Agenda and minutes
Venue: Conference Chamber, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds IP33 3YU
Contact: Helen Hardinge: Democratic Services Officer
Email: democratic.services@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Note: Bespoke speaking arrangements have been agreed for the application in Part A of the agenda, please view the relevant Public Speaking Protocol attached below for more information / The link to view the livestream broadcast of the meeting is shown in 'Media' below. Please ensure the device in which you wish to view the broadcast allows access to YouTube. The livestream will commence from 10am on Wednesday 6 March 2024
Media
Items
No. |
Item |
417. |
Chair's Announcements
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed all present and highlighted
that the meeting would be operated in two parts. The Committee was
also advised of the extended speaking arrangements which had been
agreed for the application in Part A of the meeting.
All attendees were informed that the meeting
was to be livestreamed, however, neither the public gallery or the
registered speakers would be seen visually.
Lastly, the Chair reminded Members of the
operation of the ‘queue to speak’ function using the
microphones.
|
418. |
Apologies for absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillors Mick Bradshaw and Rachel Hood.
|
419. |
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 David Taylor substituting for
Councillor Mick Bradshaw
|
420. |
Minutes PDF 255 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
7 February 2024 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February
2024 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the
Chair.
|
421. |
Declarations of interest
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.
Minutes:
Members’ declarations of interest are
recorded under the item to which the declaration relates.
|
422. |
Planning Application DC/22/2190/HYB - Land at Shepherds Grove, Bury Road, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/24/008) PDF 500 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/24/008
Hybrid planning application - (A)
(i) Full application on 27.56 ha of the
site for the storage, distribution and processing of accident
damaged and non-damaged motor vehicles, together with the
construction of ancillary buildings (B8 Use Class), perimeter
fencing and landscaping works (ii) Full application for a new
roundabout/road and additional landscaping on circa 5.37 ha of the
application site - (B) (i) Outline
application for the construction of buildings for
commercial/roadside uses (Use Classes B2, B8, C1, E (excluding
E(a)), and a hot food takeaway and pub/restaurant) on circa 2.7 ha
of the application site (Plots A, B and C) with all matters
reserved except for access (ii) Outline application for the
construction of building(s) for general employment uses (Use
Classes B2, B8 and E(g)) on circa 1.37ha of the application site
(Plot D) with all matters reserved except for access
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Andrew
Smith declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that
he had attended Bardwell Parish Council's meeting when the Parish
Council considered the application. However, he stressed that he
did not take part in the discussion or voting on the item at the
Parish Council and therefore had an open mind.
Similarly,
Councillor Jim Thorndyke also declared, in the interests of
openness and transparency, that he had attended Stanton Parish
Council’s meetings when the Parish 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.)
Hybrid planning
application - (A) (i) Full application
on 27.56 ha of the site for the storage, distribution and
processing of accident damaged and non-damaged motor vehicles,
together with the construction of ancillary buildings (B8 Use
Class), perimeter fencing and landscaping works (ii) Full
application for a new roundabout/road and additional landscaping on
circa 5.37 ha of the application site - (B) (i) Outline application for the construction of
buildings for commercial/roadside uses (Use Classes B2, B8, C1, E
(excluding E(a)), and a hot food takeaway and pub/restaurant) on
circa 2.7 ha of the application site (Plots A, B and C) with all
matters reserved except for access (ii) Outline application for the
construction of building(s) for general employment uses (Use
Classes B2, B8 and E(g)) on circa 1.37ha of the application site
(Plot D) with all matters reserved except for access
The application was referred to Development
Control Committee as the proposed development was of a substantial
scale and formed part of a strategic employment allocation.
Whilst Stanton Parish Council supported the
application Hepworth, Barningham,
Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe, Coney Weston, Bardwell, and
Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve
Parish Councils all objected.
A significant number of residents and Parish
Councils outside of the West Suffolk District also raised
objections to the application.
Officers were recommending that the
application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in full
in the supplementary ‘late papers’ which were issued
after publication of the agenda.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
The Principal Planning Officer informed
Members that he had received one late representation that morning
from a resident of Walsham le Willows which raised concerns in
relation to the application, principally in respect of the impact
on the highway network.
The Committee was also advised of two
typographical errors within Report No DEV/WS/24/008:
Paragraph 189 - For the PM peak time,
271 vehicles are predicted to arrive depart, and 56
vehicles depart arrive; and
Paragraph 263 - the
proposal and its benefits (set out at par. 47 Paragraph
153 of this report).
