Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda and minutes

Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions

Contact: Committee Services 

Items
No. Item

92.

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:

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors John Hinton and Zac Norman.

 

Councillor Mary McLaren substituted for Councillor Zac Norman.

 

Councillor Alastair McCraw substituted for Councillor John Hinton.

93.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Members to declare any interests as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Alastair McCraw declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest for application DC/19/01708 as he was previously the Ward Member for the area.

 

Councillor Lee Parker declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest as he had previously had a business arrangement with the Applicants representative.

 

 

94.

PL/19/22 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 DECEMBER 2019 pdf icon PDF 412 KB

To Follow.

Minutes:

It was resolved that the Minutes of the meeting from the 18 December 2019 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

95.

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

Minutes:

None received.

96.

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:

96.1 The Case Officer presented Members with site visit requests for applications B/15/01196 as requested by the Case Officer (Steven Stroud), and for Applications DC/18/02010 & DC/18/02412 which had been requested by Councillor Zac Norman.

 

96.2 Councillor Melanie Barrett proposed that a site visit be undertaken for applications DC/18/02010 & DC/18/02412. Councillor Peter Beer seconded the motion.

 

96.3 RESOLVED

 

-        That the Babergh Planning Committee undertake a site visit of planning applications DC/18/02010 and DC/18/02412 on Wednesday 19 February 2020.

 

 

96.4 Councillor Dave Busby proposed that a site visit be undertaken for application B/15/01196. Councillor Adrian Osborne seconded the motion.

 

96.5 RESOLVED

 

-        That the Babergh Planning Committee undertake a site visit of planning application B/15/01196 on Wednesday 19 February 2020.

 

 

97.

PL/19/23 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE pdf icon PDF 60 KB

An Addendum to Paper PL/19/23 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/19/23 and the speakers responded to questions put to them as provided for under those arrangements.

 

Application Number

Representations From

DC/17/04049

John Gill (Hartest Parish Council representative)

Douglas Chivers (Objector)

DC/19/01708

Sarah Cooper (Stutton Parish Council)

Shaun Orpen (Objector)

Keith Herrod (Objector)

Chris Smith (Applicant)

Cllr Mary McLaren (Ward Member)

DC/19/04445

A W Sheppard (Lavenham Parish Council)

Anthony John Ranzetta (Objector)

Soren Ramchelawon (Supporter)

Jonathan Hill (Applicant)

Barry Whymark (Agent)

Cllr Clive Arthey (Ward Member)

DC/19/02315

Peter Tarry (Objector)

DC/19/03445

Alan Newman (Elmsett Parish Council)

Charles Course (Applicants Representative)

DC/19/05417

John Olley (Applicant)

 

 

 

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/ be made as follows:-

 

98.

DC/17/04049 THE PADDOCKS, LAWSHALL ROAD, HARTEST, BURY ST EDMUNDS, SUFFOLK, IP29 4DR pdf icon PDF 433 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

98.1 Item A

 

Application          DC/17/04049

Proposal             Full Planning Application – Erection of 6 single-storey dwellings  and associated outbuildings, improvements to existing vehicular access and highways improvements. As amended by agent’s email dated 17/8/17 and amended drawings numbered 17/60/02A, 03A and 12A showing changes to proposed footpath arrangement. Further amended drawings received 9/11/17 numbered 17/60/02B, 03B, 04A, 05A, 06A, 07A, 08A, 09A, 10A, 11A, 12B, and 14B showing changes to layout and form of dwellings.

Site Location       HARTEST – The Paddocks, Lawshall Road, Hartest, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP29 4DR

Applicant             Lewis Morgan Ltd

 

 

98.2 Prior to the application being heard the Chair read out a statement regarding Members previous involvement on the application and that although the application was returning to the Committee again, he would be approaching the application with an open mind. This sentiment was mirrored and expressed by Councillors Plumb, Osborne, Parker and Busby.

