Agenda and minutes
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: It was noted that in accordance with Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rule No 20, substitutes were in attendance as follows:-
Simon Barrett (substituting for Jennie Jenkins) Siân Dawson (substituting for John Hinton) Richard Kemp (substituting for David Rose) |
|||||||||||||||
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting. Minutes: Councillor Siân Dawson stated that she lives near the site in Hadleigh which was the subject of Application No DC/17/04239 (Item 2 of Paper PL/18/6) and that in relation to Application No DC/17/00091 (Paper PL/18/7) she owns property in Boxford.
Councillor Dawson subsequently stated that she lives within 26m of the Hadleigh Hall site. |
|||||||||||||||
PL/18/4 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 MAY 2018 PDF 255 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 May 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||||
PL/18/5 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 30 MAY 2018 PDF 256 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED
That the public Minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||
TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13 JUNE 2018 - TO FOLLOW Minutes: It was RESOLVED
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2018 (circulated to Members prior to the day of the meeting) be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: Linda Sheppard, Senior Governance Support Officer, reported that a petition dated 20 July was received by Committee Services on the afternoon of 24 July 2018. Receipt of the petition was reported to the Council meeting on the evening of 24 July.
The petition was signed by a total of some 872 people with 459 signatures on paper and 413 online, and related to Application No DC/18/00929 – The Slaughter House and Land adjacent, Cuckoo Hill Bures St Mary, which was before Members as Item 1 of Paper PL/18/6 (Minute No 22 refers).
The petition reads:
“We the undersigned ask that Babergh District Council does not ignore the obvious flagrant breach of planning permission, to the detriment of local residents in the Bures community. Retrospective planning should not be granted for properties on Cuckoo Hill that are nearly 3 metres higher than the original planning agreed. Dominating over and intruding on residents’ privacy in nearby homes and gardens, causing great distress.”
The petition was drawn to the Committee’s attention. Members would have regard to the petition when considering the application and subsequently determining it along with all other material planning considerations.
|
|||||||||||||||
SITE INSPECTIONS In addition to any site inspections which the Committee may consider to be necessary, the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning will report on any other applications which require site inspections.
The provisional date for any site inspections is Wednesday 1 August 2018. Minutes: Further to the decision made at the meeting on 13 June for a site inspection to take place in respect of the Shotley Pier application in the event that it was referred to Committee for determination, Members were advised that the application would be considered at the meeting on 22 August in view of its controversial nature.
It was RESOLVED
(1) That a site inspection be held on 22 August 2018 in respect of Application No DC/18/01384 – Alterations to the Pier including provision of two buildings for Community / Volunteer facility, Shotley Pier, Queen Victoria Drive.
(2) That a Panel comprising the following Members be appointed to inspect the site:-
Clive Arthey Michael Holt Peter Beer Jennie Jenkins Sue Burgoyne Adrian Osborne David Busby Lee Parker Michael Creffield Stephen Plumb Luke Cresswell David Rose John Hinton Ray Smith |
|||||||||||||||
PL/18/6 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE PDF 158 KB An Addendum to Paper PL/18/6 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: Members had before them an Addendum to Paper PL/18/6 (circulated to Members prior to the day of the meeting) summarising additional correspondence received since the publication of the agenda but before noon on the working day before the meeting, together with 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/18/6 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/18/6 be made as follows:- |
|||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: BURES ST MARY
The Case Officer, John Davies, had just started his introduction to this item, at which point Councillor Kemp arrived. The Chairman asked the Case Officer to return to the beginning of his introduction so that Councillor Kemp was present for the whole item, together with the other Committee Members.
The Case Officer included reference to the Addendum, which contained additional representations and amendments, and to the Petition as reported in Minute No 20 above. He took Members through the history of the site as set out in the report, and its relevance to the current position and the officer recommendation of refusal for the reasons given.
At the conclusion of the objector speaking and responding to Members’ questions and prior to the Applicant’s Barrister, Mr Kevin Leigh, addressing the Committee, Ian de Prez, Legal Adviser to the Committee, referred to the Opinion given by Mr Leigh which had been received late the previous day in the form of an email to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and officers. The Opinion addressed various points including a request from the Applicant for consideration of the application to be deferred. Mr Leigh was present at the meeting to speak on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr de Prez informed Members that he had spoken to Mr Leigh briefly before the start of the meeting about the legal issues raised in the Opinion. Mr de Prez suggested that, with the consent of the Chairman, he would report key sentences from the email to the meeting. This was agreed by the parties and extracts were read out in which the following points were made.
