Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SUBSTITUTES 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, a substitute was in attendance as follows:-
Sue Ayres (substituting for Michael Creffield) |
||||||||||||
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting. Minutes: Councillor Dave Busby declared a local non-pecuniary interest in Application No DC/18/00978 (Item 2 of Paper PL/18/9) in his capacity as a Trustee of the Capel St Mary Community Trust. He subsequently stated that he would not vote on the Item.
Councillor David Rose declared a local non-pecuniary interest in Application No DC/18/1384 (Item 1 of Paper PL/18/9) in his capacity as the Council’s representative on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Joint Advisory Committee and Partnership. |
||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: None received. |
||||||||||||
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 29 August 2018. Minutes:
|
||||||||||||
PL/18/9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE PDF 243 KB An Addendum to Paper PL/18/9 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:
|
||||||||||||
DC/18/01384 Shotley Pier, Queen Victoria Drive, Shotley PDF 514 KB Additional documents: Minutes: SHOTLEY
Samantha Summers, Development Management Planning Officer in introducing this item, advised Members that there were no updates to the report. She referred to the controversial nature of the application which had attracted some 37 objections, and 1 representation in support, and to the community involvement in the project to restore the Pier. In response to a Member’s question, she confirmed that the seating plan was indicative.
It was noted by Members that, on the advice of the Monitoring Officer, neither of the Ward Members was present due to their interests as shareholders of the Shotley Heritage Charitable Benefit Society Ltd (the Applicant).
Following a wide-ranging debate on the considerations to be taken into account, as set out in the report and from the public speaking, the officer recommendation of approval subject to conditions was moved but was lost on being put to the vote.
The Members who had voted against the motion identified their reasons, together with the policy references, which were based upon the harm to the landscape and character of the area which they considered would not be outweighed by the benefits of the development. A motion to refuse was then proposed and seconded based on the above, as summarised by Steven Stroud, Strategic Projects and Delivery Manager.
It was RESOLVED
That authority be delegated to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to refuse planning permission for reasons including the following:
1. Policies CNo1, RE06, RE14 and CS15 of the Development Plan, alongside Paragraph 127 of the NPPF, require new development to respect and conserve the landscape qualities of an area (and in this instance the Stour and Orwell estuaries), and to provide an acceptable standard of design in that respect.
2. The development would, by virtue of its siting, scale, and form, harm the landscape character of the area, public views in and out of the area, and the character of the Stour and Orwell estuaries, contrary to the aforementioned policies and where the harm identified would not be outweighed by the benefits of the development. |
||||||||||||
DC/18/00978 The Street, Capel St Mary PDF 559 KB Additional documents: Minutes: CAPEL ST MARY
The Case Officer, Samantha Summers in introducing this item corrected an error in the report in relation to the Post Office which had moved to the Co-op from its previous location diagonally opposite the Church.
Following the decision to defer consideration at the meeting on 16 May pending the receipt of further information, the Case Officer showed slides demonstrating the extent of daylight loss to No 48 The Street at various times during the day and the year, which indicated some extra shadowing at 9 a.m., which was gone by midday. She also showed drawings which illustrated the comparison in height between the front section of the existing building and the proposed development.
Members were aware that the highway authority had not objected to the application subject to the proviso that the maximum capacity would be unchanged and limited by condition. The officer recommendation for approval subject to conditions was moved, with the addition of a further condition to limit the maximum patron capacity to 222, as at present. The motion was lost on being put to the vote.
A motion to refuse permission was then moved and carried, for reasons relating to the unacceptable amenity impacts which the proposed building, including its size and design, would have on the adjacent property, contrary to Policy CN01 and the NPPF.
It was RESOLVED
That authority be delegated to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to refuse planning permission for reasons including:-
1. Good design is a key component of sustainable development and safeguarding amenity is an element of good design, in accordance with the NPPF, and Policy CN01 of the Development Plan which requires all development to be of an appropriate scale, form and detailed design: particular attention must be paid to the nature of adjacent development.
2. The proposed development would, by virtue of its siting, scale, form and detailed design, represent an overdevelopment of the site that would pose unacceptable amenity impacts (including lighting and outlook) to the residents of 48 The Street, contrary to the aforementioned policies.
Note: Following his earlier declaration of a non-pecuniary interest in this item, Councillor Busby stated that after speaking during the debate in relation to some possible parking arrangements which might be agreed between the Capel Community Trust and the Methodist Church, he would not vote on this item, and he did not do so.
|
||||||||||||
DC/18/02601 Kingfisher Leisure Centre, Station Road, Sudbury PDF 497 KB Additional documents: Minutes: SUDBURY
Steven Stroud, Strategic Projects and Delivery Manager introduced this item, which was to be considered at Committee because Babergh District Council is the Applicant. No objections had been received, and neither of the Ward Members had commented.
It was RESOLVED
That authority be delegated to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:-
· Standard Time Limit (3 years) · Approved Plans · Surface Water Drainage Strategy |
||||||||||||
TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 JULY 2018 - TO FOLLOW Minutes: Members had before them the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2018, which had been circulated to Members the day before the meeting.
It was RESOLVED
That the public Minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record. |
||||||||||||
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC (WHICH TERM INCLUDES THE PRESS) 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 this item, it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the item.
The Committee was also satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. |
||||||||||||
TO CONFIRM CONFIDENTIAL MINUTE No 24 OF 25 JULY 2018 MEETING (Exempt information by virtue of Paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1) Minutes: It was RESOLVED
That Confidential Minute No 24 of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 25 July 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record. |