Agenda and minutes

The Chair formally commenced the meeting and jointly welcomed all present and those externally viewing the Development Control Committee.

A number of housekeeping matters and remote meeting guidance were highlighted to all.

No apologies for absence were received.

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

No substitutions were declared.

The Democratic Services Officer verbally outlined all Members of the Committee who were present, together with any attending Councillors and the names of the Officers supporting the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 18 November 2020 and 2 December 2020 (copies attached).

The minutes of the meetings held on 18 November 2020 and 2 December 2020 were both unanimously confirmed as a correct record.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary or local non pecuniary 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.

Planning Application - (i) 1no. Dwelling (ii) Garage with habitable space above and associated landscaping (resubmission of DC/19/0270/FUL)

Planning Application - (i) 1no. Dwelling (ii) Garage with habitable space above and associated landscaping (resubmission of DC/19/0270/FUL)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in view of the support offered by Clare Town Council which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 94 of Report No DEV/WS/21/059.

Members were advised that the planning application was a revised scheme from the previously refused application (DC/19/0270/FUL - 1no. Dwelling (ii) Garage with habitable space above and associated landscaping).

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the main differences were that the dwelling now proposed had a reduced footprint of 28 metres by 8 metres (previously 34m x 8.2m), a ridge height of 10.2 metres (previously 11.2m) but would still be externally finished with a Corten steel tree canopy frame which ‘enveloped’ the dwelling.

The reduction in footprint allowed for the proposed dwelling to be moved slightly further away from the site boundaries and in turn the garage was set further back within the plot. The ridge height of the garage had also been reduced by 0.7 metres.

As with the previous application the applicants claimed that the proposal should be considered as an NPPF ‘Paragraph 79’ proposal and as such the comments from the Suffolk Design Review Panel (SDRP) on the previous application were considered to remain relevant.

The Committee was informed that since publication of the agenda the applicants had submitted an arboricultural impact assessment.  Whilst Officers had not had time to fully assess the content of the documentation Member were advised that the assessment could negate the need for refusal reason number four.

Accordingly, Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report with delegated authority being sought to liaise with the Chair with regard to the inclusion/removal of reason four, as deemed necessary once the report had been considered by the Council’s Tree Officer.

As part of his presentation the Officer provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speakers:    Anna Juhl & Robert Marshall (neighbouring objectors) spoke against the application (neither individual connected to the meeting to personally address the Committee and instead opted to have the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared submitted joint statement on their behalf)

                   Craig Beech (agent) spoke in support of the application

During the debate some Members posed questions with regard to the recently received arboricultural impact assessment which the Senior Planning Officer and Service Manager (Planning – Development) responded to.

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

Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting for the motion and 3 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons, with Delegated Authority given to Officers to liaise with the Chair with regard to the inclusion/removal of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Planning application - 1no. Holiday cottage

Planning application - 1no. Holiday cottage

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in view of the support offered from Great Barton Parish Council which was in conflict with the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 45 of Report No DEV/WS/21/060.

As part of his presentation the Planning Officer provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speaker:      Councillor Simon Brown (Ward Member: Pakenham & Troston) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Peter Stevens spoke in support of the application which he considered to be sustainable, well related to the existing facilities and considered that more weight should be attached to provide to the  economic benefits of the development in relation to Policy DM34.

Accordingly, he proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

In response, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting and advised that the proposal would not be ‘minded to’ and the Decision Making Protocol would not be invoked in this instance.

Following which, the Planning Officer verbally outlined the conditions that could be appended to a planning permission, if granted.

Upon being put the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and 4 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION subject to the following conditions:

1.           01A - The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

2.           14FP - The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents.

3.           03D - The holiday let unit hereby permitted shall be occupied only as holiday letting accommodation and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 as amended or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order). The development shall not be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence. Each letting as holiday accommodation shall not exceed a period of 3 weeks nor shall the unit be let or occupied to any one individual or party for a period exceeding 4 weeks in total within any 12 month period. On commencement of the holiday let use hereby permitted, the owners/operators of the holiday let unit shall keep at all times an up-to-date Register of all lettings which shall include the name and address of the person or party occupying the accommodation during each individual letting. The Register shall be made available for inspection on demand by the Local Planning Authority.

4.           The hours of site clearance, preparation and construction operations including deliveries to the site and the removal of excavated materials and waste from the site shall be limited to 08:00 to 18:00 hours on Mondays  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Householder planning application - (i) single storey rear extension (ii) conversion of garage into habitable space

(Councillor Andy Drummond declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he had attended the Delegation Panel meeting during consideration of the application and had requested that it be referred to Committee for determination.  Councillor Drummond stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Householder planning application - (i) single storey rear extension (ii) conversion of garage into habitable space

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in view of the objection from Newmarket Town Council which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 30 of Report No DEV/WS/21/061.

As part of the Planning Officer’s presentation the Committee were advised that there was currently an existing extension on site without the benefit of planning permission. The application before Members sought permission for the retention of this structure with changes made to the external materials.

The Officer also outlined the Permitted Development ‘fallback’ position to consider when determining the application.

Speakers:    Debbie Baines (Clerk, Newmarket Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor James Lay (Neighbouring Ward Member, Newmarket West) spoke against the application

During the debate a number of comments/questions were posed on various elements of the proposal which the Planning Officer and/or Service Manager (Planning – Development) responded to as follows:

·         Building Control compliance – Members were reminded that this was not a material planning consideration and would be dealt with separately;

·         Conservation Area – whilst the application was not within the designated Conservation Area, it was adjacent to it and Local Planning Authorities had a duty to consider the impact of applications on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area still; and

·         Parking/Highways – the Committee was advised that Suffolk County Council Highways was not consulted on the application because planning permission was not required for the conversion of the garage to living accommodation. Whilst the garage conversion technically removed an off-street parking space there were designated parking spaces nearby and the property was in a town centre location.

Councillor Roger Dicker proposed that the application be granted as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting for the motion and 7 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED 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 following approved plans and documents:
3. Within three months from the date of this decision, the extension hereby permitted shall be clad in facing bricks to match the original dwelling, in accordance with the detail shown on drawing 111 (02)-02 Revision B.