· the officers have failed to identify the legal meaning of the planning permission and what it would permit. A court would look at the drawings and conditions. There are no slab height or finished ground level or ridge height conditions. · [making reference to the Tables in the survey] The drawings are to be measured on their face. ….. the underbuild should be excluded from the calculation of the ridge height because the site was sloping on several sides. · Mr Leigh had dealt with a number of appeals on this topic and always won, including a number of them in Essex. · the differences even on the Council’s best case are, in the circumstances ... view the full minutes text for item 23. |
|||||||||||||||
DC/17/04239 LAND ADJOINING HADLEIGH HALL, POUND LANE, HADLEIGH PDF 579 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
HADLEIGH
Gemma Walker – Area Planning Manager, in introducing this item, referred to the new NPPF and confirmed that, although the relevant paragraph numbers had changed, the recommendation was otherwise unaltered. Jonathan Duck, Heritage Officer, was present at the meeting to answer questions.
After the public speakers had addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members, Councillor Siân Dawson spoke at length on the application, which she supported. Following a query from Councillor Luke Cresswell about pre-determination, the Chairman, Peter Beer, advised Councillor Dawson that in view of the comments she had expressed, she should not vote on this item. Councillor Dawson accepted this and she did not vote, nor did she take any further part in the debate.
At this point, the officer recommendation of refusal as set out in the report was proposed and seconded. During the course of the debate on his motion the Heritage Officer explained the importance of the wider setting of the Listed Buildings in historic, heritage and Conservation Area terms, a view which was supported by Historic England, and which did not relate solely to what could be seen in the immediate surroundings. A point of order was raised regarding the timing of the motion to refuse. Members were advised that it was acceptable to put forward a motion at any time, although it was generally best practice to do so at the end of the debate.
It was RESOLVED
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-
1. The proposal results in the loss of the site as an area of open space, forming part of the setting and contributing to the significance of the adjacent Grade I listed Church, Deanery Tower and Guildhall, as well as the Grade II* Deanery, Grade II Hadleigh Hall and the Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore fail to protect, preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the locality, landscape and the setting and significance of the surrounding heritage assets, with particular regards to the churchyard aspect, and listed buildings by virtue of failing to respect the townscape, historic environment, important spaces and historic views, which would result in a high level of harm of less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area, not outweighed by public benefit. As such the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF including with regards to the environmental role of sustainable development and furthermore with particular respect to paragraphs 7, 14, 60, 61, 131, 132 and 134 of the NPPF, Policies CN01, CN03, CN06, CN08, HS01 and HS28 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006) and Policies CS1 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014).
2. The proposal would further result in the imposition ... view the full minutes text for item 24. |
|||||||||||||||
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC (WHICH TERM INCLUDES THE PRESS) To consider whether, pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public should be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during this item, it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the item.
The author of the report proposed to be considered in Part 2 of the Agenda is satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Part 2 Minutes: It was RESOLVED
That, pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during these items, it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against each item.
The Committee was also satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
|
|||||||||||||||
PL/18/7 ADDITION OF TWO REASONS FOR REFUSAL TO PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE B/17/00091 (APPEAL REFERENCE APP/D3505/W/18/3197391) Minutes: The Minute relating to the above-mentioned item is excluded from the public record. A summary of the Minute made by the Proper Officer in accordance with sub-section 100(c) of the Local Government Act 1972 is set out below.
Vincent Pearce – Principal Planning Officer, Strategic Projects and Delivery presented Paper PL/18/7 which sought the Committee’s ratification of action taken under delegated authority to include two new reasons for refusal in respect of Application No B/17/00091 [now at appeal].
After discussion of the issues covered by the report, it was proposed and seconded that the recommendation in paragraph 2.1 should not be accepted. There was an equality of votes at seven all, following which the Chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of the motion before the Committee.
|
|||||||||||||||
PL/18/8 TO CONFIRM THE CONFIDENTIAL MINUTE OF 30 MAY 2018 MEETING Minutes: It was RESOLVED
That Confidential Minute No 6 of the Planning Committee meeting held on 30 May 2018 (Paper PL/18/8) be confirmed and signed as a correct record. |