Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SUBSTITUTES AND APOLOGIES Any Member attending as an approved substitute to report giving his/her name and the name of the Member being substituted.
To receive apologies for absence.
Minutes: An apology of absence was received from Councillor John Hinton.
Councillor Derek Davis substituted for Councillor John Hinton. |
|||||||||||||
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.
Minutes: Councillor Sue Ayres declared a non-pecuniary interest in application DC/18/01526 as she knew someone who lived next to the site.
Councillor David Busby declared a non-pecuniary interest in application DC/19/01712 and advised Members that he would speak as the Ward Member but would not take part in the debate or vote.
After taking advice from the Planning Lawyer, Councillor Leigh Jamieson declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications DC/19/01530 & DC/19/01531 as he had previously made a statement regarding the applications before he became a Member of Babergh District Council but would be approaching the application with an open mind. |
|||||||||||||
PL/19/3 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5 JUNE 2019 PDF 239 KB To Follow. Minutes: It was resolved that the Minutes of the meeting from 5 June 2019 were confirmed and signed as a true record. |
|||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: The Governance Officer reported that a petition had been received regarding application DC/19/01712 with 77 valid signatures supporting the following statements:
Say No to backfill - A planning application has been submitted regarding the erection of 2 large properties with associated road, in the grounds to the rear of Rosslyn House. This contravenes the former ribbon development policy.
* A number of existing residences would be affected considerably by loss of outlook, privacy and light.
* If granted it sets a precedent for further unwanted backfill in any area of our village. |
|||||||||||||
SITE INSPECTIONS In addition to any site inspections which the Committee may consider to be necessary, the Acting Chief Planning Officer will report on any other applications which require site inspections.
The provisional date for any site inspections is Wednesday ________.
Minutes: None requested. |
|||||||||||||
PL/19/4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE PDF 56 KB An Addendum to Paper PL/19/4 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 PL/19/4 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 PL/19/4 be made as follows:-
|
|||||||||||||
DC/18/01526 LAND WEST OF, LOW STREET, GLEMSFORD, SUFFOLK PDF 499 KB Additional documents: Minutes: 14.1 Item 1
Application DC/18/01526 Proposal Outline Planning Application (Access and Landscaping to be considered). Residential development consisting of 101 new dwellings and 35 retirement living apartments (as revised by drawings received 04.03.2019). Site Location GLEMSFORD- Land West of Low Street, Glemsford, Suffolk Applicant EJL Landholdings Ltd
14.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation for refusal.
14.3 Members considered the representation from Brian Stephens of Glemsford Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
14.4 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current status of the Glemsford Local Plan, and that the village had conducted a village needs survey.
14.5 Members considered the representation from Sharon Smith who spoke as an Objector.
14.6 Members considered the representation from Craig Western and Andrew Crutchley, who spoke as the Agents.
14.7 The Agents responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the archaeological report for the site, the impact on the heritage asset, the connectivity of the site, the height of the proposed development, that the identified need was based on data at the District level, and the proposed access to the site.
14.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Michael Holt, who spoke as the Ward Member.
14.9 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current health provision in the area, the availability of employment in Glemsford. It was noted that Councillor Stephen Plumb chose not to speak as the Ward Member, but to take part in the debate and vote.
14.10 The Case Officer advised Members that due to possible flooding, one property in the revised drawings had been removed.
14.11 Members debated the application on the issues including: the impact on the heritage assets and, the archaeological survey.
14.12 Councillor Adrian Osborne proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Sue Ayres seconded the motion.
14.13 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: possible further reasons for refusal, that the proposed development did not outweigh the public benefit.
14.14 RESOLVED
That authority be delegated to Corporate Manager - Growth & Sustainable Planning to refuse outline planning permission for reasons including:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and location, would cause significant harm to a Valued Landscape and Special Landscape Area, contrary to Policies CS11 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and Policy CR04 the Babergh Local Plan (2006) and paragraphs 127 and 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and location, would fail to preserve or enhance the Glemsford Conservation Area and cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed St Marys Church and Monks Hall and this harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the development, contrary to Policies CS11 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and Policy CN06 and CN08 the ... view the full minutes text for item 14. |
|||||||||||||
DC/19/00881 LAND SOUTH OF BROOKLANDS ROAD, BRANTHAM PDF 485 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 15.1 Item 2
Application DC/19/00881 Proposal Submission of details under Outline Planning Permission B/15/00263: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout, and Scale for 288 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure. Site Location BRANTHAM- Land South of Brooklands Road, Brantham. Applicant Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
15.2 The Case Officer presented a comprehensive examination of the proposal, outlining the layout of the site, the tabled papers before Members, and the officer recommendation of approval
15.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the entrance to the application, the proposed cycle paths and Electric Vehicle charging points, and the proposed placement for refuse bin storage.
