Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Gathercole and David Roach.

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 Carol Bull substituting for Councillor David Roach.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held 8 January 2020 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2020 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following correction to a typographical error in respect of minute 76:

‘….Dead of Variation….be amended to read…..’Deed of Variation…’

Report No: DEV/WS/20/005

Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under DC/17/1047/OUT appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - (i) up to 79no. dwellings (ii) a new community centre also incorporating a replacement Carousel Children’s Centre (Class D1) with associated parking (iii) open space, landscaping and infrastructure

Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under DC/17/1047/OUT appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - (i) up to 79no. dwellings (ii) a new community centre also incorporating a replacement Carousel Children’s Centre (Class D1) with associated parking (iii) open space, landscaping and infrastructure

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of Members of the former St Edmundsbury Borough Council (SEBC) when the original outline application for up to 79 dwellings was considered in December 2017.

The outline application for this site was previously referred to (the now dissolved) SEBC’s Development Control Committee as one of the applicants was SEBC who was the owner of part of the site. West Suffolk Council was now the owner of part of the site, which had been sold subject to contract.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late paper’, which was issued following the publication of the agenda and reports for this meeting. The late paper contained final comments on the application from Suffolk County Council’s (SCC) Highways and from SCC’s Flood and Water Management teams, which were duly noted by the Committee. The full wording for the proposed conditions were also set out.

The Principal Planning Officer updated the Committee with additional information that had been received following the publication of the report and late paper, that:

• Further to paragraph 25 of the report, which addressed the housing tenure mix, the Strategic Housing team had now confirmed the submitted plans did adequately show that two bed/three person and three bed/four person dwellings could adequately accommodate growth in the form of additional person occupancy.

• An additional pre-occupation condition had been proposed in connection with the management and maintenance of non-adopted roads, as follows:

‘Before the occupation of any dwelling, full details of the future management and maintenance of the non-adopted estate roads for the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The roads shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the agreed details for the lifetime of the development.’

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and for the benefit of the occupiers of the dwellings.’

• SCC’s Flood and Water Management team had stated that the proposed drainage was satisfactory, but the landscaping and proximity to the SUDS features were still to be agreed. This was capable of being dealt with in compliance with pre-commencement conditions attached to the outline permission.

Speaker:      Kate Wood (agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Committee noted that SCC Highways would adopt the junctions and the first section of the entrance road to the estate; however, some concern was expressed that some of the roads within the estate would not be adopted and that these would be managed by a private management company. Some Members were concerned whether these would be adequately maintained and to an acceptable standard in years to come. In response, Members were informed that the freehold owners within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/006

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) – up to 155no. dwellings, associated infrastructure and open space

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access to be considered) – up to 155no. dwellings, associated infrastructure and open space

This application, being a proposal for a ‘major’ development, had been referred to the Development Control Committee because Withersfield Parish Council had given support to the proposal contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal.

A briefing note from the applicants, Jaynic Investments LLP, had previously been circulated directly to the Committee. The Principal Planning Officer responded to each of the paragraphs contained in the briefing note in turn, which were duly noted by the Committee.

Speaker:      Paul Sutton (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Before the debate commenced, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) introduced the Service Manager (Economic Development and Business Growth) to the Committee, who was in attendance to respond to any technical questions Members may have on the application regarding employment and economic development matters.

The Committee considered the area in which the development site was located was an extremely important gateway for Haverhill, which had been allocated for employment use and not for residential use. The Council’s relevant planning policies were up to date and Members considered the relevant criteria of those policies had not been met to allow this proposal to continue.

Members considered that the loss of future employment and investment that would support the planned housing growth of some 4,000 homes for the town and the loss of such a strategic employment site was significantly harmful. The Innovation Centre was also likely to be a form of anchor development that was anticipated to attract other interest in the site from companies considering locating or relocating to Haverhill. The proposed residential development would prevent this expansion of the site from happening.

It was moved by Councillor Peter Stevens that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Outline planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.       It is important to ensure that employment land is available in the right locations. Haverhill is one of the fastest growing towns in Suffolk and it is essential that this residential growth is matched by employment opportunities. There is not considered to be an oversupply of employment land in Haverhill. The site is one of five key Enterprise Zone sites that the Cambridge & Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) has designated around Cambridge.  The site also benefits from Employment Zone status until the year 2041. Haverhill Research Park (HRP) is a key employment site within the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor and as this brand becomes established, more opportunities are likely to come forward for HRP.

