Agenda and draft 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 |
287. |
Apologies for absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillors Jason Crooks, Brian Harvey, Andy Neal and David
Roach.
|
288. |
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 Sara Mildmay-White substituting for
Councillor Brian Harvey; and
Councillor James Lay substituting for
Councillor David Roach.
|
289. |
Minutes PDF 166 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
5 October 2022 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October
2022 were confirmed as a correct record, with 11 voting for the
motion and with 3 abstentions, and were signed by the Chair.
Councillor Ian Houlder posed a question as to
why it was minuted in the resolution where Members made a
resolution that was contrary to the Officer recommendation. The
Democratic Services Officer responded and explained that it was
standard practice for the minutes in line with the
Committee’s Decision Making Protocol.
|
290. |
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.
|
291. |
Planning Application DC/21/2337/OUT - Land East of Beeches Road, Beeches Road, West Row (Report No: DEV/WS/22/042) PDF 321 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/042
Outline planning application (all matters
reserved except access) for up to 106 dwellings, parish office and
car parking, and green infrastructure including sustainable
drainage, amenity green space and ecological habitats
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Andy
Drummond declared, in the interests of openness and transparency,
that he was a Suffolk County Councillor, in view of the applicant
for this item being the County Council.)
Outline planning
application (all matters reserved except access) for up to 106
dwellings, parish office and car parking, and green infrastructure
including sustainable drainage, amenity green space and ecological
habitats
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee due to a 1.7 hectare section of the
application site being outside of the residential site allocation
SA14(a) and therefore contrary to the Development Plan.
Officers were recommending that the
application be approved, subject to conditions and the completion
of a S106 legal agreement, as set out in Paragraph 101 of Report No
DEV/WS/22/042.
Attention was drawn to the supplementary
‘late papers’ issued in respect of the application and
the Officer also showed videos of the site by way of a virtual
‘site visit’.
The Principal Planning Officer drew attention
to the recommendation and the list of conditions therein and
outlined amendments to Nos 3, 7, 22, 26 and 32. The Committee was
also advised that an Early Years Pre-school contribution of
£181,870 had been missed from the S106 list.
Speaker: Neil Hall (agent) spoke in
support of the application
During the debate a number of
questions/comments were posed by Members which the Officer
responded to as follows:
Solar Panels – sustainable energy
provision would be addressed at the application’s Reserved
Matters stage;
Primary School – an expansion to the
village primary school was already planned;
Proximity to Pumping Station – no
element of the scheme was planned to be situated less than 15m
away, although this would be confirmed at Reserved Matters
stage;
Noise Contours – the impact of the
aircraft from the neighbouring USAF air bases was addressed within
the report and an appropriate condition had been included;
Electric Charging Points – no consultee
had flagged concerns with the electric charging provision for the
scheme, the flats included within the application would have
communal charging points;
Roads – the intention was for the roads
to be built to an adoptable standard; and
Streetlights – maintenance could be
carried out via a private management company or the County
Council.
In response to specific queries raised, the
Principal Planning Officer explained that the discovery of the area
of archaeological importance led to the layout changes to the
scheme, that was now seeking approval.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) added that it was extremely rare that findings of such
significance were not identified during the very early high-level
desktop work that is undertaken as part of the local plan process.
However, in this case discoveries were not made until the trench
work had commenced, which resulted in the application needing to be
amended.
Councillor Carol Bull proposed that the
application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and
inclusive of the amendments as outlined to the relevant conditions
and S106, this was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.
Upon being put ...
view the full minutes text for item 291.
|
292. |
Planning Application DC/21/2094/OUT - Townsend Nurseries, Snow Hill, Clare (Report No: DEV/WS/22/043) PDF 281 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/043
Outline planning application (means of access
to be considered) - 20 dwellings
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Outline planning
application (means of access to be considered) - 20 dwellings
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following call-in by one of the
Clare, Hundon and Kedington Ward Members (Councillor Nick
Clarke).
In addition, Clare Town Council objected to
the application which was in conflict
with the Officers’ recommendation that the application
be approved, subject to conditions and the completion of a S106
legal agreement, as set out in Paragraph 74 of Report No
DEV/WS/22/043.
The Senior Planning Officer advised that two
additional archaeological conditions would need to be included
within the recommendation and also
showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site
visit’.
Speakers: Gary Brown (objector, speaking on
behalf of himself and other neighbouring resident objectors) spoke
against the application
Councillor Nick Clarke (Ward Member: Clare, Hundon and Kedington)
spoke against the application
Councillor Marion Rushbrooke (Ward
Member: Clare, Hundon and Kedington) spoke against the application
Phil Cobbold (agent) spoke in support of the application
(Councillor Clarke was not in attendance to personally address the
Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out a
pre-prepared statement on his behalf.)
