Venue: Virtual Teams Video Meeting
Contact: Robert Carmichael - Email: email@example.com - 01449 724930
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies were received from Councillor James Caston.
Councillor Richard Meyer substituted for Councillor James Caston.
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS
Councillor Rowland Warboys declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in respect of application numbers DC/20/04572 and DC/20/05596 in his capacity as Membership Secretary for the Waveney branch of CAMRA.
Councillor Barry Humphreys declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/20/04723 in his capacity as a Town Councillor and Member of the Town Planning Committee. Councillor Humphreys confirmed that as the application site was not within his Ward he would participate in the debate and vote for the item.
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING
Councillor Kathie Guthrie declared she had been lobbied in respect of application numbers DC/20/04987, DC/20/05595 and DC/20/05596.
Councillor Richard Meyer, Councillor Andrew Stringer and Councillor Peter Gould declared that they had been lobbied in respect of application number DC/20/04987.
Councillor Rowland Warboys declared he had been lobbied in respect of application number DC/20/04723.
Councillor Andrew Mellen declared that he had been lobbied in respect of application number DC/20/04571.
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS
There were no declarations of personal site visits.
It was Resolved that the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2021 were confirmed as a true record.
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME
The Governance Officer reported that 1 valid petition had been received with 183 valid signatures supporting the following statement:
We the undersigned residents of Felsham urgently request that SCC Highways reconsider its decision to approve the developers claim that Church Road should be a uniform width along the whole of the road and thereby proposer to put edge of carriageway markings at its wider section in front of the Six Bells Pub and its access to the application site, to enable the developer to justify that visibility splays are safe, in order to get planning application approval.
The proposed edge of carriageway markings will narrow the road to 5.5m and with vehicles parked all along this section of church road using the village community shop, visiting the church and its churchyard, patrons of the pub and nearby residents with no off road parking, it will create a single file traffic system,, with nowhere to pull into, as at present, and allow oncoming traffic to pass safely. The risk of a collision, personal injury or fatality this will create is significant and therefore decision to approve this reduction of road width must be overturned and objected to on grounds of safety.
Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
The Chair advised Members that the order of items would be as follows:
- DC/20/05595 THE ANGEL INN, 5 HIGH STREET, DEBENHAM,STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK, IP14 6QL
- DC/20/05596 THE ANGEL INN, 5 HIGH STREET, DEBENHAM,STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK, IP14 6QL
- DC/20/04987 ANCHOR STORAGE, EYE ROAD, KENTON,STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK, IP14 6JJ
- DC/20/04723 SITE 3C AND 3D LAND SOUTH OF, GUN COTTONWAY, STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK
- DC/20/04572 LAND REAR OF SIX BELLS, CHURCH ROAD,FELSHAM, SUFFOLK
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:
The Chair advised the Committee that as Ward Member for application numbers DC/20/05595, DC/20/05596 and DC/20/04987 she would relinquish the chair for these items as per the Planning Charter and invited the Vice Chair, Councillor Barry Humphreys to take over proceedings.
74.1 Item 7d
Proposal Planning Application, Change of Use of mixed C3/Sue Generis drinking establishment use to mixed C3/Class E and replacement of C20 rear extension
Site Location DEBENHAM – The Angel Inn, 5 High Street, Debenham, Stowmarket Suffolk IP14 6QL
Applicant Mrs Stacey Paine
74.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee, outlining the application before Members, the location of the site and the Officer recommendation of refusal.
74.3 The Case Officer advised Members that an appeal had been lodged by the applicant and is now being decided by the Planning Inspector. The Officer recommendation included putative reasons for refusal.
74.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members regarding the sequence of events surrounding the appeal and application, whether the Public House was an Asset of Community Value, and relevant appeals.
74.5 Members considered the representation from Jane Baldwin who spoke on behalf of Debenham Parish Council.
74.6 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from members including whether there were any other public houses in the village.
74.7 Members considered the representation from Alan Cushion who spoke as an objector.
74.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Kathie Guthrie who spoke as the Ward Member.
74.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the value of the public house to the local community, the historical value of the building, the business viability of the public house and the viability of the proposed business use.
74.10 Councillor Meyer proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
74.11 Councillor Stringer seconded the motion.
74.12 By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That Members resolve to: REFUSE planning permission, or in the event that the appeal has begun agree putative reasons for refusal, for the following reasons:-
1) It is not considered that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a sufficient supply of alternative and suitable sites available, or that no suitable and viable alternative employment uses for the entire site can be found or are likely to be found in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, it is not considered that the environmental and sustainability benefits of the proposal would outweigh the loss of the current employment use, and the mix of uses proposed by the applicant would not assist in the urban regeneration of the village or offer greater benefits to the community in meeting local business and employment needs. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy DEB 11 in these regards. Furthermore NPPF Paragraph 83 states that planning policies and decisions should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as public houses. NPPF Paragraph 84 also recognises the need for such sites in rural areas, in locations that are not well served by public transport. Furthermore, Paragraph 92 states that planning policies and decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day ... view the full minutes text for item 74.
