Agenda and 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.

The public in attendance were advised that only those registered to speak could verbally address the Committee and that they may only do so under the public speaking part of the meeting. In line with the Council’s Customer Service Standards, all attendees were requested to respect the Committee process and likewise treat staff and Councillors politely and with respect.

Lastly, the Chair reminded Members of the operation of the ‘queue to speak’ function using the microphones.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carol Bull and Marilyn Sayer.

The Chair advised the meeting that Councillor Bull had asked that the Committee was informed that she had been unable to attend as a result of personal circumstances and offered her apologies for not being present to the residents of her Ward.

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 Marilyn Sayer

(Councillor Higgins did not join the meeting until Part B had commenced and was not present for Part A.)

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2024 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2024 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/24/014

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

(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 originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 March 2024 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 had also raised objections to the application.

At the March meeting Members were ‘minded to refuse’ the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, for the following reason:

‘The additional vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development routing through surrounding villages to avoid peak time congestion on the A143 would have a significant harmful impact on the amenity of residents. This harm outweighs the benefits of the proposal.’

Accordingly, the Decision Making Protocol was invoked which required a risk assessment to be produced for further consideration by the Committee and which formed the content of Report No DEV/WS/24/014.

A Member site visit was held prior to the March meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that he had received some late representations from residents since publication of the agenda, one of which was received earlier that morning. He summarised the content to the Committee, all of which raised concerns previously covered in other representations, principally in respect of the impact on the highway network.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 433.

Report No: DEV/WS/24/015

Planning application - one dwelling (following demolition of existing dwelling)

Planning application - one dwelling (following demolition of existing dwelling)

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

Members were advised that during the course of the application two consultations had taken place with statutory consultees and neighbouring properties due to amendments being received, including alterations to the site layout and dwelling design.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that Great Barton Parish Council had originally submitted objections to the planning application, however, following the submission of amended plans the Parish Council had responded with ‘no objection’.

Following publication of the agenda papers the Chair of Great Barton Parish Council had made contact with the Officer and explained that the ‘no objection’ response had been made in error and the Parish Council wished to confirm that they still objected to the application.

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Senior Planning Officer outlined the limited fallback available to the applicant in respect of Permitted Development rights.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting and the Officer also provided videos of the site to the Committee.

Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 73 of Report No DEV/WS/24/015.

Speakers:    Councillor Maggie Dunn (Chair, Great Barton Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Stacey Cobbold (architect) and Ben Hutton (applicant) spoke in support of the application

During the debate some Members of the Committee recognised that the design of a scheme such as this was often subjective, and considered the proposal to be a visual improvement on the existing property on the site.

A number of other Members, however, referenced the noncompliance with policy and the fact that the site fell outside the settlement boundary for Great Barton.

Accordingly, Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Rachel Hood.

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 3 abstentions it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.   The development site sits outside the housing settlement boundary of Great Barton, in land designated as countryside for the purpose of planning, as such, DM5 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document is engaged. Policy DM5 deals with development within the countryside and states that the replacement of an existing dwelling on a one for one basis would be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that the proposed replacement dwelling respects the scale and floor area of the existing dwelling, in accordance with other policies.

The existing dwelling is a modest rural bungalow that measures just 3.6 metres in height and has a floor area of 95m2. The proposed dwelling is two storeys, measuring 5.4 metres in height when measured from the existing ground level and has a floor area of 174.25m2. The proposal would therefore result in a dwelling which has an 83% larger floor area and an additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 434.

Report No: DEV/WS/24/016

Householder planning application - a. first floor side extension b. detached cart lodge

(Councillor Donna Higgins 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.)

Householder planning application - a. first floor side extension b. detached cart lodge

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

The Planning Officer advised the meeting that Bury St Edmunds Town Council had originally objected to the scheme, however, following receipt of amended plans the Town Council withdrew their original objection and recommended approval.

Attention was drawn to Paragraph 11 of Report No DEV/WS/24/016 which referenced neighbour representations made in respect of the application. The occupiers of No. 25 Vinery Road asked that it be clarified to the Committee that, contrary to the report, they did not in fact support the proposal, whilst also not objecting to it.

Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reason set out in the report.

Speaker:      Emma Green (applicant) spoke in support of the application by way of a pre-recorded audio file which was played to the meeting

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White remarked on the prominence of the site in question, which was a corner plot, and raised concerns that the proposal was overdevelopment.

Other Members voiced support for the design, including Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones who did not consider the proposal to be out of keeping with the surrounding area or to cause harm to the host dwelling. Accordingly, she proposed that the planning application be granted, contrary to the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Jon London.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) responded on the reasons cited for refusal and informed the Committee that she would not invoke the Decision Making Protocol and the recommendation would not be ‘minded to’.

The Chair then invited the Planning Officer to verbally outline conditions which could be appended to a permission.

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

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as the application was not considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding area or to cause harm to the host dwelling, 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.

(Councillor Susan Glossop left the meeting at 2.21pm during the Case Officer’s presentation to the meeting on this item.)

Report No: DEV/WS/24/017

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

(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 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 originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 March 2024 because it was on land owned by West Suffolk Council.

Members resolved to grant planning permission in March. However, the application was returned to the Committee due to the applicant requesting an extension to the previously required hours of construction condition limits.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Report No DEV/WS/24/017.

Councillor Jon London proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.

However both Vice Chairs asked that their displeasure at the application having to be brought back to the Committee, for the reason explained, be passed on to the applicant.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and 2 abstentions, 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:

                   07:00 to 21:30 Mondays to Fridays

08:00 to 18:00 Saturdays

10:00 to 16:00 Sundays

At no times during 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.