Venue: Cedars Park Community Centre, Pintail Road, Stowmarket, IP14 5FP
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS Minutes: 22.1 Apologies were received from Councillor James Caston
22.2 Councillor Barry Humphreys substituted for Councillor James Caston
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS Minutes: 23.1 None declared. |
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING Minutes: 24.1 Councillors Guthrie, Muller, Gould, Mellen, Norris, Warboys and Stringer declared that they had been lobbied on application DC/21/06379.
|
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS Minutes: 25.1 None declared.
|
|||||||||
SA/22/5 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6 JULY 2022 PDF 261 KB Minutes: 26.1 It was resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2022 were confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: 27.1 The Governance Officer reported that one petition had been received regarding application number DC/21/06825 (Item 7A) with 102 valid signatures supporting the following statement:
We, the undersigned petition the Council to oppose the development of a photovoltaic solar array, battery storage, and ancillary structure at Land to the South of Suggenhall Farm, Church Lane, Rickinghall, IP22 1LL
|
|||||||||
SA/22/6 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS PDF 30 KB Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
Minutes: 28.1 In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on Planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:
|
|||||||||
DC/21/06825 LAND TO THE SOUTH OF SUGGENHALL FARM, CHURCH LANE, RICKINGHALL, IP22 1LL PDF 430 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 29.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/06825 Proposal Full Planning Application – Development of a photovoltaic solar array, battery storage and ancillary infrastructure Site Location Land To The South Of Suggenhall Farm, Church Lane, Rickinghall, IP22 1LL Applicant RNA Energy Ltd
29.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including the updated consultation response from Place Services Ecology, the site location plan, the proximity of the site to other local solar proposals, the agricultural land classification survey, the amount of best and most versatile (BMV) land on the site, the constraints of the site, the proximity of the site to nearby residential properties, the superseded and amended proposed block plan, the proposed landscaping strategy, the proposed ancillary infrastructure, the proposed elevations, and the Officer recommendation for approval.
29.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the Heritage and Historic England consultation response, the cumulative impact of all solar farm proposals in the nearby region, the agricultural value of the land, the landscaping strategy, and the impact of surrounding trees on solar panel productivity.
29.4 Members considered the representation from Mr. Richard Baldwin who spoke as an Objector.
29.5 The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the solar proposals in proximity to the site, the impact of solar panels on nearby properties, and the potential yield of wheat from the area of land used for the site proposal.
29.6 Members considered the representation from Mr. Tom Roseblade who spoke as the Agent.
29.7 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether farming operations could still occur on the field if the proposed solar panels were installed, the fire risk on the site and the fire strategy, and the intended use for the southern section of the site.
29.8 The Governance Officer read out a statement from Councillor Jessica Fleming who spoke as the Ward Member.
29.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the validated petition in objection to the application, the use of land for agricultural purposes, how we assess the value of agricultural land, the Ward Member’s request for refusal, food and energy security, industrialisation within the countryside, whether there are more suitable sites for the proposal, the visual impact on the countryside, the potential impact on the heritage assets surrounding the site, the fire risk on the site, and whether the land could be used for both agricultural and energy production purposes.
29.10 Councillor Humphreys proposed that the application be refused.
29.11 Councillor Muller seconded the proposal.
By a vote of 5 For and 3 Against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1) REASON FOR REFUSAL – HERITAGE HARM
The proposed solar array would result in development of agricultural land within the setting of Grade I listed St Marys Church which would impact the views across the open landscape to the south of Grade II listed Suggenhall Farmhouse, obscuring its legibility and understanding as part of the ... view the full minutes text for item 29.
|
|||||||||
DC/21/06379 LAND EAST OF, ASHFIELD ROAD, ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK PDF 534 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 30.1 Item 7B
Application DC/21/06379 Proposal Full Planning Application - Erection of 19No dwellings (including 6No Affordable) and construction of new vehicular accesses. Site Location Land East Of, Ashfield Road, Elmswell, Suffolk Applicant Hartog Hutton Ltd
30.2 A short break was taken between 11:14am and 11:22am before the commencement of application number DC/21/06379
30.3 Councillor Mellen declared himself at the Suffolk County Council Member for Elmswell.
30.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including the location of the site, the constraints of the site, the location of the site in context to Elmswell, the site layout plan, the proposed elevations, and the Officer recommendation for refusal.
30.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proximity of Grove Farm to the proposed site.
30.6 Members considered the representation from Mr. Peter Dow who spoke on behalf of Elmswell Parish Council.
30.7 Members considered the representation from Mr. Phil Cobbold who spoke as the Agent.
30.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Sarah Mansel who spoke as the Ward Member.
30.9 Councillor Mansel read out a statement from Councillor Helen Geake who also spoke as the Ward Member.
30.10 Members debated the application on issues including: the lack of footpath connectivity to the site, the current housing supply, developments on the outskirts of settlement boundaries, the Parish Council’s comments, and the design of the proposal.
30.11 Councillor Muller proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
30.12 Councillor Warboys seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
(1) That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to REFUSE Planning Permission based on the following reasons and such other reasons as he considers fit:
1. The proposal is in a countryside location where the development of these new dwellings would not materially enhance or maintain the vitality of the rural community. Future occupants will, moreover, be likely to be reliant upon the private car to access services, facilities, and employment. The District Council has an evidenced supply of land for housing in excess of 9 years and has taken steps to significantly boost the supply of homes in sustainable locations.
On this basis the proposal would not promote sustainable development and would be contrary to the adopted policies of the development plan which seek to direct the majority of new development to towns and key service centres listed in the Core Strategy 2008 with some provision to meet local needs in primary and secondary villages under policy CS1. In the countryside development is to be directed to more sustainable locations having regard to policy CS2 and it is considered that in the circumstances of this application the direction of new housing development to more sustainable locations is of greater weight than the delivery of these additional dwellings in a less sustainable location. Having regard to the significant supply of land for homes in the District it is considered that the objectives of paragraph 60 of ... view the full minutes text for item 30.
|
|||||||||
SITE INSPECTION 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.
Minutes: 31.1 None declared
|