75.1 A short comfort break was taken from 10:38am until 10:43am after the completion of DC/20/05595 but before the commencement of DC/20/05596.
75.2 Item 7e
Proposal Application for Listed Building Consent. Works to facilitate change of use from mixed C3/Sui Generis drinking establishment use to mixed C3/Class E and replacement of C20 rear extension.
Site Location DEBENHAM – The Angel Inn, 5 High Street, Debenham, Stowmarket Suffolk IP14 6QL
Applicant Mrs Stacey Paine
75.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee, outlining the application before Members, the location of the site and the Officer recommendation of refusal.
75.4 The Case Officer advised Members that an appeal had been lodged by the applicant and is now being dealt with by the Planning Inspector. The Officer recommendation included putative reasons for refusal.
75.5 Members considered the representation from Alan Cushion who spoke as an objector.
75.6 Members considered the representation from Councillor Kathie Guthrie who spoke as the Ward Member.
75.7 Members debated the application on issues including the historical and heritage aspects of the building, and the loss of public benefit.
75.8 Councillor Warboys proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
75.9 Councillor Stringer seconded the proposal and enquired whether an additional reason for refusal could be added to reflect the disbenefit to the public. The Area Planning Manager advised that although there would be a disadvantage to residents the proposal was dealing with private property and could not be equated to in the same way as a public right of entry.
75.10 By a unanimous vote
75.11 It was RESOLVED:
That Members resolve to: REFUSE listed building consent, or in the event that the appeal has begun agree putative reasons for refusal, for the following reasons:-
1) It is considered that the proposed two-storey extension would appear assertive and incongruous and the proposed glazed lean-to extension would be detrimental to appreciation of the 16th Century Gallery to the rear of the building and would not, therefore, better reveal its significance. The proposed extensions would, therefore, result in less than substantial harm to the building’s special architectural and historic significance. It is also not considered that statements accompanying the application offer sufficient justification for the harm identified. Furthermore, there are no public benefits associated with the proposed development which would outweigh the harm identified. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to development plan policies FC1.1, CS5, HB1, HB3, HB4 and DEB 18, and to NPPF paragraphs 194 and 196 in these regards.
76.1 A short comfort break was taken between 11:07 – 11:02 after the completion of DC/20/05596 but before the commencement of DC/20/04987.
76.2 Item 7C
Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (some matters reserved, access to be considered). Town and Planning Act 1990 – Erection of up to 32 dwellings following demolition of existing buildings (resubmission of DC/19/04553).
Location KENTON – Anchor Storage, Eye Road, Kenton, Stowmarket Suffolk IP14 6JJ
Applicant Mr Stephen Britt
76.3 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification with regards to page 247, paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the report, and confirmed that the NPPF was not part of the Local Development Plan.
76.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee, outlining the location and layout of the site, comparisons with the previously considered and refused application in February 2020, and the officer recommendation of refusal.
76.5 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the potential flood risks and whether climate change maps were taken into consideration.
76.6 Members considered the representation from Chris Goldsmith who spoke on behalf of Kenton Parish Council.
76.7 Members considered the representation from Stephen Britt who spoke as the applicant.
76.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Kathie Guthrie who spoke as the Ward Member.
76.9 In response to a question from Councillor Humphreys the Case Officer confirmed that there was no pre application advice had been sought for this application.
76.10 Members debated the application on issues including: the number of concerns from statutory consultees, whether the site is brownfield, sustainability of the site, the potential for flooding, and the viability of affordable housing on site.
76.11 Councillor Mellen proposed that the application be refused as per the officer recommendation.
76.12 Councillor Meyer seconded the proposal.
76.13 By a unanimous vote
76.14 It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, remote from local services and lacking accessible sustainable transport modes, will result in a high level of car dependency for future occupants. The density and scale of the development would result in landscape harm. The identified adverse impacts outweigh the scheme’s public benefits, and therefore the proposal does not constitute sustainable development, contrary to Development Plan Policies FC1 and FC1_1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. The proposal would also lead to the loss of employment land, with no significant benefit or alternative schemes provided, contrary to the directions of Saved Local Plan policy E4 and E6.
3. Paragraph 165 of the NPPF requires major developments to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, including taking advice from the lead local flood authority (LLFA). The LLFA have advised that insufficient detail has been provided within the surface water drainage strategy submitted with the application and as such the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal would not result in harm with regards increased flood risk to existing and future occupants. The application fails to take account the advice ... view the full minutes text for item 76.
77.1 Councillor Humphreys relinquished the Chair after the completion of DC/20/04987 but before the commencement of DC/20/04723. Councillor Guthrie chaired the meeting for the remainder of the proceedings.
