Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS
An apology of absence was received from Councillor Derek Osborne.
Councillor Dave Muller substituted for Councillor Derek Osborne.
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS
Councillor Roy Barker declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications DC/18/04191 and DC/18/02050 as he knew the landowners.
The Planning Lawyer advised Members that in her comments as a Ward Member Councillor Anne Killett had declared a non-pecuniary interest as she was a friend of the applicant.
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING
Members declared that they had been lobbied on application DC/18/04191.
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS
It was resolved that the Minutes of the meeting from 5 December 2018 were confirmed and signed as a true record.
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME
Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
Schedule of Applications
The items of business were taken in the order as follows as set out by the Chair at the beginning of the meeting:
76.1 Item 3
Proposal Outline Planning Application (All matters reserved) Erection of up to 70 dwellings.
Site Location STOWUPLAND- Land to the South of Gipping Road, Stowupland, Stowmarket
Applicant Gladman Developments Ltd
76.2 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that since the publication of the report and the application being heard by the committee, a material change in the weight of the Stowupland Neighbourhood Plan had taken place as the response had been received from the Planning Inspector. The Area Planning Manager further advised that due to this change the report would have to be reviewed and asked that Members defer the application on these grounds.
76.3 Councillor Kathie Guthrie Proposed that the application be deferred as requested by the Area Planning Manager.
76.4 Councillor John Matthissen seconded the motion.
76.5 By a unanimous vote
That the application be deferred to revise the report to take account for a change in status and material weight of the Stowupland Neighbourhood Plan.
77.1 Item 1
Proposal Erection of 45 dwellings and creation of new vehicular access, open space and associated infrastructure (amended application to previously withdrawn DC/17/02767)
Site Location WOOLPIT- Land on the South side of Rags Lane, Woolpit, Suffolk
Applicant Charles Church Ltd
77.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the, layout and access of the site, and the Officer Recommendation of Refusal. The Case Officer advised Members of an additional reason for refusal had been added to the Officer Recommendation as follows:
· Failure to Secure Section 106 agreement for affordable housing and education.
77.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the relevant 5 year history of the site and the density of the site.
77.4 Members considered the representation from John Guyler, Chairman of the Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
77.5 Members considered the representation from Derek Curry, who spoke as an objector.
77.6 Members considered the representation from Stuart Mcadam and Tony Doyle speaking respectively as the applicant and Highways Consultant.
77.7 The Applicant and Highways consultant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the construction management plan and proposed HGV movements during construction, the pedestrian access to the site, and the surface water drainage discharge point.
77.8 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Jane Storey who spoke against the application.
77.9 Members debated the application on the issues including: the deliverability of the site, the design of the proposal and the danger that would be caused to pedestrians from vehicle movements.
77.10 Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE Proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the updated Officer Recommendation. Councillor Dave Muller seconded the motion.
77.11 By a unanimous vote
(1) That the Acting Chief Planning Manager be authorised to Refuse Planning Permission for the following reasons:
(a) The proposed development, by reason of the lack of pedestrian connectivity to local services, would not represent a sustainable location for residential development. The environmental harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of delivering 45 additional dwellings. On that basis the proposal would not constitute sustainable development, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to policies FC1 and FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review 2012 and policy CS6 of the Core Strategy 2008.
(b) The proposed development would result in an unacceptable highway safety outcome by way of increased potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflict in Rags Lane and Drinkstone Road. This social and environmental harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of delivering 45 additional dwellings. On that basis the proposal would be unacceptable having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to policy FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review 2012, and saved policies T9 and T10 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan 1998.
· Failure to Secure Section 106 agreement for affordable housing and education.
78.1 A short comfort break was taken between 10:32-10:40 after the completion of application DC/18/00721 and before the commencement of DC/18/04191.
78.2 Item 2
Proposal Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered) – Erection of up to 5 no. dwellings and construction of new access, following demolition of 1 no. existing dwelling.
Site Location STONHAM ASPAL- Land to the rear of The Leas, Quoits Meadow, Stonham Aspal, Stowmarket, IP14 6DE
Applicant Mr R Tydeman
78.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the tabled papers, and the Officer Recommendation of Approval with conditions.
78.4 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the entrance and access to the site, the report provided by the Planning Inspector when the previous application on the site was appealed, and the bus services in the area.
78.5 Members considered the representation from Ian Wright, who spoke as an Objector.
78.6 The Objector responded to a question from Members that he lived in the identified listed building near the application.
78.7 Members considered the representation from Philip Cobbold who spoke as the Agent for the application.
78.8 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Suzie Morley, who spoke against the application and read out a short statement that had been provided by Stonham Aspal Parish Council.
78.9 After a question was raised regarding any covenants on the application site, the Planning Lawyer advised that this would be a matter of private law and not an area that the Committee had jurisdiction over.
78.10 Members debated the application on the issues including: the harm caused to the listed building and how this had been diminished due to the reduction in the number of proposed dwellings, the relationship of the listed building and the setting, the public benefit of new housing.
78.11 Councillor Jessica Fleming Proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer Recommendation. Councillor Jane Storey Seconded the motion.
