Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Val Last
No. | Item | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In attendance: Senior Development Management Planning Officer (JPG) Development Management Planning Officer (SES/MP) Head of Communities (JF) Senior Legal Executive (KB) Governance Support Officer (VL/KD) |
|||||||||||
Apologies for absence/substitutions Minutes: There were no apologies or substitutions. |
|||||||||||
To receive any declarations of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest by Members Minutes: Councillors Gerard Brewster and Lesley Mayes declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 2936/15 and 3349/15 as a member of Stowmarket Town Council Planning, Consultation and Strategy Committee.
Councillor John Field advised that as a Suffolk County Councillor he had a non-pecuniary interest in item 3349/15. |
|||||||||||
Declarations of lobbying Minutes: There were no declarations of lobbying. |
|||||||||||
Declarations of personal site visits Minutes:
There were no declarations of personal site visits. |
|||||||||||
Confirmation of the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2015 PDF 179 KB Report NA/19/15 Minutes: Report NA/19/15
The minutes of the meeting held 9 September 2015 were confirmed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||
Petitions Minutes: It was noted that a petition had been received in relation to Application 3349/15 with 102 signatures in support of retaining the Cross Keys, Henley as a public house. |
|||||||||||
Questions from Members The Chairman answer any questions on any matters in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District and which fall within the terms of reference of the Committee of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rules. Minutes: None received. |
|||||||||||
Schedule of Planning Applications PDF 120 KB Report NA/20/15
Note: the Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Report NA/20/15
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications representations were made as detailed below:
Item 1 Application Number: 2936/15 Proposal: Retention of garden shed and tool shed Site Location: RATTLESDEN – Lydgate Cottage, Birds Green Applicant: Mr & Mrs Sullivan
Bridget Goodchild, speaking for the Parish Council, began by objecting to the size and location of the shed. Lydgate Cottage was one of a row of cottages, in the heart of the conservation area. The cottages were small and low and were very vulnerable to any change in their surroundings, and there was already a large, modern development behind the cottages. The new shed was almost the length of the garden and had been erected against the boundary fence, which had made the neighbours garden feel hemmed in, and had resulted in a loss of light.
Barbara Parker, an objector, advised the committee that her property Teazel Cottage was adjacent to Lydgate Cottage. She advised that the fence separating the cottages was her responsibility. The shed had been built only 8 inches from the fence, and it was taller than the flat roof extension of Teazel Cottage. She stated that had the shed been built in a different position, she would have had no objection. She also advised that some of the photos shown in the Case Officer’s presentation had been provided by her, these showed the loss of light that the new shed had caused, and by 15:30 her garden was overshadowed.
Lara Turner, the agent, began by advising that when the applicant moved into Lydgate Cottage there was an existing shed base showing that there had previously been an outbuilding, which was why the shed was erected in the current location. She advised a flat roof was discounted as it was not ideal for water run-off, and the applicant was a plumber and so needed to store tools where they would be safe and dry.
Ward Member, Councillor Penny Otton, began by commenting that this was a retrospective application, and she felt that had this been discussed before it was erected, a solution that would have been acceptable to all could have been found. The gardens in the row of cottages where Lydgate Cottage was situated were very small and restricted, and this application dominated the garden of Teazel Cottage and was out of proportion. She felt that these issues could have been avoided if that the shed had a lower height or mono pitched roof.
The Committee considered the application and many agreed that they were unhappy with the height and that a mono pitched roof would have lessened the impact. A motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the shed was overly large and dominant and was a detrimental to the neighbour’s residential ... view the full minutes text for item 24. |