77.2 Item 7a
Proposal Full Planning Application – Residential Development of No.141 dwellings (49 affordable dwellings) with associated access, landscaping amenity space and parking.
Site Location STOWMARKET – Site 3C and 3D Land South Of, Gun Cotton Way, Stowmarket, Suffolk
Applicant Bellway Homes Ltd (Eastern Counties)
77.3 The Area Planning Manager presented the application to the Committee outlining the location and layout of the site, the reasons for the application being deferred by the Committee on 3 March 2021 and subsequent amendments to the application, and the officer recommendation of approval.
77.4 Members considered the representation from Laura Dudley-Smith who spoke as the agent.
77.5 Members considered the representation from Councillor Terence Carter and Councillor Dave Muller who spoke as Ward Members.
77.6 Members debated the application on issues including the mix of homes on site, the amendments made since the previous presentation to the committee, and the location of and access to the site.
77.7 In response to a question from Councillor Guthrie, the Area Planning Manager provided clarification regarding the triple parking arrangements on site.
77.8 Members continued to debate the application on issues including provision of electric vehicle charging points.
77.9 Councillor Warboys proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation.
77.10 Councillor Norris second the motion.
77.11 By 7 votes to 1
77.12 It was RESOLVED:
That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to grant planning permission:
(1) Subject to the prior agreement of a Section 106 Planning Obligation on appropriate terms to the satisfaction of the Chief Planning Officer to secure:
• Affordable housing
This shall include:
. Properties must be built to current Homes England requirements and meet the NDSS requirements.
. The council is granted 100% nomination rights to all the affordable units on first lets and minimum of 100% of relets.
. The affordable units to be constructed 'tenure blind'
. All flats must be in separate blocks and capable of freehold transfer to an RP.
. Adequate parking and cycle storage provision is made for the affordable housing units.
. Commuted sum option available to be paid instead of on site provision should the LPA agree to such request.
• Early Years contribution £266,604.00
• Primary School Transport contribution £96,400.00
• Management of public open space • Travel plan and contributions
• Reptile mitigation
• Implementation of either extant consents or this proposal
(2) That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission upon completion of the legal agreement subject to conditions as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:
• Standard time limit
• Approved Plans
• Phasing Condition
• Swift boxes installation scheme to be agreed
• Hedgehog fencing scheme to be agreed
• Water, energy and resource efficiency measures (as Environment Health officer recommends) ... view the full minutes text for item 77.
78.1 A short comfort break was taken from 12:26pm until 13:04pm after the completion of DC/20/04723 but before the commencement of DC/20/04572
78.2 Item 7B
Proposal Planning Application – Erection of 3no. detached dwellings and associated parking and landscaping, utilising the existing public house access.
Site Location FELSHAM – Land Rear of The Six Bells, Church Road, Felsham, Suffolk
Applicant Cordage 13 Limited
78.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the location and layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.
78.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: access for parking, and the proposed number of dwellings on site.
78.5 A short break was taken from 13:27pm until 13:33 pm.
78.6 Members considered the representation from Nicholas Panayi who spoke as an objector.
78.7 The objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: any previous accidents involving vehicles exiting the Public House car park.
78.8 Members considered the representation from Jeremy Heppell who spoke as the agent.
78.9 The agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the exit route for cars from the proposed car parking spaces, and the proposed number of dwellings on site.
78.10 Members considered the representation from Councillor Penny Otton who spoke as the Ward Member.
78.11 The Ward Member and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members regarding whether the car park was classified as public open space, if there would be an increase in the amount of vehicles accessing the site, the owners of the land, the effect on visibility of cars being parked on the verge outside the public house, the location of the bin collection area and cycle store.
78.12 Members debated the application on issues including: the design and scale of the buildings, the previous appeal decision and reasons for refusal, the amount of vehicles accessing the site, visibility issues surrounding the access to the site, and potential overdevelopment of the site.
78.13 Councillor Humphreys proposed that, subject to the additional condition, the application be approved as per the officers recommendation.
78.14 Councillor Guthrie seconded the motion.
78.15 Members continued to debate the applications on issues including: car parking and traffic movement on site.
78.16 By a vote of 3 votes to 5 the motion was lost.
78.17 Councillor Stringer proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as follows:
The proposal would, by reason of poor layout, design and scale, create a cramped and contrived over-development of the site which would be out of keeping with the character of the locality and would be detrimental to the local distinctiveness of this part of Felsham, contrary to Local Plan Policies GP1 and H15.
As a whole, this proposal represents a very poor design, dominated by parking and manoeuvring that results in a detrimental impact that would fail to protect the amenity of properties, contrary to Local Plan Policy SB2. The functional arrangement of the layout is considered poor and fails to ... view the full minutes text for item 78.
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.