The benefits of a residential development of up to 155 dwellings are acknowledged (these include affordable housing, public open space, contribution towards housing supply, potential reduction in traffic and job creation and promotion of local economic prosperity). The weight to be attached to these last two benefits is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/007

Planning Application -  Construction of (i) 48no. apartments (ii) communal facilities (iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by plans received 04 November 2019 (increasing number of apartments by 1no.)

Planning Application - Construction of (i) 48no. apartments (ii) communal facilities (iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by plans received 13 December 2019

The application was presented to the Development Control Committee on 4 December 2019.  The Committee had resolved to defer the application in order to allow additional time for Officers to consult with the applicant to establish whether it would be possible to amend the scheme to reduce the height of the building by way of removing the seven units on the top floor, in order to address the concerns regarding overlooking as raised by neighbouring residents. 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the applicant amended the scheme following the December meeting of the Development Control Committee by removing the two units on the fourth floor that faced the rear of properties on Nelson Road. 

A further period of consultation had been carried out on the amended plans and the application was now being brought back to the Development Control Committee for determination.

The Principal Planning Officer reported a typographical error in the report, whereby the words (increasing number of apartments by 1no.) should be removed from the wording within the proposal as this no longer applied.

Speaker:      Rosie Roome (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Members expressed their support for the amended application, commending the applicant for taking into account the previous concerns of the Committee and neighbouring residents.  A particularly acceptable scheme had now been achieved, which was in compliance with relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

It was moved by Councillor Roger Dicker that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the completion of the s106 Agreement and the conditions detailed below.

The s106 Agreement will secure the following financial contributions:

•        Affordable housing contribution of £523,284.20

•        Library contribution of £768.00

•        NHS CCG contribution of £14,504.95

1        The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

2        No above ground development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants within the application site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the fire hydrants have been provided in accordance with the approved scheme. Thereafter the hydrants shall be retained in their approved form unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation.             

 3       Prior to commencement of development, including any works of demolition, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

          i)       The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/008

Planning Application - (i) 6no. dwellings with off-street parking (ii) 1no. A1 (shop) with service yard, car park and associated works (following demolition of existing buildings)

Planning Application - (i) 6no. dwellings with off-street parking (ii) 1no. A1 (shop) with service yard, car park and associated works (following demolition of existing buildings)

(At this point, at 1pm, the meeting resumed to commence Part B of the agenda.)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the application has been called in by the Member for Stanton ward, Councillor Jim Thorndyke. Concerns had been raised by neighbours and Stanton Parish Council with regards to the site layout, impact on neighbour amenity and the street scene, as well as concerns about asbestos present on the site.

The site was an employment site which had a retail element; however, the former business had relocated and the site was now vacant. This application followed an application that had been withdrawn for this site for a residential scheme for up to nine dwellings which could not be supported because it was purely for housing.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late paper’, which was issued following the publication of the agenda and reports for this meeting. The late paper contained additional representations of concern received from the occupants of neighbouring properties.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that two further objections from neighbouring residents had been received since the circulation of the late paper. These contained similar concerns to those previously contained in the report.

Speakers:    Councillor Brian Brown (Stanton Parish Council) spoke in general support of the application; however, the Parish Council considered a principal concern remained in respect of maintaining access to Foundry Cottage.

Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member for Stanton ward) spoke in support of the application; however, Councillor Thorndyke considered some issues needed to be addressed prior to commencement of the development.

Adam Tuck (agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Committee considered this was a sensible mixed development that was an excellent use of the site and would be a beneficial asset to Stanton. Concerns had been expressed by local residents regarding potential adverse effects on amenity and overlooking to neighbouring properties; however, Members felt that adequate controls would be in place to mitigate this.

Members queried the access to the proposed residential parking and car park for the retail unit, and the maintenance of the private right of way to both Foundry House and Foundry Cottage. However, upon further consideration of the element of the report which addressed highway matters, and as the Highways Authority had not objected to the amended scheme (subject to conditions), the Committee considered the proposal to be acceptable. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the maintenance of clear access for Foundry Cottage and Foundry House remained a private matter.

It was moved by Councillor Peter Stevens that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Jim Thorndyke.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/009

Planning Application - (i) Change of use of part of golf course for the siting of 35no. caravan lodge holiday homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction of access roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (as amended by email on 14.01.2019 to omit 2 caravans)

Planning Application - (i) Change of use of part of golf course for the siting of 35no. caravan holiday homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction of access roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (as amended by email on 14.01.2019 to omit 2 caravans)

The application was a re-submission of a recently withdrawn application for Change of Use of two sites on part of a golf course (one in the north and one in the south) for the siting of 70no. caravan holiday homes, with associated works including the creation of a new access from the A1101 and the B1106. This current application related to the southern part of the previous application only.