(Councillor Roger
Dicker joined the meeting at 10.32am during the Case
Officer’s presentation to the meeting, following his arrival
the Lawyer advising the meeting informed all present that due to
his late arrival Councillor Dicker would not take part in the
voting on the application.)
Speakers: Nigel Burrows ...
view the full minutes text for item 422.
|
423. |
Planning Application DC/22/1887/FUL - Land off The Street, Fornham All Saints (Report No: DEV/WS/24/009) PDF 451 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/24/009
Planning application - create access into All
Saints Golf and Country Club
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Marilyn
Sayer declared a non-registrable interest as she had previously
commented on this application in her capacity as a local resident
living in the vicinity of the proposed development. She left the
meeting and therefore did not take part in the debate or vote on
the item.)
Planning application
– create access into All Saints Golf and Country Club
This application was originally
referred to the Development Control Committee on 7 February 2024,
following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of the
objections from the Parish Council, Ward Member and the level of
public interest in the proposed development.
At the February Committee
Members resolved to defer consideration of the application in order
allow Members the opportunity of visiting the site. A Member site
visit was subsequently held on 4 March 2024.
During the February meeting
Members commented upon the impact of the development on the
character and appearance of the area and the Conservation Area and
also raised concerns over highway safety, frequency of maintenance
vehicles and the impact upon the amenity of Acer Lodge.
Members were informed that
since the last meeting Officers had received additional
representations from members of the public who objected to the
application, some of whom raised queries of accuracy relating to
the application which the Planning Officer addressed in his
presentation to the Committee.
The Planning Officer also
advised Members that the applicant had submitted an explanatory
supporting note, however, this had not been issued as an agenda
paper as it was received after the deadline for the issue of
supplementary ‘late papers’.
Officers were continuing to
recommend that the application be approved, subject to conditions
as set out in Paragraph 61 of Report No DEV/WS/24/009.
Speakers: Jane Stewart
(neighbouring objector on behalf of herself and fellow neighbour
Zoe West) spoke against the application
Councillor Martin Loveridge (Fornham
All Saints Parish Council) spoke against the application
Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger (Ward Member: The Fornhams & Great Barton) spoke against the
application
Councillor Ian Houlder stated
that he considered the impact on the highway from the proposal to
be minimal. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be
approved, as per the Officer recommendation, however the motion
failed to achieve a seconder.
Questions were posed during the
debate as to whether condition No 4, which set to restrict the use
of the access for maintenance purposes, could be extended to
specify operation at certain times of the day, in order to minimise
the impact on the highway at peak traffic times.
The Service Manager (Planning
– Development) explained that it would not be reasonable to
do so because the Highways Authority had not made this
stipulation.
Councillor Jon London
referenced condition No 7 and the reference therein to
“No other part of the
development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the new
access has been laid out and completed”
and sought clarification on what this referred
to.
The Service Manager (Planning
– Development) advised that Officers were simply seeking to
ensure that ...
view the full minutes text for item 423.
|
424. |
Planning Application DC/22/0850/FUL - Brandon Remembrance Recreation Field, Skate Park, Victoria Avenue, Brandon (Report No: DEV/WS/24/010) PDF 363 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/24/010
Planning application - installation of
reinforced concrete skate park
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Phil
Wittam declared a non-registrable interest as he had voted in
favour of this application in his capacity as a Brandon Town
Councillor when the Town Council considered the application. He
left the meeting and therefore did not take part in the debate or
vote on the item.)
Planning application
- installation of reinforced concrete skate park
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration at the
Delegation Panel.
Brandon Town Council supported the application
which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation for
refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 54 of Report No
DEV/WS/24/010.
Members were advised that since publication of
the agenda Brandon Town Council had submitted a further
representation reiterating their support for the proposal.
In response to questions posed during the
debate, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) assured
the Committee that Officers had sought to work with the applicant
over some considerable time, mindful of the fact that the
application was initially considered by the Delegation Panel in
early 2023.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) also highlighted the duty of the Planning Authority to
be able to fully establish the impact of any development, hence the
policy requirements for various tests and assessments.
Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones voiced
support for the proposal in principle, but also remarked on those
aspects of due diligence the applicant needed to address.
Accordingly, she proposed that the application be refused, as per
the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor
Carol Bull.
