Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS Minutes: 134.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Matthew Hicks.
134.2 Councillor John Whitehead substituted for Councillor Hicks. |
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS Minutes: 135.1 Councillor Meyer declared a local non-pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/21/02956 as the agent was a resident of his Ward. |
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING Minutes: 136.1 Councillor Eburne, Councillor Field and Councillor Mansel declared that they had been lobbied in respect of application number DC/22/00225. |
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS Minutes: 137.1 Councillor Mansel declared a personal site visit in respect of application number DC/22/00225. |
|||||||||
NA/21/23 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12 JANUARY 2022 PDF 388 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2022 were confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||
NA/21/24 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 09 FEBRUARY 2022 PDF 298 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 09 February 2022 were confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: 140.1 None received. |
|||||||||
NA/21/25 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS PDF 144 KB Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
Additional documents: Minutes: 141.1 The Chair advised that the applications would be heard in the following order:
Item 8C DC/21/02582 Land West of, Grange Road, Wickham Skeith, Suffolk
Item 8A DC/21/02956 Land East of Warren Lane and West of Cresmedow Way, Elmswell, Suffolk
Item 8B DC/22/00225 Land to the Rear of The Leas, Quoits Meadow, Stonham Aspal, Suffolk
141.2 In accordance with the Councils procedures for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:
|
|||||||||
DC/21/02582 LAND WEST OF, GRANGE ROAD, WICKHAM SKEITH, SUFFOLK PDF 188 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 142.1 Item 8C
Application DC/21/02582 Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 3 pairs semi-detached dwellings, and garages including access. Site Location WICKHAM SKEITH – Land west of Grange Road, Wickham Skeith, Suffolk Applicant Osborn Homes (East Anglia) Ltd
142.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the previously approved permission at the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.
142.3 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the footpaths and pedestrian access to the site, whether the sustainability officer had been consulted, any proposed plans for removal of existing landscaping, and whether the site was located in a conservation area.
142.4 The Ward Member, Councillor Warboys, read out a statement on behalf of the Parish Council.
142.5 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to Members on issues including: the proposed plans for maintenance of the shared open areas to the front of the properties, the classification of the settlement of Wickham Skeith, and any other current applications in the settlement area.
142.6 The Committee considered the representation from Sarah Roberts who spoke as the agent.
142.7 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the surface material of the paved areas.
142.8 The Area Planning Manager responded to a question from Members regarding the policies and material considerations applicable to this application.
142.9 The Agent responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the proposed heating systems, sustainability measures, and whether the dwellings would conform to future building regulations.
142.10 Members considered the representation from Councillor Warboys who spoke as the Ward Member.
142.11 The Ward Member responded to question from Members on issues including: the housing mix and local housing needs. 142.12 Councillor Passmore proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation and with additional conditions relating to the surface of paved areas, and hedgerow management.
142.13 Councillor Humphreys MBE seconded the motion.
142.14 Members debated the application on issues including: the existing approved permission at the site, the proposed sustainability measures, the increased number of dwellings on the site from the previously agreed permission, the effectiveness of the installation of solar panels, futures access issues, and the location of the site.
142.15 Councillor Passmore and Councillor Humphreys MBE agreed to the following additional conditions:
· Landscape management plan to be agreed · Paving to be permeable, areas to be agreed · Protective tree and ‘hedge’ fencing to be agreed · Stopping up of existing access to south-east corner
By a vote of 7 votes for and 1 against
It was RESOLVED:
That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives:
Conditions: · Standard time limit · Approved Plans · Biodiversity enhancements agree prior to occupation · Landscaping scheme implemented as approved plans · Protective tree fencing specifications to be agreed · Highways Authority conditions (as set out by SCC) · Swift boxes ... view the full minutes text for item 142.
|
|||||||||
DC/21/02956 LAND EAST OF WARREN LANE AND WEST OF, CRESMEDOW WAY, ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK PDF 1 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: 143.1 Item 8A
Application DC/21/02956 Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access to be considered, all other matters reserved Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - Erection of 44 dwellings, including bungalows, affordable housing, open space, landscaping; and associated infrastructure. Site Location ELMSWELL – Land East of Warren Lane and West of, Cresmedow Way, Elmswell, Suffolk Applicant JD and RJ Baker Farms Ltd
143.2 A break was taken from 10:35amd until 10:40am, after application number DC/21/02582 and before the commencement of application number DC/21/02956.