The application site and large parts of the golf course fell within the parish of Fornham All Saints. The All Saints Hotel and parts of the golf course was within the parish of Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve. Therefore, both Parish Councils had been consulted.

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee because Fornham All Saints Parish Council had made comments in support of the application and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council had objected. One of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great Barton Ward had asked for the application to be considered by the Committee due to the number of representations received and one of the Ward Members of the adjoining Tollgate Ward had objected to the proposal.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the amended application was for 35 caravans and therefore the word ‘lodge’ should be removed from the title of the proposal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Malcolm Johnson (local resident) spoke against the application.

Enid Gathercole (local resident) spoke against the application.

Frank Stennett (local resident) spoke against the application.

Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger (one of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great Barton ward) spoke against the application.

David Harris (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

A detailed discussion was held and the majority of Members expressed several concerns with this application. The Officers had considered that the application accorded with relevant planning policies, particularly Policy DM34 – Tourism Development of the Joint Management Policies Document. This sought to direct larger scale tourism activities and overnight accommodation to the larger urban areas. The policy permitted new tourism facilities, including overnight visitor accommodation such as holiday lodges, static and touring caravans provided that a number of criteria were being satisfied. The policy required proposals to:

a)      be connected to and associated with existing facilities or located at a site that related well to the main urban areas and defined settlements in the area and could be made readily accessible to adequate public transport, cycling and walking links for the benefit of non-car users;

b)      not adversely affect the character, appearance or amenities of the area and the design was to be of a standard acceptable to the Local Planning Authority;

c)       vehicle access and on-site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/010

Planning Application - Temporary construction access off Chalkstone way associated with wider work at Great Wilsey Park

Planning Application - Temporary construction access off Chalkstone Way associated with wider work at Great Wilsey Park

(Councillor John Burns declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he lived within the vicinity of, but not adjacent to, the application site. He remained in the meeting, took part in the debate and the voting on the item thereon.)

The North-East Haverhill Great Wilsey Park site was granted outline planning permission for a development of 2,500 homes and associated development under application DC/15/2151/OUT.

The applicants, Redrow Homes Limited, were looking to deliver the first phases of the development and the access sought in this application was proposed to facilitate the construction work associated with two of the development parcels within those phases. A main compound was proposed at the north of the site, accessed from Haverhill Road, which was approved by the Development Control Committee under application DC/19/0224/FUL.

The application had been submitted at this time to ensure that construction infrastructure was in place ready to support the delivery of the development.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as a result of a call-in by one of the Ward Members for Haverhill East, having considered the context of the strategic nature of the wider site.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that in respect of proposed Condition 2 referred to an incorrect drawing number; however, the drawing itself contained in the report was correct.  The correct drawing number was 183821-002 Rev D.

Speakers:    Councillor John Burns (one of the Ward Members for Haverhill East ward) raised some concerns with the application.

Chris Gatland (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor John Burns raised a number of queries, including technical questions to which the Officers duly responded. He acknowledged that this was only a temporary construction access but wished to clarify a number of issues principally relating to the impact on the existing road infrastructure and to neighbouring residents in the locality of the proposed access route. The Committee found the local knowledge extremely useful in supporting their determination of the application. 

The debate included consideration of attaching a condition to request that when the access was no longer required for the intended purpose, it should be stopped up and the land reinstated. This was agreed.

Having considered the content of the report, including that the Highways Authority had not objected to the application (subject to conditions), the Committee considered that the proposed access from Chalkstone Way would have no significant adverse effect on the operation of the highway or on its physical structure and the non-Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic movements would have no significant adverse effects on residential amenity. Members acknowledged that the routing of HGV construction traffic was to be dealt with separately under a condition attached to the outline permission and therefore, should not be considered as part of this application. 

It was moved by Councillor John Burns that the application be approved,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/011

Planning Application - Conversion of garages and stores to 2no Dwellings

Planning Application - Conversion of garages and stores to 2no dwellings

(At this point, at 3pm, the Chair resumed the meeting.)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel. Herringswell Parish Council had objected to the application.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Liz Wilkinson (resident of Herringswell Manor) spoke against the application.

Richard Winsborough (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Having acknowledged a number of the representations in opposition to the application, some Members questioned whether the garages that were proposed for conversion into residential dwellings were redundant as claimed by the applicant. In addition, some concern was expressed in respect of whether sufficient parking would be provided for those that currently resided at Herringswell Manor and those that would occupy the proposed new dwellings.