Upon being put to the vote and 7 voting for
the motion, 4 against and with 2 abstentions it was resolved
that
Decision
Planning permission be REFUSED for the
following reasons:
- Paragraph 140 of the revised NPPF (2023) states
“Local planning authorities should ensure that
relevant planning conditions refer to clear and accurate plans and
drawings which provide visual clarity about the design of the
development and are clear about the approved use of materials where
appropriate.”
The red
line application site plan attributed to the development does not
encompass the entire development proposed, excluding mounding and
pedestrian access to the site or connecting to a highway. There are
therefore technical inaccuracies attributed to the presented
drawings, which to give weight to in the planning process would be
contrary to paragraph 140 of the NPPF.
- The proposed site is within Flood Zone 2, whereupon the site is
“vulnerable" to flooding. The site is also at risk from
surface water flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment which has been
submitted does not adequately take into account the context of the
site and increased risks of flooding as a result of the proposed
development, not outlining suitable mitigation measures to reduce
the impacts of flooding on the proposed development; or considering
safe access and egress from the proposed development in a flood
event. Furthermore, no Exception or Sequential tests have been
submitted. In the absence of an adequate Flood Risk Assessment, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not
...
view the full minutes text for item 424.
|
425. |
Planning Application DC/23/1938/VAR - 21 Fordham Place, Ixworth (Report No: DEV/WS/24/011) PDF 284 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/24/011
Planning application - variation of condition
5 of DC/20/1784/HH to allow for different design of privacy screen
for first floor extension above existing two bay garage and
external staircase with balcony to form annexe
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning application
- variation of condition 5 of DC/20/1784/HH to allow for different
design of privacy screen for first floor extension above existing
two bay garage and external staircase with balcony to form
annexe
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel.
Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council
supported the application, which was contrary to the Officer
recommendation of refusal for the reason set out in Paragraph 47 of
Report No DEV/WS/24/011.
The Committee was advised that planning
permission was granted under DC/20/1784/HH in 2021 for a
first-floor extension above an existing two bay garage, along with
an external staircase with balcony to form an annexe. A privacy
screen was added during the course of that application to ensure
that the effects of overlooking from the raised external staircase
and balcony were acceptable given the proximity of this site to
neighbouring dwellings.
The first-floor annexe and associated
staircase and balcony had been built but the privacy screening had
not yet been installed.
A previous Variation of Condition application
(DC/23/1117/VAR) which sought amendments to the position, form, and
materials of the approved privacy screening was refused on 27
October 2023. The application now being considered proposed an
alternative variation to the privacy screen.
Since publication of the agenda Officers were
made aware that the applicants had contacted all Members of the
Committee directly and had referenced the Human Rights Act. The
Senior Planning Officer therefore responded to this as part of her
presentation and drew attention to the relevant parts of
legislation.
Videos of the site were also shown to
Members.
Speakers: Councillor Ben Lord (Ixworth &
Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council) spoke in support of the
application
Alf & Janice Percival (applicants) spoke in support of the
application by way of a pre-recorded audio file which the
Democratic Services Officer played to the meeting
Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones sought
clarification as to which properties would be able to see the
proposed privacy screen. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that
it was not visible by any other properties aside from Nos 7a and 8
Gough Place.
During the debate a number of Members remarked
on the comments made by the applicant in relation to the delay in
occupation of the annexe due to the referral of the application to
Committee, and questioned why the initial privacy screen, for which
permission had been granted in 2021, had not been implemented.
In response, the Service Manager (Planning
– Development) referred Members to the applicant’s
reasoning for not implementing the approved screen contained in the
report but also advised Members to consider the acceptability of
the proposals before them.
Councillor Sara Mildmay-White proposed that
the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and
this was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.
Upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting
for the motion, 4 against and with 2 abstentions it was resolved
that
Decision
Planning permission be REFUSED for the
following reason:
1.
Policy DM2 and DM24 requires development respects
...
view the full minutes text for item 425.
|
426. |
Planning Application DC/22/1193/RM - Land South of Rougham Hill, Rougham Hill, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/24/012) PDF 421 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/24/012
Reserved matters application - submission of
details under DC/15/2483/OUT - means of appearance, landscaping,
layout and scale for the construction of 363 dwellings in total
(including 109 affordable homes) and associated car parking; access
roads; playing pitch; landscaping; open space; play areas;
sustainable urban drainage (SuDS) and
infrastructure
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Reserved matters
application - submission of details under DC/15/2483/OUT - means of
appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of
363 dwellings in total (including 109 affordable homes) and
associated car parking; access roads; playing pitch; landscaping;
open space; play areas; sustainable urban drainage (SuDS) and infrastructure
This planning application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel.