15.4 Members considered the representation from Andrew Garnham who spoke as the Applicant and James Boyer, who spoke as the Agent.
15.5 The Applicant and Agent responded to Members questions on issues including: the retained walls on the site and their ownership, that a management company would maintain the cycle paths and Electric vehicle charging points, safety measures at the decoy pond, the flood risk of the site, and the parking provision on the site.
15.6 Members considered the representation from Councillor Alastair McCraw who spoke as the Ward Member.
15.7 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the community engagement from the applicant, and the health provision in the area.
15.8 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that a number of the outline planning conditions covered issues including the landscape management but that a further condition could be added to safeguard this aspect.
15.9 Members debated the application on the issues including: the decontamination work that would be undertaken on the former industrial site, that the draft neighbourhood plan had little weight, and that that there was no affordable housing proposed to finance the regeneration of the former industrial area.
15.10 Councillor Melanie Barrett proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation with the additional conditions as follows: · Adequate provision of waste bins · Landscape management plan
15.11 Councillor Adrian Osborne seconded the motion.
15.12 RESOLVED
That Members resolve to: (1) Grant approval of the reserved matters (under application reference DC/19/00881) subject to planning conditions, drafted to the satisfaction of the Acting Chief Planning Officer, including:
- Approved Plans and Details - Car charging details inc. ducting for shared areas. - Further detailed hard and soft landscaping plans and treatments including areas of play. - Agreement of dog waste/bin locations. - Site boundary treatments informed by public engagement. - Expanded construction management details for materials importation. - As required by SCC, where necessary.
Additional Conditions:
· Adequate provision of waste bins · Landscape management plan
|
|||||||||||||
DC/19/01712 ROSSLYN HOUSE, DUKE STREET, HINTLESHAM, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK, IP8 3QP PDF 347 KB Additional documents: Minutes: 16.1 A short comfort break was taken between 11:40-11:54 after the completion of application DC/19/00881 but before the commencement of application DC/19/01712
16.2 Item 3
Application DC/19/01712 Proposal Planning Application. Erection of 2no. dwellings, associated outbuildings, improved vehicular access and landscaping. PV array to serve the two dwellings. Site Location HINTLESHAM- Rosslyn House, Duke Street, Hintlesham, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP8 3QP Applicant Mr and Mrs Whyman
16.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal.
16.4 Members considered the representation from David Marsh who spoke on behalf of Chattisham and Hintlesham Parish Council.
16.5 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: allocations for housing within the parish.
16.6 Members considered the representation from Roger Balmer, who spoke as the Agent on behalf of the Applicant.
16.7 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed ecological measures on the site, and the possible adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
16.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor David Busby who spoke as the Ward Member. Councillor Busby left the meeting for the remainder of the item at 12:20 before the debate started.
16.9 Members debated the application on the issues including: the current state of the 5-year housing land supply, the tilted balance being in favour of sustainable development, the unique and innovative design that was being proposed, and the public benefits of the proposed ecological measures.
16.10 Councillor Melanie Barrett proposed that the application be approved against the officer recommendation for the following reasons:
· The development would not be out of character with its surroundings and the design is responsive to its context with positive ecological and environmental features. The development would meet a local need. The development would not set a precedent in light of the individual circumstances of the application. The development would pose minimal disruption to the amenity afforded to neighbouring occupants with an adequate degree of separation and noting the limited intensification of an existing access. · The development would be consistent with policies CS1, CS11, and CS15. · The identified harm would not outweigh the public benefits in allowing development to proceed.
Grant planning permission subject to ‘standard’ conditions, including: - Time limit - Approved plans - Construction management plan
16.11 Councillor Derek Davis seconded the motion.
16.12 RESOLVED
Approved contrary to Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:
The development would not be out of character with its surroundings and the design is responsive to its context with positive ecological and environmental features. The development would meet a local need. The development would not set a precedent in light of the individual circumstances of the application. The development would pose minimal disruption to the amenity afforded to neighbouring occupants with an adequate degree of separation and noting the limited intensification of an existing access.