Other concerns raised included the justification for the proposed development in the countryside and the potential overlooking to neighbouring residents’ private amenity space.

In response, the Principal Planning Officer stated that the two garage block buildings were not redundant in their entirety. The Officers were satisfied that the first floor level of the garage blocks were completely redundant and were previously used for storage. As a result of the proposed development, there would be a loss of two garages on the ground floor. It was understood that these were currently let out to residents; however, it was within the site operator’s gift to no longer lease them. Whilst the ground floor garages would be lost, sufficient parking spaces would remain on the site as a whole, as explained further below. The buildings were structurally sound and capable of conversion and having considered and discounted other potential uses, together with taking into account other considerations, as set out in the report, the Officers had considered the conversion to residential use was an appropriate use in this case.

In respect of the provision of adequate parking spaces, the Committee noted that Block 1 had two spaces plus one visitor space proposed immediately adjacent to the block. Parking for Block 2 (also two spaces) was further away within an existing area of surplus parking to the east. The proposal would result in the loss of two garage spaces and it was understood that these were currently rented out to residents, some of which were used for storage and some for parking. Any displaced parking as a result of the loss of the two garage spaces would be accommodated within the surplus parking area. The Highways Authority had considered this arrangement to be acceptable.

The report provided details of how the proposal would comply with relevant planning policies applicable to development in the countryside and reference was made to the reasons given by the Planning Inspector following their allowing of an appeal for the change of use of an existing gymnasium facility to residential on the same site, which made further justification for this proposal.

In addition, Officers were satisfied that there would be no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/012

Planning Application - 1no dwelling and cart lodge

Planning Application - 1no dwelling and cart lodge

The application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 8 January 2020 following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Stanton Parish Council supported the application, which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal.

A Member site visit was held prior to the previous meeting on 6 January 2020.

At the meeting on 8 January 2020, Members resolved that they were ‘minded to approve’ the application contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal. Accordingly, the Committee’s Decision Making Protocol was invoked in order for a risk assessment to be produced for Members’ further consideration and as set out in the report before the Committee at this meeting.

On 8 January 2020, the Committee had passed a resolution of ‘minded to approve’ the application as Members considered it to be a sustainable development situated in a sustainable location. It had been highlighted that a ‘cluster’ of dwellings’ was subjective and considered the scheme would marginally contribute to the District’s housing supply and economy.  The Committee felt the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside and would not contravene Joint Management Policies Document Policy DM27, which addressed Housing in the Countryside.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused, for the detailed reason set out in paragraph 14 of the report, which in summary was contrary to the Development Plan.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) reported that paragraph 29 of the Working Paper referred to Hundon; however, this was a typographical error and should refer to Stanton. Members were then informed that following reconsideration of the application and given due consideration to the implications of approving the application as set out in the risk assessment contained in the report, if the Committee were still ‘minded to approve’ the application, the Council as Local Planning Authority would need to advertise the application as a departure from the development plan as required by law. If it was resolved to approve the application, it would be asked that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Committee following the conclusion and outcome of the advertising of the application.

Speaker:      Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member for Stanton) spoke on the application.

Clarification was sought on the requirement to advertise the application. The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that it was not initially anticipated by Officers that the application would need to be advertised. However, in order to meet statutory publicity requirements, if the Committee approved the application, it would need to be advertised locally as a departure from the development plan.

Some clarity was sought on the proposed conditions should the application be approved, including that proposed condition 7 should require an electric charging point to be installed with the capability of providing a minimum of a 7 kilowatt charge.

Whilst the risk assessment had been taken into account, some Members remained consistent with their previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/013

Planning Application - (i) two storey side extension (ii) single storey rear extension to dwelling approved under DC/15/1450/RM

Planning Application - (i) two storey side extension (ii) single storey rear extension to dwelling approved under DC/15/1450/RM

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel. West Row Parish Council had objected to the application.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer reported of a printing error whereby overprinting of text had occurred within the Planning History section of the report and gave a short presentation.

Speaker:      Councillor John Smith (Ward Member for The Rows) spoke against the application.

During the debate concern was expressed by Members that the proposal constituted overdevelopment and was not in keeping with the street scene as the majority of properties in this location were of relatively small scale in comparison to the proposed development. The proposal was considered not to respect the character, scale, design and form of the existing dwelling and adversely impacted on the character and appearance of the neighbouring properties in the immediate and surrounding area.

It was moved by Councillor Susan Glossop that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and for not being in keeping with the street scene, which was contrary to the Officers’ recommendation of approval. This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting for the motion, 3 against and no abstentions, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds of overdevelopment and for not being in keeping with the street scene.