Bury St Edmunds Town Council objected to the
proposal, which was in conflict with the
Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions
as set out in the supplementary ‘late papers’ issued
after publication of the agenda, and inclusive of minor amendments
to drawing/map numbers and one additional condition to cover the
submission of samples of external facing and roofing materials to
the Planning Authority.
Speaker: Neil Hall (agent) spoke in
support of the application
During the debate the Committee posed
a number of questions which the
Principal Planning Officer responded to as follows:
Timeline of delivery of open space –
further work on the precise timeline was still to be undertaken,
but Officers and the applicant were very mindful of future
occupants’ desire for the open space to be ready as soon as possible;
Parking standards – Members were assured
that standards were met and even exceeded in some areas of the
development;
Room sizes – the Principal Planning
Officer confirmed that all the affordable housing within the scheme
met the standards and even exceeded them in some dwellings;
Electric vehicle charging points – this
had been agreed as part of the outline application; and
Section 106 Agreement – this had been
agreed following outline approval and prior to the Reserved Matters
application being submitted.
A number of Members
referenced the management of the open space to be provided.
Councillor Jon London 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.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) could not confirm whether the management arrangements
for open space had been secured through the outline consent and
undertook to update the Chair and Vice Chairs accordingly once this
information was ascertained.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) also reminded the Committee that the Planning
Authority could not dictate whether open space was adopted by the
Council or by other means such as a management company. it could
only seek to ensure that measures were put in place to adequately
manage such areas in the future.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) also reminded the Committee that the Planning
Authority could not determine what was the most appropriate way to
manage open space, it could only seek to ensure that some form of
management was put in place.
Councillor Mike Chester proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This
was duly seconded by Councillor Phil Wittam.
Upon being put to the vote and with
...
view the full minutes text for item 426.
|
427. |
Planning Application DC/23/2040/FUL - 30-38 High Street, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/WS/24/014) PDF 167 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/24/013
Planning application - change of use from
Class E (c)(i) (professional services)
to Class F.1(a) for the provision of education to part of the
ground floor and part of the second floor
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning application
- change of use from Class E (c)(i)
(professional services) to Class F.1(a) for the provision of
education to part of the ground floor and part of the second
floor
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee because it was on land owned by West
Suffolk Council.
Haverhill Town Council had offered support to
the application which was recommended for approval, subject to
conditions as set out in Paragraph 31 of Report No
DEV/WS/24/014.
The Principal Planning Officer advised Members
that since the agenda was published one representation had been
received from Haverhill Town Councillor John Burns who made
comments relating to noise, opening hours, parking, residential
amenity and traffic.
The Committee was assured that Suffolk County
Council Highways had not raised concerns over the level of parking
proposed in view of the town centre location of the application
site and the close proximity to public car parks. Officers also
responded to the other points made.
Councillors David Smith and Lora-Jane
Miller-Jones, who both represented Haverhill wards, confirmed that
they supported the application.
Councillor Phil Wittam proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and this
was duly seconded by Councillor Jon London.
Upon being put to the vote and with the vote
being unanimous, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED subject
to:
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 Any
construction / conversion / strip-out works and ancillary
activities in connection with the change of use shall only be
carried out between the hours of:
08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays
08:00 to 13.00 Saturdays
And at no times during Sundays or Bank / Public Holidays without
the prior written consent of the Local Planning
Authority.
4 The hours of
opening of the education facility hereby approved shall be
restricted to only between the following hours:
Monday to Friday from 07:30 to 21:30
Saturday from 07:30 to 17:00
Sundays or Bank / Public Holidays from 09:00 to 14:00
5 No external
mechanical plant / equipment and electrical extract fans,
ventilation grilles, security lights, alarms, cameras, and external
plumbing, including soil and vent pipe shall be provided on the
exterior of the building until details of their location, size,
colour and finish have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
6. The six Sheffield hoop
bike stands located at the Helions
reception shall be retained in accordance with the approved details
and continue to be available for use unless the prior written
consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any
variation to the approved details.
|
|
In this section
|