The development would be consistent with policies CS1, CS11, and CS15.
The identified harm would not outweigh the public benefits in allowing development to ... view the full minutes text for item 16. |
|||||||||||||
DC/19/01530 THE OLD RECTORY, RECTORY ROAD, WHATFIELD, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK, IP7 6QU PDF 382 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 17.1 Councillor David Busby re-joined the meeting after the completion of application DC/19/01712 but before the commencement of DC/19/01530.
17.2 Item 4
Application DC/19/01530 Proposal Householder Planning Application – Erection of a single storey & two storey side extension. Site Location WHATFIELD- The Old Rectory, Rectory Road, Whatfield, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP7 6QU Applicant Mr and Mrs Mike & Jane Appleby
17.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the tabled papers before Members, and the Officer recommendation of refusal.
17.4 Members considered the representation from Jane Appleby who spoke as the Applicant.
17.5 The Applicant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: when the building was listed, and the reasons for the proposed changes to the property.
17.6 Councillor David Busby proposed that Members undertake a site visit. Councillor Stephen Plumb seconded the motion.
17.7 The motion was lost.
17.8 Members debated the application on the issues including: the age of the heritage asset and when amendments to the building had been made.
17.9 The Heritage Officer advised Members that the age of the building was not the only factor that was taken into account for the Heritage response and that there were no public benefits to the proposal before Members. The Planning Lawyer also advised Members that the age of the building was a live issue and was still being disputed between the applicant and the Heritage Team.
17.10 The Area Planning Manager advised Members that they should have special regards to safeguarding heritage assets and that substantial harm would mean that all the significance of the building was lost.
17.11 With the agreement of the Chair the applicant responded to some of the points that had been raised regarding the Heritage aspects of the proposal.
17.12 Members debated the application on the issues including: the harm to the heritage asset and the sustainability of the proposal with regards to demolishing part of the listed asset.
17.13 Councillor Melanie Barrett proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Lee Parker seconded the motion.
17.14 RESOLVED
That authority be delegated to the Acting Chief Planning Officer to refuse householder planning permission for the following reasons:
The proposed two- storey and single- storey extensions on the western elevation of The Old Rectory, following the demolition of the two-storey and a single-storey wings, are considered to be detrimental to the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II designated Heritage Asset. The proposed demolition of the two historic wings which contribute notably to the understanding of the evolution of the building, would not preserve the designated heritage asset. The harm which would result to the listed building significantly outweighs any public benefits that may be afforded to the proposal and there is not clear or convincing justification for this harm, which should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. The application, therefore, does not meet the requirements of paragraphs 194 and 196 of the NPPF and Policy CN06 ... view the full minutes text for item 17. |
|||||||||||||
DC/19/01531 THE OLD RECTORY, RECTORY ROAD, WHATFIELD, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK, IP7 6QU PDF 363 KB Additional documents: Minutes: 18.1 Item 5
Application DC/19/01531 Proposal Householder Planning Application- Erection of a single storey & two storey side extension. Site Location WHATFIELD- The Old Rectory, Rectory Road, Whatfield, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP7 6QU Applicant Mr and Mrs Mike & Jane Appleby
18.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, that this an application for listed building consent, and that the officer recommendation was for refusal.
18.3 Members debated the application on the issues including the harm to the listed building.
18.4 Councillor Stephen Plumb proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Derek Davis seconded the motion.
18.5 RESOLVED
That authority be delegated to the Acting Chief Planning Officer to refuse householder planning permission for the following reason:
The proposed two story and single storey extensions proposed on the western elevation of The Old Rectory, following the demolition of two storey wing and a single storey wing are considered to be detrimental to the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II designated Heritage Asset. The proposed demolition of the two historic wings which contribute notably to the understanding of the evolution of the building, would not preserve the designated heritage asset. The harm which would result to the listed building significantly outweighs any public benefits that may be afforded to the proposal and there is not clear or convincing justification for this harm, which should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. The application, therefore, does not meet the requirements of Section 16 P(LBCA)A 1990, paragraph 194 and 196 of the NPPF and Policy CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006).
|