Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 6 March 2024, 10.00 am

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 icon 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 icon 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 icon 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 icon 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:

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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 icon 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 icon 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 icon 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