Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Drummond and Ann Williamson.

Any Member who is substituting for another Member should so indicate, together with the name of the relevant absent Member.

The following substitutions were declared:

Councillor Rachel Hood substituting for Councillor Andy Drummond

Councillor Carol Bull substituting for Councillor Ann Williamson

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2020 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2020 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/014

Outline Planning Application (means of access to be considered) - (i) proposed improvement to Fishwick Corner in West Suffolk Council and (ii) 210no. dwellings means of access, open space and associated infrastructure, including junction improvements with all proposed development located within Mid Suffolk District Council

The Chair advised that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda in order to allow Officers time in which to consider the implications of a legal challenge to the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council in relation to this cross-boundary application.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/015

Planning Application - Construction of (i) office building (ii) ancillary buildings (iii) amended vehicular access via Sow Lane (iv) extended estate access road, footways and cycleway (v) vehicle parking (vi) landscaping (vii) boundary treatments and associated infrastructure

Planning Application - Construction of (i) office building (ii) ancillary buildings (iii) amended vehicular access via Sow Lane (iv) extended estate access road, footways and cycleway (v) vehicle parking (vi) landscaping (vii) boundary treatments and associated infrastructure

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the application site straddled three Local Plan allocations; these being 1.) Rougham Airfield, 2.) Eastern Relief Road (ERR) and 3.) the Suffolk Business Park Extension with the remainder of the application site falling within the countryside.

Owing to the ERR now coming forward in a more northernly alignment this plot of land had now been split away from the Rougham Airfield, was no longer required for the ERR and was now associated with the Suffolk Business Park Extension.

The application was therefore before the Development Control Committee as the Officers’ recommendation was for approval, which was not wholly consistent with the Development Plan; noting the designation of part of the site being within the Suffolk Business Park Extension/Rougham Airfield/ERR and countryside and the, largely technical, conflict arising as a consequence of this.

Attention was drawn to an amended ‘red line’ plan which had been received by the Authority just prior to the Committee meeting.  Members were advised that the new plan would be subject to consultation and would be returned to the Development Control Committee if deemed necessary as a result of any representations made.

The Principal Planning Officer made reference to Paragraph 42 of Report No DEV/WS/20/015 and explained that, since publication of the report, Suffolk County Council’s Flood and Surface Water Engineer had confirmed that they raised no objections to the application subject to inclusion of the relevant conditions.

Lastly, Committee Members were directed to the ‘late papers’ which had been issued supplementary to the agenda.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to the conditions in the late papers but with the deletion of condition 25 (which was a duplicate of condition 22) and amendment to the wording of condition 33.

Delegated authority was also sought to agree landscaping details prior to a decision being issued; to be implemented under condition 27, therefore meaning that condition 28 may not be necessary. 

Speakers:    Councillor Sara Mildmay-White (Ward Member for Rougham) spoke on the application on behalf of Rushbrook with Rougham Parish Council

                   Simon Bryan (of Hopkins Homes, applicant) spoke in support of the application

A number of Members made reference to Paragraph 31 of the report which explained that despite Policy BV13 requiring a Travel Plan to be implemented in respect of the scheme, in order to reduce dependency on the motor vehicle, Suffolk County Council (who oversee Public Transport Operations) had agreed that the requirement for a Travel Plan and contributions towards a bus service would not be sought unless in exceptional circumstances and, having considered various factors, it was not considered appropriate to seek such an approach or contributions to amend/provide a bus service in connection with the scheme.

Councillor Mildmay-White had voiced concern on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Report No: DEV/WS/20/016

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access, Appearance and Scale to be considered) - Up to 19no. dwellings as amended by plans and documents received 9th May 2019

Outline Planning Application (Means of Access, Appearance and Scale to be considered) - Up to 19no. dwellings as amended by plans and documents received 9th May 2019

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee given the controversial nature of the application and recommendation.  Where, despite the potential benefits, the Planning Authority was recommending refusal of an affordable housing exception site for the reason set out in Paragraph 79 of Report No DEV/WS/20/016.

Members were reminded that the application was originally due to be considered by the Committee at their meeting in November 2019 and a site visit was held prior to that meeting.  However, the application was subsequently withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee was advised that the name of the applicant may differ on the decision notice issued by the Planning Authority from that which was listed in the report, however, this was not a material consideration pertinent to the determination of the application.

As part of her presentation to the meeting the Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the application before them was in outline form, therefore, it was not possible to determine the full extent of the trees that would need to be removed or the potential relationship between retained trees and the dwellings.

Furthermore, the proposed location of the play area beneath the canopy of existing trees triggered a maintenance concern for both the play equipment and the trees, meaning the Local Authority would not adopt the play area.

Lastly, the Committee was advised that Kentford Parish Council had been unable to attend the meeting but maintained their objection to the application.

Speaker:      Matt Bartram (applicant) spoke in support of the application

During the debate a number of questions were posed with regard to the affordable housing aspect of the scheme. 

In response to which, the Officer explained that the applicant had been asked to provide a local needs survey but the Council’s Strategic Housing Team had raised some queries with what had been submitted as it had failed to provide the requisite background evidence and no S106 Agreement had been signed by the applicant.

However, irrespective of this the Strategic Housing Team did agree that there was a need for the affordable housing offered by the development even taking into consideration the other pending developments within Kentford which also provided affordable housing.

Be that as it may, the reasons for refusal did not relate to the affordable housing element and were instead concerned with landscaping, overdevelopment and policy conflict.

Councillor Roger Dicker (Ward Member: Kentford and Moulton) spoke on the application and echoed the concerns raised by the Parish Council.  He moved that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The protected trees on the site provide an important and distinctive landscape  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.