Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS Minutes: 49.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Jessie Carter. |
|||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER REGSITERABLE OR NON REGISTERABLE INTERESTS BY MEMBERS Minutes: 50.1 Councillor Jane Carruthers declared an Other Registerable Interest (ORI) in respect of application number DC/22/04751 as an appointed representative on the Joint Advisory Committee & Partnership to Dedham Vale (AONB) and Suffolk Coast and Heath who were consultees on the application. The Planning Lawyer advised that due to the nature of the interest Councillor Carruthers could remain in the room and participate in the debate and vote. |
|||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING Minutes: 51.1 There were no declarations of lobbying. |
|||||||||||||||||
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS Minutes: 52.1 There were no declarations of personal site visits. |
|||||||||||||||||
BPL/23/11 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 NOVEMBER 2023 PDF 78 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: 54.1 None received. |
|||||||||||||||||
SITE INSPECTIONS In addition to any site inspections which the Committee may consider to be necessary, the Area Planning Manager will report on any other applications which require site inspections.
Minutes: 55.1 There were no requests for site inspections. |
|||||||||||||||||
BPL/23/12 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE PDF 120 KB An Addendum to Paper BPL/23/12 will be circulated to Members prior to the commencement of the meeting summarising additional correspondence received since the publication of the agenda but before 12 noon on the working day before the meeting, together with any errata.
Minutes: In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for Public Speaking at Planning Committee, representations were made as detailed below relating to the items in Paper BPL/23/12 and the speakers responded to questions put to them as provided for under those arrangements.
It was RESOLVED
That subject to the imposition of conditions or reasons for refusal (whether additional or otherwise) in accordance with delegated powers under Council Minute No. 48(a) (dated 19 October 2004) decisions on the items referred to in Paper BPL/23/12 be made as follows:-
|
|||||||||||||||||
DC/23/00740 THE RED LION, THE STREET, EAST BERGHOLT, COLCHESTER, ESSEX, CO7 6TB PDF 932 KB Additional documents:
Minutes:
57.2 The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the site location, the constraints of the site, details of the previously refused scheme on the site, the existing and proposed site plans, East Bergholt’s built-up area boundary (BUAB), proposed access to the site, coach parking, the existing toilet block, the proposed removal of trees, and the officer recommendation for approval.
57.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the ownership of the existing toilet block, formal management of the car park, the number of proposed parking spaces in comparison to existing numbers, proximity to the Red Lion Cottage garage, restriction of access to private property parking, accessibility of the proposed properties, remarking of parking spaces, permeability of the proposed car park surface, location of coach parking, alterations between this proposal and the previously refused scheme, and electric vehicle charging facilities.
57.4 Members considered the representation from Nigel Roberts who spoke on behalf of East Bergholt Parish Council.
57.5 Members considered the representation from Joyce Baker who spoke as an Objector.
57.6 The representative from the Parish Council and the Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the frequency of usage of coach parking facilities, ownership of the car park, car parking facilities in the rest of East Bergholt, potential improvement plans for neighbouring facilities, and the size of the proposed parking bays.
57.7 Members considered the representation from James Platt, a planning consultant who spoke on behalf of the Agent.
57.8 The Planning Consultant responded to questions from Members on issues including: electric vehicle charging facilities, public right of way to the cemetery, proposed loss of one coach parking bay, proposed width of the parking bays, proposed reduction in the number of toilets, potential incorporation of solar panels on the dwellings, and the proposed accessibility of the dwellings for disabled and elderly people.
57.9 Members considered the representation from Councillor Sallie Davies who spoke as the Ward Member.
57.10 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of houses being built within 800 metres of the village heart.
57.11 Members debated the application on issues including: the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan, the proposed retention of car parking bays, loss of public conveniences, the potential impact on the local economy, accessibility of the proposed dwellings for disabled people, the sustainability of the location, the balance of policies, loss of coach parking bays, and the potential impact on local tourism.
57.12 Councillor Beer proposed that the application be approved as per the Case Officer’s recommendation.
57.13 Councillor Holt seconded the motion.
By a vote ... view the full minutes text for item 57.
|
|||||||||||||||||
DC/22/04751 BRETT VALE GOLF CLUB, NOAKS ROAD, RAYDON, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK, IP7 5LR PDF 306 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 58.1 Item 8B
58.2 A short break was taken between 11:51am and 12:02pm after the consideration of application DC/23/00740 but before the commencement of application DC/22/04751.
58.3 The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the site location, the existing site layout, the proposed golf course redevelopment, the proposed golf course redevelopment, flood risk of the site, the site drainage strategy, the constraints of the site, the proposed site layout, the proposed extension to public rights of way, and the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.
58.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the relocation of the existing holes on the course, ownership of the land, the number of properties served by the access road, footpath connectivity through the site, suitability for vehicular access, time restrictions on holiday lets, and the business case as supplied in the applicant’s planning statement.
58.5 Councillor Beer and Councillor Maybury left the meeting at 12:57pm.
58.6 Members considered the representation from Jane Tann who spoke on behalf of Raydon Parish Council.
58.7 Members considered the representation from Lorraine May who spoke as an Objector.
58.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor John Ward who spoke as the Ward Member.
58.9 Members debated the application on the following issues: the location of the site, and concerns regarding occupation of the dwellings outside of designated holiday use.
58.10 Councillor Holt proposed that the applicated be refused for reasons as set out in the Case Officer’s recommendation.
58.11 Councillor Grandon seconded the motion.
By a unanimous vote of 8 For
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
- The new development in the countryside is contrary to SP03 c) and LP12 and LP13 listed by table 5 as policies permitting development outside settlement boundaries, subject to the developments accordance with their details which this proposal is not considered to have sufficiently demonstrated. - Potential for conflict arising between the intensified use of the site and the core business activity (18-hole golf club) that could undermine its viability contrary to the NPPF paragraph 187. - Insufficient details to demonstrate parking standards are met for all development contrary to LP29. - The proposal has failed the sequential test required by the NPPF paragraph 167 and does not demonstrate this is the only reasonably available site within the golf club to host the development. Therefore, introduction of a more vulnerable use to a site at flood risk is contrary to SP10 and LP27. - Insufficient strategy for the disposal of surface water. - Lack of RAMS payment. - Lack of measurable biodiversity net gains onsite in line with the adopted Joint Local Plan policy LP16 and ... view the full minutes text for item 58.
|