Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Email: Committees@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for absence/substitutions Minutes: None recieved |
|||||||||
To receive any declarations of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest by Members Minutes: Councillor David Whybrow declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications 4489/16 and 4491/16 as he was associated with some of the construction consultation advice linked to Suffolk County Council.
Councillor John Field declared a non-pecuniary interest in application DC/17/03074 as the County Councillor for the area.
Councillor Field also declared that he had been involved with an enquiry associated with a previous application related to DC/17/03074 and chose to not take part in the proceedings of said application.
|
|||||||||
Declarations of Lobbying Minutes: All Members declared that they had been lobbied on all of the applications before the committee. |
|||||||||
Declarations of Personal Site Visits Minutes: Councillors Kathie Guthrie and David Burn declared personal site visits to application DC/17/03074. |
|||||||||
RF/17/15 Confirmation of the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2018 PDF 158 KB Minutes: It was resolved that the Minutes of the meeting from 14 March 2018 were confirmed and signed as a true record. |
|||||||||
Notification of Petitions Minutes: None received |
|||||||||
RF/17/16 Schedule of Applications PDF 251 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
77.1 Item 1
Application DC/17/03074 Proposal Planning Application- Change of use of existing public house to residential dwelling including removal of part of existing car park (revised application following refusal of Application 3349/15). Site Location The Cross Keys Inn, Main Road, Henley, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 0QP Applicant Fernwick Ltd
77.2 Councillor John Field left the meeting before the commencement of application DC/17/03074.
77.3 The Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning outlined the history of previous planning applications, decisions, Planning Inspectorate appeals, Tribunal ruling and the weight of the aforementioned material considerations. The Corporate Manager and Planning lawyer clarified to the Committee the impact of the ruling and the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.
77.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee.
77.5 The Case Officer and Corporate Manager responded to Members’ questions including: the sustainability of the proposal, their interpretation of NPPF policies and the listing of the pub as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) and the subsequent removal of said listing.
77.6 Members considered the representations from the Parish Council, Objector, Supporter, Agent, Applicant and Ward Members.
77.7 Public speakers responded to Members questions including: the marketing of the property, possible diversity of business within the establishment, and previous planning applications on the site.
77.8 Members debated the application on the issues including: the possibility of a viable business and that many public houses were closing.
77.9 Councillor Diana Kearsley proposed that the application be refused.
77.10 Councillor David Whybrow proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer Recommendation. Councillor Michael Burke Seconded the proposal for approval from David Whybrow.
77.11 By 5 votes to 12
77.12 The Motion for approval was lost.
77.13 Councillor Diana Kearsley proposed that the application be refused and was seconded by Councillor Roy Barker.
77.14 By 12 votes to 5
77.15 RESOLVED
Refuse planning permission contrary to officer recommendation: Notwithstanding the extended period of marketing, the reduction in price and the removal of the asset from the list of Assets of Community Value it is considered that the use as a public house has the potential to be a valued local facility which would be able to meet the day to day and future needs of the community including future housing growth in the locality. Notwithstanding the previous appeal decision and tribunal findings the local planning authority do not consider that reasonable efforts have been taken to maintain a viable business. On that basis the proposed change of use would be contrary to the principles of paragraph 28 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to the principles of paragraph 5.4 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for the ... view the full minutes text for item 77. |