143.3 The Area Planning Manager presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed drainage systems, the indicative housing mix, the previous committee decision of deferral and the consequent amended recommendation, and the officer recommendation of approval.
143.4 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of complaints made by neighbouring properties concerning noise and dust pollution from the adjacent quarry, the response from the sustainability officer, the weight to be applied to the various planning policies, and whether there is any Strategic Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) evidence relating to the southern part of the site.
143.5 Members considered the representation from Peter Dow who spoke on behalf of Elmswell Parish Council.
143.6 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including the development of Elmswell’s Neighbourhood Plan.
143.7 Members considered the representation from James Bailey who spoke as the agent.
143.8 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the increased size of the development, the proposed location of the drainage systems, and the distance of the site to the quarry.
143.9 Members considered the representation from Councillor Sarah Mansel who spoke as the Ward Member.
143.10 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the proposed conditions would satisfy the traffic safety concerns relating to Warren Lane.
143.12 Members considered the representation from Councillor Helen Geake who spoke as the Ward Member.
143.13 Members debated the application on issues including: the location of the site, access to the site, and housing allocation needs.
143.14 Councillor Eburne proposed that the application be refused.
143.15 Councillor Matthissen commented that he was minded to refuse the application.
143.16 A break was taken between from 11:29am until 11:39am to enable the proposer and officers to discuss the reasons for refusal.
143.17 The Area Planning Manager confirmed to the Committee that as he was the Case Officer for the application, he would be unable to give unbiased advice regarding the reasons for refusal without risk. He therefore requested that the committee considered a deferral of the application to allow an alternative officer to consider the reasons for refusal.
143.18 Councillor Eburne withdrew the proposal for refusal of the application.
143.19 Councillor Passmore proposed the application be deferred in order to enable officers to receive a report on the risks of refusal, and also requested that a site visit be undertaken. ... view the full minutes text for item 143.
|
|||||||||
DC/22/00225 LAND TO THE REAR OF THE LEAS, QUOITS MEADOW, STONHAM ASPAL, SUFFOLK PDF 237 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 144.1 Item 8B
Application DC/22/00225 Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access point to be considered, Appearance, Landscape, Layout and Scale to be reserved) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Erection of up to 5 no. dwellings and construction of new access (following demolition of existing dwelling). Site Location STONHAM ASPAL – Land to the rear of the Leas, Quoits Meadow, Stonham Aspal, Suffolk Applicant Mr R Tydeman
144.1 The Case Officer presented the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed access, the previously refused applications at the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal.
144.2 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the reference in the officer report to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the housing land supply.
144.3 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the previous applications at the site, the indicative plan of the site, and whether any pre-application advice was provided.
144.4 Members considered the representation from Beverly Brady who spoke as an objector.
144.5 The Chair read out a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Morley, who was unable to attend the meeting.
144.6 Members debated the application on issues including: the lack of an indicative plan of the site, and the proximity of the site to the adjacent listed building.
144.7 Councillor Mansel proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
144.8 Councillor Field seconded the motion.
144.9 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the lack of detail contained in the application, and the response from the heritage team.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:-
1) REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL – PRINCIPLE
The proposed development site lies outside of the village settlement boundary, as defined in the current adopted development plan. The principle of new housing development on the site is not then automatically supported, as a point of principle, by the current plan.
The Local Planning Authority is able to demonstrate a housing land supply, in significant excess of the five-year minimum required by the NPPF. The tilted balance is not, therefore, engaged.
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires planning decisions to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development and, for decision-taking, in instances such as this where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.
In weighting the scheme against the strands of sustainable development, as set out in the NPPF, a low level of overall social benefit is noted, and a long term low level of economic benefit is also noted. Counter to this is an overall moderate to high level of environmental harm. In particular the proposal is considered to result in harm to the character, setting ... view the full minutes text for item 144.
|
|||||||||
SITE INSPECTION Would Members please retain the relevant papers for use at that meeting.
Minutes: 144.1 None received. |