Agenda for Development Control Committee on Wednesday 4 May 2022, 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: helen.hardinge@westsuffolk.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

229.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Richard Alecock and David Roach.

230.

Substitutes

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

Minutes:

The following substitutions were declared:

 

Councillor Nick Clarke substituting for Councillor David Roach.

Councillor Andy Neal substituting for Councillor Richard Alecock.

231.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 125 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2022 (copy attached).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2022 were unanimously confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

232.

Declarations of interest

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.

Minutes:

Members’ declarations of interest are recorded under the item to which the declaration relates.

233.

Planning Application DC/22/0090/HH - 18 Aspal Hall Road, Beck Row (Report No: DEV/WS/22/012) pdf icon PDF 153 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/012

 

Householder planning application - a. outbuilding to front elevation b. cladding of front elevation

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Householder planning application – a. outbuilding to front elevation b. cladding of front elevation.

 

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

 

Planning permission was sought retrospectively for a single storey outbuilding to the front of the dwelling to create a disability gymnasium for the personal use of the applicant.  The outbuilding measured up to 6.5 metres in depth and 4.6 metres in width, with a flat roof to a height of 2.3 metres.  The outbuilding was clad with a charcoal colour cement board cladding.

 

The proposal was amended during the course of the application to also include (retrospectively) the cladding of the front elevation of the house, to match the finish of the outbuilding.

 

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late paper’ which had been circulated following publication of the agenda, which set out a condition requiring the retention of off-road parking, as recommended by the Highways Authority, this had been omitted from the attached report in error.

 

Officers were recommending that planning permission be approved, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 23 of Report No DEV/WS/22/012 and the late paper, which was contrary to the Parish Council’s objection to the application.

 

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

 

In response to questions posed by Members the Officer advised that Aspal Hall Road was a private road, the impact on the street scene was considered acceptable, and the outbuilding was already in existence.

 

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

 

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

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

 

1.   The development permitted shall not be carried out, except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents.  

 

2.   The area(s) within the site shown on drawing number 01-22 for the purpose of loading, unloading manoeuvring and parking of vehicles shall be retained and used for no other purpose.

234.

Planning Application DC/21/2118/FUL - Lady Wolverton Pavilion, Adastral Close, Newmarket (Report No: DEV/WS/22/013) pdf icon PDF 154 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/013

 

Planning application - one log cabin

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Andy Drummond declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he had taken part in Newmarket Town Council’s consideration of the application when they resolved to support the scheme.  However, Councillor Drummond stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

 

Planning application – one log cabin

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as Lady Wolverton Pavilion was a West Suffolk Council owned site.

 

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a log cabin within the grounds of Lady Wolverton Pavilion.  The proposed log cabin was 5 metres by 11 metres and accommodated two classrooms and a cloakroom area associated with the existing nursery school on the site.  The overall height was 2.4 metres.

 

The Town Council had raised no objections.

 

Officers were recommending that approval be granted, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 24 of Report No: DEV/WS/22/013.

 

As part of her presentation, the Planning Officer showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

 

In response to questions posed by Members the Officer advised that the colour proposed for the log cabin would be a stained timber finish; fire safety was covered under the Building Regulations and the safety and duty of care of children was covered by other legislation, which the operator had to abide by.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Andy Drummond that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull.

 

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

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Time limit

 

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

 

2.   Compliance with plans

 

The development permitted shall not be carried out, except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents.

235.

Planning Application DC/21/2220/HH - 29 Springfield Avenue, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/22/014) pdf icon PDF 205 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/014

 

Householder planning application - single storey rear extension

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Householder planning application – single story rear extension

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee for determination, following consideration by the Delegation Panel because an objection had been received from the Town Council and the application was recommended for approval.

 

The application sought planning permission for a single storey rear extension.  The proposed extension would have a flat roof with two skylights.  The extension would provide a larger kitchen/dining space with French doors to the rear.  The rear of the proposed extension, which currently serves as a bathroom.

 

The proposal would have a height of 2.7 metres, a width of 2.56 metres and a depth of 5.93 metres.  The proposed materials would match the host dwelling.

 

A sun path and light report had been produced by the agent, which concluded that the proposed extension would have a low impact on the light received by the neighbouring property at number 27 Springfield Avenue.  Whilst the proposal would result in some extra shading, the effect would be minimal due to the existing arrangements.  Shading was already present within the rear garden due to the nature of the existing adjacent development.  The fallback position of permitted development was also a consideration in terms of impact from shading.

 

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late paper’ which had been circulated following publication of the agenda, which set out additional comments received from Ward Member Councillor David Nettleton, dated 27 April 2022.

 

Officers were recommending that planning permission be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 42 of Report No: DEV/WS/22/014.

 

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

 

Speaker:               Will Smith (agent for Mason Cube) spoke in support of the application.

 

(A neighbouring objector had also registered to speak but had indicated that they would be unable to attend the meeting in person and intended to submit either a pre-recorded audio file to be played or a written statement to be read out. The Chair asked the Democratic Services Officer to verbally update the meeting on the current position, the Officer advised that she had her email account open before her and no further communication had been received from the individual in question since their initial request to register.)       

                            

Discussions took place and some Members were concerned that the area proposed was very small to be developing in but noted that the proposal had been amended since initial submission.  The Permitted Development fallback position was also commented upon and further explained by Officers. 

 

In response to questions posed by Members the Officer advised that a sunlight assessment had been received and were satisfied with the report.

 

It was then proposed by Councillor Carol Bull that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

 

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

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 235.

236.

Planning Application DC/22/0644/DE1 - Mildenhall Swimming Pool, Recreation Way, Mildenhall (Report No: DEV/WS/22/015) pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Report No: DEV/WS/22/015

 

Notification under Part 11 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 - demolition of building

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Notification under Part 11 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 – demolition of building.

 

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because it related to an application made by and on behalf of West Suffolk Council.

 

Members were advised that notification was made under regulations contained within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, specifically Schedule 2 Part 11 Class B.2.  In such instances, an application was required to be submitted to the local planning authority for determination as to whether the prior approval of the local authority was required in relation to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration on the site.

 

Officers were recommending under Paragraph 42 of Report No: DEV/WS/22/015, that it be confirmed that prior approval as to the method of demolition, was not required.

 

The proposal was to demolish in full the former swimming pool building at Recreation Way, Mildenhall.

 

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

 

In response to questions posed by Members the Officer advised that the application was solely to deal with the demolition-method and manner of the restoration.  The future maintenance of the site would be to level the area, seed with grass and a wildflower mix, and maintain the area on a regular basis, which was outside the scope of this application.  Members were also advised that the electrical charging points mentioned in the report were also not part of this application.

 

It was then proposed by Councillor Andy Drummond that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.

 

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

 

Decision

 

It was confirmed that Prior Approval as to the method of demolition was not required.

 

 

In this section