 

98.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the previous history of the application, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

 

98.4 Members considered the representation from John Gill of Hartest Parish Council who spoke against the application.

 

98.5 Members considered the representation from Douglas Chivers who spoke as an Objector.

 

98.6 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: whether the site was allocated in the current draft of the Hartest Neighbourhood Plan, and whether any other sites had been allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

98.7 Members debated the application on the issues including: the reasoning why the application was brought back before the Committee, that the officer recommendation of refusal and the reasons for refusal had not changed but had only been appropriately updated with the NPPF, the Draft Local Plan and that there were no proposed sites in Hartest, the design of the proposal, and the location of the proposal.

 

98.8 Councillor Stephen Plumb proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Sue Ayres seconded the motion.

 

98.9 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the officer recommendation of refusal, the history of the site and the previous judicial reviews on the site.

 

98.10 RESOLVED

 

That the Application is refused for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its location, scale, density and layout, would be inconsistent with the open countryside and edge-of-settlement character, harmful to the character of the Special Landscape Area and setting of the Hartest village, contrary to Policy CS11 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

 

2. The proposed development, by virtue its location and poor pedestrian connectivity, would be car dependent which would not promote healthy living or sustainable transport, would not constitute sustainable development nor improve the social and environmental conditions in the district, contrary to Policies CS1 and CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and paragraphs 8, 17, 91, 103, 117 and 122of the National Planning Policy Framework  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

99.

DC/19/01708 LAND EAST OF CHURCH ROAD, CHURCH ROAD, STUTTON, IPSWICH, IP9 2SG pdf icon PDF 421 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

99.1 Before the commencement of DC/19/01708 Councillor Mary McLaren crossed the floor as the Ward Member for the item and indicated that she would speak but not vote upon the application.

 

99.2 Item B

 

Application          DC/19/01708

Proposal             Planning Application – Erection of 34no. dwellings with associated Public Open Space, Access Roads, Garaging and Car Parking ( Revised Proposal to that approved under B/17/00950)

Site Location       STUTTON- Land East of Church Road, Church Road, Stutton, Ipswich, IP9 2SG

Applicant             Hopkins and Moore (Developments) Ltd

 

 

99.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the prior history of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.

 

99.4 Members considered the representation from Sarah Cooper of Stutton Parish Council who spoke against the application.

 

99.5 Members considered the representations from Shuan Orpen and Keith Herrod who spoke as Objectors.

 

99.6 Members considered the representation from Chris Smith who spoke as the Applicant.

 

99.7 The Applicant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed quality of the Affordable Housing units, the number of affordable houses and whether a commuted sum would be considered, the proposed ecological mitigations including swift bricks and boxes, and the proposed lighting strategy on site.

 

99.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Mary McLaren who spoke as the Ward Member.

 

99.9 Members debated the application on the issues including: the response from the Suffolk County Council Highways Department, that land contamination had been reviewed as had flood risk, that this new application was not an improvement on the prior approved application, and the extra parking proposed.

 

99.10 Councillor Lee Parker proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation with the addition to the Section 106 as detailed below:

 

-        Section 106 to be amended so that a commuted sum for affordable housing be added to take the contribution to 35%

 

99.11 Councillor Sue Ayres seconded the motion.

 

99.12 RESOLVED

 

That the application is GRANTED planning permission and includes the following conditions:-

 

• Commencement within 3 years

• Development to be implemented in accordance with submitted details

• As recommended by the LHA

• As recommended by SCC Archaeology

• As recommended by SCC Flood and Water Management

• Sustainability measures; electric vehicle charging details to be submitted and approved

• External lighting strategy, including any street lighting, to be submitted and approved

• Fire hydrants to be provided

• Landscape strategy for hard and soft landscaping (including grouped fruit trees) to be submitted and approved

• Boundary enclosure details to be submitted and approved

• Levels to be submitted and approved

• Tree and hedgerow protection fencing to be installed with details to be approved

• As recommended by Place Services Ecology

• No burning to take place on the site

• Construction Management Plan

• Provision of open space

• Maintenance of open space

 

That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to grant full planning permission. (1) Subject to the prior  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

100.