78.12 By 7 votes to 2
That the Acting Chief Planning Officer be delegated authority to Grant Outline Planning Permission following conclusion of the statutory consultation period and no further issues being raised, subject to the conditions including :
1) Standard list of approved plans
2) Standard time limit for reserved matters
3) Standard reserved matters condition
4) Contaminated land investigation and mitigation prior to commencement
5) Programme of Archaeological works prior to commencement
6) Further protected species investigation and mitigation concurrent with reserved matters
7) Landscape scheme and aftercare
8) Surface water drainage scheme
9) Those required by the local highway authority
10) Details of location and number of proposed fire hydrants
11) Construction management scheme to be agreed.
78.14 After the completion of application DC/18/04191 and before the commencement of application DC/18/02050, the Governance Support Officer (Robert Carmichael) left the meeting and was replaced by the Acting Senior Governance Support Officer (Henriette Holloway) for the remainder of the meeting.
79.1 Item 4
79.2 Councillor Humphreys referred to page 209 and that the Recommendation was to ‘Refuse’.
79.3 The Chair informed Members that this had been corrected in the published papers to ‘Approve’
79.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site and the Officer Recommendation was for approval for Outline Planning Permission.
79.5 The Planning Lawyer clarified that the papers marked ‘confidential’ in the consultee pages were now in the public domain.
79.6 The Planning Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to Members’ questions including the impact of the flood zone on part of the development and the pathway linked to the High Street.
79.7 Members considered the representation from Mr Last, the Agent and Mel Walton, the Landlord.
79.8 In response to Members questions the Landlord responded that the development would commence at once if the planning permission was granted.
79.9 Members considered the representation from Councillor Wendy Marchant, Ward Member for Needham Market.
79.10 The Chair read an email from the second Ward Member Councillor Mike Norris, who had was unable to attend the meeting.
79.11 Members debated the application on the issues included flood water on part of the development, references to the Flood Risk, page 220 and the mitigation of flood risk. The Area Planning Manager advised the Committee that drainage was to be considered under reserved matters.
79.12 The Chair informed the Committee that a condition had to be included for the link to the High Street to be secure.
79.13 Councillor Barry Humphreys proposed that the approval of the application as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.
79.14 The Area Planning Manager ask the proposer to consider the inclusion of an additional conditions as follows:
That details of public pedestrian link including timetable for provision between the development and High Street shall be agreed in writing by the LPA prior to the first occupation of the development and carried out in accordance with the timetable as may be agreed.
79.15 Councillor Humphreys agreed to the inclusion of the condition in the recommendations.
79.16 Councillor Jane Storey seconded the motion.
79.17 Councillor Jessica Fleming commented that she supported the application however with reference to the ecological report she had concern for the bats and if appropriate street lighting for bats could be included as a condition.
79.18 Councillor Humphreys felt this was not appropriate for this application.
79.19 Members continue the debate including the matter of noise from the railway, specifically the dwellings adjacent to the railway. The Area Planning Manager advised the Committee that it was a design feature to be include in the reserved matters.
79.20 Councillor Humphreys agreed to include sound sanitation in the conditions and ... view the full minutes text for item 79.
80.1 Item 5
80.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layoff the site and the Officer Recommendation of refusal of the application.
80.3 In response to Members questions it was established that the site was a brownfield land and that there was an extant permission for development of business units on the adjacent commercial site.
80.4 Members considered the representation from the Sheona Warnes from Offton and Willisham Parish Council.
80.5 Members raised several questions including that Willisham was served by Offton village hall. It was clarified that a survey had been conducted ten years ago and that a new consultation was required for the need of a village hall.
80.6 The Parish Council had been approached by the applicants directly.
80.7 Members considered the representation from a supporter Keith Earl.
80.8 He responded to questions and said that a previous survey in the village had indicated a need for affordable housing and that the development was considered a suitable option. That there was a bus service available from the village. However, none was available to the nearest school which was in Ringshall.
80.9 The Area Planning Manager reminded Members that the village of Willisham was in the countryside and was not a settlement village. The location of the application was not in sustainable area as there were 2 km to Ringshall.
80.10 Members considered the representation from the applicants Paul Chapman and Andrew Chapman.
80.11 It was clarified that there was no footpath to the Willisham from the site.
80.12 The Chair read the representation from the Ward Member Councillor Anne Killett, who was unable to be present at the meeting.
80.13 Members debated the application and some Members felt that the application had some merits as it was an inactive farmyard and that the application was supported by the community. The site was not in an isolated location, as here was dwellings nearby and the redevelopment of the site would be an enhancement to the landscape.
80.14 Councillor John Matthissen proposed the refusal of the application as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.
80.15 The Committee debated the existing outstanding proposal for commercial units on the adjacent site and that the development would be a mixed development with 35% affordable housing.
80.16 Members continued to debate and that the application was against planning policy.
80.17 Councillor Kathie Guthrie seconded the motion.
80.18 By 5 votes to 1, 2 abstentions
That the Acting Chief Planning Officer be authorised to refuse outline planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is not considered to form sustainable development by reasons of its relationship to the existing built settlement, offering an uncharacteristic intrusion into the countryside, with poor connectivity to services, facilities and ... view the full minutes text for item 80.
Note: Should a site inspection be required for any of the applications this will be decided at the meeting.
Would Members please retain the relevant papers for use at that meeting.
81.1 None requested.