Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Frink Room (Elisabeth) - Endeavour House. View directions

Contact: Committee Services 

Items
No. Item

28.

SUBSTITUTES AND APOLOGIES

Minutes:

28.1    Apologies were received from Councillor Hinton.

 

28.2    Councillor Davis substituted for Councillor Hinton.

29.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and other registerable and non-registerable interests by Members.

 

Minutes:

29.1    Councillor Barrett declared an other non-registerable interest in respect of application number DC/22/00754 as the agent is known to him.

 

29.2    Councillor Davis declared an other non-registerable interest in respect of application number DC/22/02948 as the Babergh District Council representative for the Joint Advisory Committee and Partnership to Suffolk Coasts and Heaths (AONB).

 

 

30.

PL/22/7 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 AUGUST 2022

To follow.

Minutes:

30.1    The Governance Officer advised that the Minutes would be deferred until the next meeting.

31.

TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME

Minutes:

31.1    None received.

32.

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.

 

 

Minutes:

32.1    Members agreed that the site visit in respect of application number DC/21/02671 – Wolsey Grange, which had been agreed at the Committee Meeting on 10 August 2022, would take place on 12 October 2022.

33.

PL/22/8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE pdf icon PDF 60 KB

An Addendum to Paper PL/22/8 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/22/8 and the speakers responded to questions put to them as provided for under those arrangements.

 

Application Number

Representations From

DC/20/03083

William Wrinch (Erwarton Parish Meeting)

Mark Best (Objector)

John Fell-Clark (Supporter)

Elizabeth Beighton (Agent)

DC/22/02948

Councillor Margaret Maybury (Ward Member)

DC/22/00754

Jan Aries (Bures St Mary Parish Council)

Andrew Clifft (Objector)

Richard Butler (Supporter)

Will Vote (Agent)

 

33.1    The Chair advised that the applications would be heard in the following order:

 

          Item 6A         DC/20/03083

          Item 6C         DC/22/00754

          Item 6B         DC/22/02948

 

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/22/8 be made as follows:-

 

34.

DC/20/03083 ERWARTON HALL FARM YARD, THE STREET, ERWARTON, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK. IP9 1LQ pdf icon PDF 313 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

34.1    Item 6A

 

          Application              DC/20/03083

Proposal                  Full Planning Application – Conversion, repair, and extension of existing farm buildings to form 5no. dwellings, erection of garage, the demolition of buildings (including the metal clad barn), provision of new vehicular access to The Street and associated landscaping.

Site Location           ERWARTON – Erwarton Hall Farm Yard, The Street, Erwarton, Ipswich, Suffolk IP9 1LQ

Proposer                 JRH Veenbaas And Co

 

 

34.2    Councillor Davis confirmed that he would remain on the Committee for the item, and would not speak as Ward Member.

 

34.3    The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed access and parking plans, the potential heritage impact of the development, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the report.

 

34.4    The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the reasons for the recommendation of refusal, the level of heritage harm detailed in the various consultee comments, the proposed glazing, local education and healthcare provisions, public transport links, the proposed weatherboarding, and the pre-application advice provided.

 

34.5    Members considered the representation from William Wrinch who spoke on behalf of Erwarton Parish Meeting.

 

34.6    Members considered the representation from Mark Best who spoke as an Objector.

 

34.7    The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the location of the application in the area which had recently been refused by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

34.8    Members considered the representation from John Fell-Clark who spoke as a Supporter.

 

34.9    The Supporter responded to questions from Members on issues including: the suitability of the proposed materials.

 

34.10  Members considered the representation from Elizabeth Beighton who spoke as the Agent.

 

34.11  The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether any agricultural activities would take place on the development site, the number of access points, whether the access would be shared with agricultural vehicles, and the pre-application advice provided to them.

 

34.12  The Planning Lawyer provided clarification to Members that pre-application advice was understood to be without prejudice and subject to consultation.

 

34.13  The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members regarding the size of the development and whether there would be any increase in the height of the existing buildings.

 

34.14  Members debated the application on issues including: the reason for the application being referred to Committee, the pre-application advise provided to the applicant, the heritage impact of the development, the proposed design of the dwellings including the glazing, the differing responses from professional consultees, the safety of agricultural vehicles operating in close proximity to residential dwellings, and the sustainability of the location.

 

34.15  Councillor Davis proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.

 

34.16  Councillor McCraw seconded the motion.

 

34.17  The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to further questions from Members on issues including: permitted development rights in respect of agricultural buildings, and whether the planning policies being applied were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
That application number DC/20/03083 be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 35.