DC/19/04445 LAVENHAM PRIORY, WATER STREET, LAVENHAM, SUDBURY, SUFFOLK, CO10 9RW pdf icon PDF 451 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

100.1 After the completion of DC/19/01708 but before the commencement of DC/19/04445, Councillor Mary McLaren rejoined the Committee

 

100.2 Item A

 

Application          DC/19/04445

Proposal             Planning Application- Erection of 1no. dwelling and detached garage

Site Location       LAVENHAM – Lavenham Priory, Water Street, Lavenham, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 9RW

Applicant             Ms R Sayed

 

100.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers before Members, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

 

100.4 Members considered the representation from A.W Sheppard of Lavenham Parish Council who spoke against the application.

 

100.5 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the views from the nearby Bears Lane development, the policies within the adopted Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan and where the proposal could be seen from.

 

100.6 Members considered the representation from Anthony John Ranzetta who spoke as an Objector.

 

100.7 Members considered the representation from Soren Ramchelawon who spoke as a Supporter.

 

100.8 The Supporter responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the projected lifespan of the building.

 

100.9 Members considered the representations from Jonathan Hill and David Whymark who spoke as the Applicant and Agent respectively.

 

100.10 The Applicant and Agent responded to Members questions on issues including: whether pre-application advice was sought, consultation with the Parish Council, the economic benefits of the proposal, and the response regarding Heritage concern.

 

100.11 Members considered the representation from Councillor Margaret Maybury (ward Member) via an email that was read out by the Governance Officer.

 

100.12 Members considered the representation from Councillor Clive Arthey who spoke as the Ward Member.

 

100.13 Members debated the application on the issues including: the response from the Heritage Team, whether the proposal was an enhancement to the setting of the Listed Building, the level of harm associated with the proposal, that the proposal was exceptional in terms of design however it was in the wrong place, and the weight of the Adopted Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

100.14 Councillor Lee Parker proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Alastair McCraw seconded the proposal.

 

100.15 RESOLVED

 

That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons: -

 

The open, undeveloped land to the south of the buildings along Water Street makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of Lavenham Conservation Area. The Conservation Area Appraisal (2010, p.17-22) highlights that the historic relationship of the medieval core of Lavenham, with countryside directly to the rear of many of the streets within the historic core, such as Water Street, is relatively well preserved. Therefore, the narrative of a medieval town surrounded by open countryside, which likely served an important function for the town, such as paddock or arable land, remains readable here. The Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan (2016, 20) also argues that “the setting of the historic core is characterised by its close link to the countryside.” Due to the high degree of preservation of the historic core, and relative lack  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

101.

DC/19/02315 LAND SOUTH OF HIGH BANK, MELFORD ROAD, SUDBURY, SUFFOLK pdf icon PDF 540 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

101.1  Item D

 

Application           DC/19/02315

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

 

101.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval with conditions.

 

101.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including that a second access had been investigated on the site by the Applicant, however it was concluded that this was not viable.

 

101.4 Members considered the representation from Peter Tarry who spoke as an Objector.

 

101.5 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Jan Osborne via an email which was read out by the Governance Officer.

 

101.6 Members debated the application on the issues including: the visibility from the site entrance, the proposed footpath improvements on site, the speed limit along the road, and the proposed materials on the footpath.

 

101.7 Councillor Melanie Barrett proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Mary McLaren seconded the motion.

 

101.8 RESOLVED

 

That authority be delegated to the Acting Chief Planning Officer to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a S106 Legal Agreement on terms to their satisfaction to secure the following heads of terms:

 

· Affordable Housing (1 no. 2 bedroom 4 person house @ 79sqm set on Plot 1)

 

and that such permission be subject to the conditions as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Acting Chief Planning Officer:

 

· Standard time limit

· Approved plans

· Archaeology (post investigation)

· Archaeology (post investigation)

· Levels (FFL and FGL)

· Highways – access layout

· Highways – no visibility splay obstructions

· Highways – manoeuvring / parking

· Highways – estate roads and footpaths

· Highways – access gradient (first 5m)

· Highways – access gradient

· Highways – surface water discharge

· Materials

· Fenestration

· Arboricultural method statement

· Landscaping scheme

· Ecology mitigation

· Biodiversity enhancement

· Lighting design

· Pedestrian link (prior to occupation)

102.

