Agenda and minutes

This being the first meeting of the Development Control Committee since the Authority’s Annual Meeting in May 2024, the Lawyer opened the meeting and welcomed all present.

The Lawyer then asked for nominations for the Chair of the Committee for 2024/2025.

Councillor Jon London nominated Councillor Andrew Smith as Chair and Councillor Smith accepted the nomination.

There being no other nominations, it was unanimously

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Andrew Smith be elected Chair for 2024/2025.

Councillor Smith then took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting and gave thanks to the Committee for his appointment.

The Chair nominated Councillors Jon London and Phil Wittam for the two Vice Chair positions.  Councillor London accepted the nomination and Councillor Smith confirmed, in Councillor Wittam’s absence, that he too had accepted the nomination.

There being no other nominations, and with 12 voting for the nomination and with 3 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Jon London be elected as Vice Chair for 2024/2025.

And with 12 voting for the nomination and with 3 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Phil Wittam be elected as Vice Chair for 2024/2025.

The Chair advised the Committee that the meeting was to be livestreamed, however, neither the public gallery nor the registered speakers would be seen visually.

He also reminded Members of the operation of the ‘queue to speak’ function using the microphones.

(However, due to technical difficulties, which developed following the Chair’s announcement, the meeting was unable to be livestreamed and Members had to revert back to raising their hands when wishing to address the meeting.)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Marilyn Sayer and Phil Wittam.

The Chair advised the meeting that Councillor Sayer had asked that the Committee was informed that she had been unable to attend the Committee as a result of a meeting clash.

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 also advised that due to prior appointment she would need to leave the Committee meeting before 12noon.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2024 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 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/24/019

Planning application - a. 50 dwellings, garages, associated infrastructure including substation and foul water pumping station and public open space (following demolition of existing building and hard standing) b. new vehicular access onto Fordham Road following closure of existing southbound access c. re-location of tennis courts

(Councillor Rachel Hood declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that she was a Member of Suffolk County Council, who was the applicant. Councillor Hood stated that she was also a Member of Newmarket Town Council and The Jockey Club who had both made representations on the application.  However, she stressed that she would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Planning application - a. 50 dwellings, garages, associated infrastructure including substation and foul water pumping station and public open space (following demolition of existing building and hard standing) b. new vehicular access onto Fordham Road following closure of existing southbound access c. re-location of tennis courts

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was a major development on an allocated site.

Newmarket Town Council and the Ward Members objected to the application. A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to a S106 agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 158 of Report No DEV/WS/24/019, together with an additional condition as outlined in the supplementary late papers, issued after publication of the agenda, and one further condition in relation to the management of open space as outlined in the Principal Planning Officer’s presentation to the meeting.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) made reference to the presentation slide which referred to the joint statement that had been produced by some of the Newmarket District Councillors, as set out in Paragraphs 48 – 50 of the report. The Committee was advised that the slide had inaccurately omitted Councillor Charlie Lynch’s name from the list of Councillors.

Speakers:    Caroline Hillary (Chair of Newmarket Sports Development Association) spoke against the application by way of a submitted statement read out by the Democratic Services Officer in their absence

                   Ann Smy (Newmarket resident) spoke against the application by way of a submitted statement read out by the Democratic Services Officer in their absence

                   Mark Hatley (Newmarket business owner) spoke against the application

                   Councillor John Harvey (Deputy Mayor, Newmarket Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Sue Perry (neighbouring Ward Member) spoke against the application by way of a submitted statement read out by the Democratic Services Officer in Councillor Perry’s absence

                   Trevor Dodkins (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Rachel Hood addressed the meeting and made reference to West Suffolk Council’s consideration of a £2million investment towards a total £4million capital project delivering a new sport and leisure provision at the St Felix site in Newmarket, which had formed an exempt paper outlining a business case at the Council meeting in February 2024. Councillor Hood asked if it would be possible to condition this provision as part of the application before the Development Control Committee.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that would not be possible, the capital project related to an entirely separate decision made by the Council and the application before Members was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 450.

Report No: DEV/WS/24/020

Householder planning application - two storey front and side extension

Householder planning application - two storey front and side extension

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

Pakenham Parish Council had not objected to the proposal which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal, for the reasons set out in Paragraph 25 of Report No DEV/WS/24/020.

Members were advised that the original proposal was described as a “two-storey side extension” however, as the southeast elevation was considered to be the principal elevation, the proposal was amended to “two-storey front and side extension”.

In addition, following comments made by Officers, amendments had been made to the application so that the amended red line plan included both accesses to Mill Road and Broadway, and the front porch was removed from the existing plans and elevations as it had been drawn in error.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

Speakers:    Councillor Andrew Speed (Ward Member) spoke in support of the application

                   Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Ian Houlder posed a question in relation to development in the countryside and referenced a previous application considered by the Committee. The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the application referenced was for a replacement dwelling, as opposed to an extension, and there was different policy considerations.

Councillor Carol Bull voiced support for the application which she viewed as an improvement to the existing property and with the inclusion of obscure glazed windows on the southeast fenestration she considered there to be no loss of neighbouring amenity.

Accordingly, Councillor Bull proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that Members’ interpretation of Policies DM2 and DM24 was subjective and the inclusion of obscure glazing was considered reasonable to protect neighbouring amenity, meaning the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked as a Risk Assessment would not be considered necessary.

The Planning Assistant then verbally advised on the conditions that could be appended to a permission, if granted, which included a condition in respect of obscure glazed windows on the southeast eleveation.

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

Decision 

Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as it was considered that the application did not harm the character and design of the existing dwelling or the surrounding area, or adversely affect neighbouring amenity, 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, unless otherwise stated (see decision notice for plans)

3.   Before the extension hereby permitted is first brought into use, the first-floor windows of the southeast elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass  ...  view the full minutes text for item 451.