    DC/22/00754 FORMER CHAMBERS BUS DEPOT, CHURCH SQUARE, BURES ST MARY, SUFFOLK, CO8 5AB pdf icon PDF 332 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    35.1    Item 6C

     

              Application              DC/22/00754

    Proposal                  Planning Application – Construction of local convenience store and 10 no. apartments/houses (a net increase of 9 dwellings) including associated drainage, parking, hardstanding, fences/walls and other infrastructure (following demolition of outbuildings and in-filling of former vehicle inspection pits, partial demolition of former bus depot and house)

    Site Location           BURES ST MARY – Former Chambers Bus Depot, Church Square, Bures St Mary, Suffolk, CO8 5AB

    Proposer                 Rosper Estates Ltd 

     

     

    35.2    A break was taken from 14:58pm until 15:07pm after application number DC/20/03083 and before the commencement of application number DC/22/00754.

     

    35.3    The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed floor plans for the dwellings, the proposed access plans and drainage system, potential heritage issues and the public benefits of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.

     

    35.4    The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the location of the proposed pedestrian crossing, any proposed highways improvements and the County Council response, the width of the access to the site, and whether any consultation had taken place with local residents.

     

    35.5    Members considered the representation from Jan Aries who spoke on behalf of Bures St Mary Parish Council.

     

    35.6    The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether any consultation had taken place with local residents, whether the Parish Council’s concerns regarding highways had been discussed with the County Council, whether there was a Neighbourhood Plan in place, and the outcome of the housing needs survey.

     

    35.7    Members considered the representation from Andrew Clifft who spoke as an Objector.

     

    35.8    The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the level of noise created by the existing users of the site, the existing traffic flow, the healthcare provision in the village, the current number of convenience stores and parking spaces in the village, and whether the local community felt there was a need for a convenience store at this location.

     

    35.9    The Case Officer responded to questions from Members regarding the accessibility of the car park for delivery vehicles.

     

    35.10  Members considered the representation from Richard Butler who spoke as a Supporter.

     

    35.11  The Supporter responded to questions from Members on issues including: any existing traffic and parking issues in the village, and the public transport provision.

     

    35.12  Members considered the representation from Will Vote who spoke as the Agent.

     

    35.13  The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the developer would undertake both the residential and convenience store works, the housing need identified by the Neighbourhood Plan and the mix of housing being proposed, traffic issues, the safety of the footpath, access to the first floor apartments, ecology issues, and whether any land contamination issues had been addressed.

     

    35.14  Members debated the application on issues including: the sustainability of the location, the existing road layout and traffic issues, and the valuation detailed in the S106 Agreement.

     

    35.15  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application number DC/22/00754 be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 36.

    DC/22/02948 1 NORTHERN ROAD, CHILTON INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SUDBURY, SUFFOLK, CO10 2YH pdf icon PDF 192 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    36.1    Item 6B

             

              Application              DC/22/02948

    Proposal                  Full Planning Application – Construction of solar park

    Site Location           SUDBURY – 1 Northern Road, Chilton Industrial Estate, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2YH

    Applicant                 JCS Hi-Torque Limited

     

     

    36.2    A break was taken from 16:28pm until 16:35 after application number DC/22/00754 and before the commencement of application number   DC/22/02948.

     

    36.3    The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, details of alternative applications in the area, the site layout, the existing boundary treatment, the allocated employment use of the land and how the proposal supports this use, the details of the proposed containers, the proposed roadway, and the Officer recommendation of approval.

     

    36.4    The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the consideration given to the loss of employment land, where the solar park would be providing electricity to, and how long the equipment could remain on site once no longer in use.

     

    36.5    Members considered the representation from Councillor Maybury who spoke as the Ward Member.

     

    36.6    Councillor Plumb proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer recommendation.

     

    36.7    Councillor McCraw seconded the motion.

     

    36.8    Members debated the application on issues including: the loss of employment land and how the proposed use of the land continues to support employment.

     

    It was RESOLVED:

     

    That planning permission be approved to include the following conditions:

     

    ·       Standard time limit

    ·       In accordance with the approved plans

    ·       Construction Management Scheme 

    ·       Ecological appraisal recommendations

    ·       Biodiversity enhancement strategy

    ·       Landscaping scheme including details of boundaries landscaping and land between solar panels.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application number DC/22/02948 be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item