consultees and neighbouring properties due to a number of amendments being received, including alterations to the site layout and the addition of landscaping to the site.

Speakers:    Andrew Fleet (agent) and Tracy Cannam (applicant) jointly spoke in support of the application

During the debate comments were made on the reason for refusal in respect of the impact the proposed scheme would have on the countryside landscape.

A number of Members highlighted that prior to the 1950s/1960s and the introduction of modern farming methods, the landscape would have been very different with frequent visual interruptions such as hedgerows or woodland, and some Members also commented that the landscape impact of the proposal would not be objectionable.

The reintroduction of the native hedging and trees proposed in the application was therefore seen as a real biodiversity benefit by some of the Committee.

Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones made specific reference to the benefits the reintroduction of native hedging could bring about to the owl population. Accordingly, she proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Jon London.

During further discussion questions were posed by the Committee in respect of the hours/days of operation and how usage of the facility was to be managed.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the hours of operation applied for were daylight hours Monday to Sunday, therefore, a condition would be added to the permission, if granted, limiting the use of the site from 8.00am to 8.00pm. Users would pre-book 45-minute slots which allowed for a 15-minute changeover period. Each 45-minute slot was restricted to two owners with a maximum of 6 dogs in total.

This response then promoted further questions in relation to the use of the site during the winter months of the year when there was limited sunlight. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that lighting had not been applied for and would not be able to be installed without approval.

Questions were posed in relation to what height the proposed hedging would be when planted and whether the fencing could be a colour which would blend in with the surroundings until the hedging had become established, in order to soften the addition of the fencing.

Discussion also took place as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 407.

Report No: DEV/WS/24/003

Planning application - one dwelling

(Councillor Roger Dicker declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that he was well acquainted with the applicant as he was a regular customer of the Post Office Councillor Dicker operated. He would therefore refrain from taking part in consideration of the application and the voting thereon.)

Planning application - one dwelling

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

The Parish Council had raised no objection to the scheme. Officers were recommending that it be refused, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 55 of Report No DEV/WS/24/003.

Speaker:      Harry Dibden (architect) spoke in support of the application

Further to discussion by the Committee, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that no ecological assessment or details of biodiversity enhancement had been submitted with this application, likewise no flood risk assessment or drainage strategy had been provided, receipt of this further information may have enabled refusal reasons Nos 4 and 5 to be overcome.

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White supported the Officer’s recommendation and therefore moved that the application be refused. This was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting for the motion, 4 against and with 2 abstentions it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 1       The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires the planning system to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus development in sustainable locations. Policy DM5 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document (Development within the Countryside) provides that areas designated as countryside will be protected from unsustainable development and policy DM27 sets out the strict circumstances where dwellings will be permitted outside of the identified settlement boundaries. The site does not form part of a cluster of 10 or more dwelling. The site is also not a small undeveloped plot or part of an otherwise continuous frontage. The proposal does not meet the provisions of policies DM5 or DM27 and there are no material considerations which outweigh this very significant conflict with the Development Plan. The Local Planning Authority is able to demonstrate an up to date 5-year housing supply and as such, given that the principle of development in this location is not supported, are under no pressure to approve applications for development which are in conflict with the development plan. In addition, the site's location would require future occupiers of the proposed dwelling to travel to access shopping, education, employment, recreation, and social facilities. The majority of these journeys would inevitably, given the rural location, be by private motor vehicle. The proposal for an additional residential dwelling in this countryside location, beyond any defined settlement boundaries therefore represents an unsustainable form of development. Accordingly, the proposal fails to satisfy policies RV1 and RV3 of the Rural Vision, policies CS1 and CS4 of the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy 2010  ...  view the full minutes text for item 408.