Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.
There were no declarations of interests.
39.1 It was resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on the 28 August 2019 were confirmed and signed as a true record.
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME
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 18 September 2019.
41.1 The Case Officer presented Members with a request for a site visit from Councillor John Nunn and gave a short presentation regarding application DC/19/01873.
That Members undertake a site visit on the 18th September 2019 for application DC/19/01873 Land to the East of Sand Hill, Boxford
41.3 The Case Officer presented Members with a request for a site visit from Councillor Bryn Hurren and gave a short presentation regarding application DC/19/03126.
41.5 That Members undertake a site visit the 18th September 2019 for application DC/19/03126 Land South of Tamage Road, Acton
An Addendum to Paper PL/19/11 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.
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/19/11 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/19/11 be made as follows: -
Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 5No dwellings, garages and landscaping along with alterations to improve existing junction with the highway
Site Location SUDBURY- Land South of High Bank, Melford Road, Sudbury, Suffolk
Applicant Mr P Llewelyn-Jones
43.1 The Case Officer presented Application DC/19/02315 to Members, outlining the proposal, the layout of the site and the officer recommendations to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
43.2 Members considered the representation from Peter Tarry, who spoke as an objector. James Stott, an objector was present to responded to questions.
43.3 The Objector responded to questions including: access to the site, traffic congestion, the effect on the traffic flow in relation to the development of the Mill, a grade on listed building.
43.4 The Case Officer informed the Committee that Suffolk Highways had not sought a traffic survey for the application.
43.5 Members considered the representation from Ben Elvin, who spoke as a representative for the Agent.
43.6 The representative for the Agent responded to questions and members were informed that provision for efficient alternative energy could be included in the conditions, that the size of the affordable houses was within the legal requirement and that landscaping would be considered when developing the access road to the site.
43.7 Members discussed pedestrian safety when accessing and exiting the site.
43.8 In response to the Members’ questions the Case Officer advised that ecology was included in the conditions.
43.9 Members considered the representation from Councillor Jan Osborne, Ward Member for Sudbury North West.
43.10 Members debated the application including the activity levels and access to the grade II listed buildings, access to sustainable provision for facilities and amenities, the environmental, social, heritage and ecological objectives in relation to the NPPF.
43.11 Members continued to debate the application and the safety of pedestrians crossing Melford Road to reach the pavement opposite.
43.12 Councillor Peter Beer proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Lee Parker seconded the motion.
43.13 The Motion was lost.
43.14 Members debated the application and asked for legal advice on the issues debated previously.
43.15 Councillor Peter Beer, after the advice of the Legal Advisor, proposed a second Motion, which was seconded by Councillor David Busby.
That the application be deferred to consider alternative access to development, pedestrian connectivity and heritage harm
Proposal Outline Planning Application ( some matters reserved) – Erection of residential development of up to 65 new dwellings (including minimum of 35% affordable homes, with areas of landscaping and public open space, including vehicular access, and associated infrastructure works).
Site Location BRANTHAM- Land South of Slough Road, Brantham, Suffolk
Applicant Rainier Developments Limited
Note the meeting was adjourned between 11:03am and 11:15am.
44.1 The Case Officer presented Application DC/19/01973 to Members, outlining the proposal, the layout of the site and the officer recommendations to grant outline planning permission subject to conditions.
44.2 Members considered the representation from Sarah Keys of Brantham Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
44.3 Members questioned the representative for Brantham Parish Council including accessibility to facilities such as post office and medical provisions.
44.4 Members considered the representation from the Grant Stevenson, the Applicant.
44.5 The Applicant responded to Members questions included the need for affordable housing in Brantham.
44.6 Members considered the representation from Councillor Alastair McCraw the Ward Member for Brantham.
44.7 Members question the Ward Member including: the number of new planning applications for the village, the number of current commenced housing developments, the total number of dwellings in the village and the anticipated total number of dwellings including the Application be developed in the future.
44.8 Members continued to question the Ward Member in relation to school provision in relation to provision made under Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
44.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the provision for school transport, the grading of the agricultural land on the site of the Application, the development in relation to planning policies, access to foot paths and the site’s relation to the established settlement.
44.10 Members continues to debate the Application including the archaeological value of the site and pre and post archaeological investigations.
44.11 Councillor Peter Beer moved the proposed officer recommendations, which was not seconded by any Member.
44.12 The Chair then moved for a deferral which was not seconded by any Member.
44.13 Members debated the options for refusal of the Application and Councillor Zac Norman proposed that the Application be refused.
44.14 The Legal Advisor advised Members to specify the reasons for the decision for refusal of the Application and Members agreed the following reasons:
· Conflict with Core Strategy policy CS2 of development outside Built Up Area Boundaries where there were no exceptional circumstances to justify it
· Conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS11 as there was no full local housing needs assessment submitted for the development
· Conflict with Core Strategy policy CS15 to protect the landscape in the district due to the resultant settlement coalescence with East Bergholt
44.15 Councillor Lee Parker seconded the motion.
44.16 The Legal Advisor asked that the Committee provided reasons for the decision for refusal.
44.17 Councillor Stephen plumb proposed that the reasons for refusal be written based on the debate and be reported to the Committee at the next Planning Committee.
44.18 The Chair ... view the full minutes text for item 44.