DC/19/03445 LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF, WHATFIELD ROAD, ELMSETT, SUFFOLK pdf icon PDF 519 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

102.1 Item E

 

Application          DC/19/03445

Proposal             Planning Application- Erection of 37no. dwellings (which includes 14no. affordable housing and 4.no shared ownership) including creation of vehicular access road and public open space.

Site Location       ELMSETT – Land on the South side of, Whatfield Road, Elmsett, Suffolk

Applicant             Heathpatch Ltd

 

102.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers and the officer recommendation of refusal.

 

102.3 Members considered the representation from Alan Newman of Elmsett Parish Council who spoke against the application.

 

102.4 The Parish Council representative responded to Members questions on issues including: the capacity available at the local schools, and the locally identified need.

 

102.5 Members considered the representation from Charles Couse who spoke as the Applicant’s representative.

 

102.6 Members debated the application on the issues including: the services in the village, the Heritage issues associated with the site, the weight of the Neighbourhood plan, the compliance of the proposal with CS11 and CS2.

 

102.7 Councillor Alastair McCraw proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Stephen Plumb seconded the motion.

 

102.8 RESOLVED

 

That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:-

 

i)                The proposed development would be outside of the Built Up Area Boundary of Elmsett, as defined by the Elmsett Neighbourhood Plan and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there is an identified local need for the proposal. As such the development is contrary to Policy EMST1 of the Elmsett Neighbourhood Plan (2019) and Policy CS11 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014).

 

ii)              The proposed development would result in the total loss of Important View 10 as defined by the Elmsett Neighbourhood Plan, to the detriment of the landscape character of the village. As such the development is contrary to Policy EMST9 of the Elmsett Neighbourhood Plan.

 

iii)           The proposed development would not provide 47% one and two bedroom dwellings and no evidence has been provided to show that the development would be unviable or that such provision would not be in accordance with the latest available housing information for the Plan area . As such the development is contrary to Policy EMST6 of the Elmsett Neighbourhood Plan.

103.

DC/19/05417 MANNA WOOD FARM, STACKYARD GREEN, MONKS ELEIGH, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK, IP7 7BD pdf icon PDF 392 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

103.1 Item F

 

Application          DC/19/05417

Proposal             Householder Planning Application – Erection of a single storey rear and side extension. 

Site Location       MONKS ELEIGH -

Applicant            

 

103.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site and the officer recommendation of refusal.

 

103.3 Members considered the representation from John Olley who spoke as the Applicant.

 

103.4 The Applicant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: whether any Pre-Application advice had been sought, the concerns from Heritage regarding the proposal, and the proposed materials to be used.

 

103.5 Members debated the application on the issues including: the proposed extension on the site, the impact of the proposal on the immediate neighbours, the definition of Non-Designated Heritage Assets, the considerable changes to the building, and the harm associated with the proposal.

 

103.6 Councillor Lee Parker proposed that the application be approved against the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

-        Members considered that under paragraph 197 of the NPPF, and Policy CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan, the development could be seen as an improvement to a non-designated heritage asset given the existing unsightly extension.

-        Similarly, under policy CN01 of the Babergh Local Plan, the proposal is seen as being of an appropriate scale and form.

 

And that the following conditions are applied:

 

-        Time Limit

-        Drawing Numbers

-        Manufacturers’ details of external materials

-        Section drawings through eaves and verges

-        New rainwater goods to match existing

 

103.7 Councillor Alastair McCraw seconded the motion.

 

103.8 RESOLVED

 

That the application is approved against the officer recommendation with for the following reasons:

 

-        Members considered that under paragraph 197 of the NPPF, and Policy CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan, the development could be seen as an improvement to a non-designated heritage asset given the existing unsightly extension.

-        Similarly, under policy CN01 of the Babergh Local Plan, the proposal is seen as being of an appropriate scale and form.

 

And that the following conditions are applied:

 

-        Time Limit

-        Drawing Numbers

-        Manufacturers’ details of external materials

-        Section drawings through eaves and verges

-        New rainwater goods to match existing