During the debate a number
of questions/comments were posed by Members which the
Officer responded to as follows:
Air Quality – Environmental Health had
not flagged any air quality related concerns in relation to the
application;
Subsidence and Soil Conditions – would
be covered by the Building Regulations process;
Visibility Splays/Highways – the Local
Highways Authority was satisfied with the visibility splays as
proposed, they had also not requested the inclusion of
double-yellow lines as a result of the scheme, however, this could
be pursued separately by local Members if desired;
Electric Charging Points – the relevant
condition could be reworded in relation to the communal charging
points to mirror that of the previous (West Row) application
considered by the Committee, if Members wished;
Nursery Use – it had been some
considerable years since a nursery operated on the site, therefore
a marketing exercise was not required; and
NHS West Suffolk CCG – Officers
confirmed that the CCG asked to only be consulted on schemes with
50 or more dwellings proposed, hence, they had not commented on
this application.
Considerable discussion took place on the
drainage/flooding issues experienced in Clare and the concerns that
the scheme would exacerbate the problem, as raised by the Ward
Members, Town Council and resident
objectors.
The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that
Suffolk County Council as the lead local authority for flooding was
content with the relevant conditions proposed. Furthermore, Anglian
Water had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity for the
scheme.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) explained that the issue currently being experienced
in Clare was understood to be due to the age of the pipes
concerned. It would not be reasonable or appropriate to require the
applicant to address this in connection with this application. The
applicant could only be required to provide mitigation measures
necessary for the development itself to ...
view the full minutes text for item 292.
|
293. |
Advertisement Application DC/22/0988/ADV - Dragonfly Hotel, Symonds Road, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/22/044) PDF 174 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/044
Application for advertisement consent - one
internally illuminated totem sign
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Application for
advertisement consent - one internally illuminated totem sign
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel; having been referred to the Panel due to the
support from Bury St Edmunds Town Council, which was in conflict
with the Officers’ recommendation of refusal, for the reason
set out in Paragraph 31 of Report No DEV/WS/22/044.
Speaker: Tony Osbourne (applicant)
spoke in support of the application
(Mr Osbourne was not in attendance to personally address the
Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out a
pre-prepared statement on his behalf.)
In response to comments made by the Committee
during the debate, the Service Manager (Planning –
Development) explained that in terms of the advertisement
regulations the Local Planning Authority has a duty to consider
them in relation to highway safety and public amenity, only.
Members were also reminded that each application was to be
considered on its own merits.
Councillor Andy Drummond spoke in support of
the application which he considered did not adversely affect
amenity. Accordingly, he proposed that the application be approved,
contrary to the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by
Councillor Peter Stevens.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) explained that Members’ interpretation of Policy
DM38 was subjective, meaning the Decision Making Protocol would not
need to be invoked as a Risk Assessment would not be considered
necessary.
The Principal Planning Officer then verbally
advised on the conditions that could be appended to a permission,
if granted.
Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting
for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO
THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as it was considered that the
application did not adversely affect amenity, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
This consent shall expire at the end of a period of five years
beginning with the date of this notice.
2.
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in
complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans
and documents, unless otherwise stated.
3.
The maximum luminance from the internally illuminated sign shall
not exceed 350 candela/m2.
|
294. |
Planning Application DC/22/1003/HH & Listed Building Consent Application DC/22/1004/LB - 4 Wrenshall Farm Barns, Cart Lodge, Upthorpe Road, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/22/045) PDF 242 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/22/045
Householder planning application - single
storey side extension with addition of gable to existing roof
Application for listed building consent -
single storey side extension with addition of gable to existing
roof
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(In the interests
of openness and transparency, Councillor Jim Thorndyke advised the
Committee that he had spoken to both the applicant and agent
in order to advise on the Delegation
Panel process.)
Householder planning
application - single storey side extension with addition of gable
to existing roof
Application for
listed building consent - single storey side extension with
addition of gable to existing roof
These applications were referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel; having been referred to the Panel due to the
support from Stanton Parish Council, which was
in conflict with the Officers’ recommendation of
refusal, for the reason set out in Paragraph 32 of Report No
DEV/WS/22/045.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
Speakers: Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member:
Stanton) spoke on the applications
Julie Todd (applicant) spoke in support of the applications
During the debate Councillor Thorndyke further
highlighted the perceived confusion with the location of the
historic access track.
Councillor John Burns spoke in support of the
applications, which he considered did not harm the listed building
as the courtyard was no longer intact. Accordingly, he proposed
that the applications be approved, contrary to the Officer
recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy
Drummond.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) explained that Members’ interpretation of Policy
DM15 was subjective, meaning the Decision
Making Protocol would not need to be invoked as a Risk
Assessment would not be considered necessary.
The Principal Planning Officer then verbally
advised on the conditions that could be appended to the
permissions, if granted.
Upon being put to the vote and the vote being
unanimous, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission and Listed Building
Consent be GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION,
as it was considered that the application did not harm the listed
building, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Application DC/22/1003/HH:
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 approved plans and documents, unless otherwise
stated.
Listed Building
Consent Application DC/22/1004/LB:
1.
The works to which this consent relates
must be begun not later than three years from the date of this
notice.
2.
The development hereby permitted shall
not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details
shown on the approved plans and documents, unless otherwise
stated.
|
|
In this section
|