Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
SUBSTITUTES AND APOLOGIES
55.1 None received.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.
56.1 Councillor Ayres declared a local non-pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/20/04309.
It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 06 October 2021 were confirmed and signed as a true record.
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME
50.1 None received.
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.
59.1 The Case Officer presented Members with a request for a site visit from Councillor McLaren and gave a short presentation regarding application DC/21/01802 – Land South of Honeysuckle Cottage, Little Orchard, Holbrook.
59.2 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the reason for the application being referred to Committee, and the proposed number of dwellings on site.
59.3 Councillor Osborne proposed that the Committee undertake a site visit.
59.4 Councillor Ayres seconded the motion.
59.5 Councillor McLaren responded to a question from Members regarding the reason for requesting a site visit.
By a vote of 8 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention
It was RESOLVED:
A site visit shall be undertaken in respect of application number DC/21/01802.
An Addendum to Paper PL/21/15 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/21/15 and the speakers responded to questions put to them as provided for under those arrangements.
The Chair advised Members that application DC/21/04309 would be considered first and DC/21/04658 would be considered second.
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/21/15 be made as follows:-
61.1 Item 6B
Proposal Application under S73a for removal or variation of conditions relating to B/13/01384/FUL dated 07/03/2016. Town and Country Planning Act 1990. – To Vary Condition 2 (Approved Plans and Documents) – The proposal seeks to amend the layouts but retain the quantum of development (19 residential units) and reflects the overall scale of the previous approval and falls within the same site location, as per the revised drawings received 2nd October 2020.
Site Location SHOTLEY – Shotley Marina Ltd, King Edward VII Drive, Shotley, Ipswich, Suffolk IP9 1QJ
Applicant Shotley Marina Ltd, Towercrest Ltd
61.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed amendments to the previously approved application, and the officer recommendation of approval.
61.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the size of the site and the building, the number of parking spaces, whether the adjacent Public House was operational, the differences in height between the current and previous proposals, and the location of the HMS Ganges Museum.
61.4 Members considered the representation from Craig Western who spoke on behalf of the agent.
61.5 The agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of parking spaces on site, nesting seagulls, proposed waste disposal systems, the dimensions of the building, and the reasons for the design alterations.
61.6 Members considered the representation from Councillor Davis who spoke as the Ward Member.
61.7 The Area Planning Manager provided confirmation of the proposed number of parking spaces on site.
61.8 Members debated the application on issues including: the design of the building, and the amendments which had been made to the proposal to address previous concerns.
61.9 Councillor Beer proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation.
61.10 Councillor Parker seconded the motion.
61.11 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the potential increase in tourism and income in the area.
61.12 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification regarding the expiry date of the original application.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to
1. Negotiate the completion of a Section 106 Deed of Variation on terms to the Chief Planning Officer’s satisfaction, to ensure the obligations attached to the original application Section 106 are carried forward appropriately:
2. Subject to the execution of an appropriate Section 106 Deed of Variation on terms to his satisfaction, to GRANT planning permission with all the previously applied conditions, together with any other conditions he thinks fit including those below EXCEPT FOR the change to condition 2 of the original permission to authorise a change to the appearance of the building as described within these submitted plans.
· Restrict maximum building height to no greater than 16.545 AOD
· Require further approval of the materials.
62.1 Item 7A
Proposal Erection of 5 dwellings and associated works
Site Location GREAT CORNARD – Land Between Pot Kiln Road and Raydon Way, Great Cornard, Suffolk
Applicant Babergh District Council
62.2 A short break was taken from 10:31am until 10:41am after application number DC/20/04309 and before the commencement DC/21/04658.
62.3 Councillor Barrett and Councillor Beer confirmed to the Chair that they would remain on the committee for the duration of the application, and not speak as Ward Members.
62.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: details of a late representation received objecting to the loss of public open space, the location and layout of the site, the reason for referral to Committee, the open space assessment, and the officer recommendation of approval.
62.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the process to be followed for disposal of public amenity land, the history of the site and any previous planning applications, and the open space assessment.
62.6 The Area Planning Manager and the Planning lawyer provided clarification of when a Section S123 Notice would be required under the Local Government Act 1972 and confirmed that a decision could be made at the meeting regarding the application.
62.7 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the number of objections received.
62.8 The Planning Lawyer provided clarity with regard to the procedural requirements of a Section 123 notice and advised Members that the planning process is separate to land ownership.
62.9 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the open space assessment and provision of green space, landing point for the local air ambulance service, and the sustainability credentials of the proposed dwellings.
62.10 Members considered the representation from Councillor Jan Osborne who spoke on behalf of the applicant.
62.11 Members considered the representation from Lucy Smith who spoke on behalf of the agent.
62.12 The applicant and the agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proposed condition requesting a proportion of the dwellings are reserved for the local residents to purchase, the engagement with the parish council and local community, the entrance to the site and the impact this could have on existing dwellings, and the environmental benefits of the scheme.
62.13 Members debated the application on issues including: the loss of an air ambulance landing spot, the type of dwellings proposed, the loss of public open space, the number of objections received, and the sustainability of the development.
62.14 Councillor Barrett proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:
- Non-compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 99 and open space assessment.
- Harm from the loss of open space would not be outweighed by public benefit.
62.15 Councillor Beer seconded the motion.
By a vote of 8 votes for, and 3 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
- non-compliance with ... view the full minutes text for item 62.