There were no apologies for absence received.

2.1      Councillor John Matthissen declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/19/01876.

2.2      Councillor Sarah Mansel declared local non-pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/19/01876 as she lived in Elmswell.

2.3      Councillor Matthew Hicks advised that Glen Horn, who was speaking as an objector in respect of application DC/20/03244, had been a District Councillor in a previous administration.

2.4      Councillor Richard Meyer declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/20/03244.

All Members of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied on application DC/19/01876.

4.1      Councillor Mansel declared that she had visited the site for application DC/19/01876 and DC/20/03244.

4.2      Councillor Meyer declared that he had visited the site for application DC/20/03244.

It was RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2020 be confirmed as a true record and signed at the next practicable opportunity.

None received.

Note:  The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.

8.1      Item 7a

Application:             DC/19/01876

Proposal:                 Outline Planning Application – Erection of 2no. detached single storey dwellings and vehicular access

Site Location:          ELMSWELL – Hedgerows, Grove Lane, Elmswell, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

Applicant:                L Cragg & the Trustees of the Will

8.2      The Area Planning Manager presented the application to the Committee, outlining the proposal before Members, the layout and location of the site, the content of the tables papers, and the officer recommendation of approval with conditions.

8.3      The Area Planning Manager and the Planning Lawyer provided Members with details of the previous decision made under delegated powers in respect of this application and the judicial review of that decision.

8.4      The Area Planning Manager responded to Members’ questions on issues including: access to the site, the width of Grove Lane, the current use of the land, the distance and route from the site to the Co-op in Elmswell, and the relevant policies associated with the application.

8.5      Members considered the representation from Peter Dow who spoke on behalf of Elmswell Parish Council.

8.6      The Area Planning Manager confirmed to Members, as a point of order, that the report being considered today was not the same as the delegated officer report for the earlier decision that has been subject to judicial review.

8.7      The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: traffic movements on Grove Lane.

8.8      The Area Planning Manager provided confirmation that Grove Lane was a two way road and varied in widths.

8.9      Members considered the representation from Rob Sherwood who spoke as an objector.

8.10    The objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: traffic on Grove Lane and the age of the pasture.

8.11    Members considered the representation from David Barker who spoke as the agent.

8.12    Members considered the representations from Ward Member, Councillor Helen Geake.

8.13    Councillor Geake responded to Members’ questions on issue including: the landscaping of the boundaries of the site.

8.14    The Area Planning Manager provided an explanation as to why a consultation with the Heritage department was not sought.

8.15    Members considered the representation from Ward Member Councillor Sarah Mansel.

8.16    Members debated the application on issues including: sustainability of the site, the lack of heritage response, landscaping of the access to the site, and the distance of the listed building from the application site.

8.17    Councillor Passmore proposed that the application be approved as per the officers’ recommendations.

8.18    Councillor Muller seconded the motion.

8.19    Members continued to debate the application on issues including: traffic on Grove Lane, and the biodiversity of the site.

8.20    Following the debate the proposer and seconder agreed to accept a change to the recommended condition on biodiversity as detailed below:

-       alteration to swift/owl and bat mitigation scheme.

By 5 votes to 2 with no abstentions

RESOLVED:-

1)      That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to conditions as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1      Item 7B

Application:             DC/20/03244

Proposal:                 Application under Section 73 of The Town and County Planning Act for Planning Permission DC/20/02022 for the variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans and Documents).

Site Location:          WYVERSTONE – Land South of Fox Hollow, The Street, Wyverstone, Stowmarket, Suffolk

Applicant:                Mr & Mrs J Prior

9.2      The Case Officer presented to the application to the Committee, outlining the proposal before Members, the reason for referral to Committee, the layout of the site, the amendments to the previous approved application, and the officer recommendation of approval.

9.3      The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the purpose of the bund, any further plans for protected trees on the site, the location of the power lines in relation to the proposed building, that the previously approved conditions could not be amended,and the impact of the proposed amended location to the neighbouring properties.

9.4      Members considered the representation from Glen Horn, who spoke as an objector on behalf of the residents of the adjacent property, Mr and Mrs Bentley.

9.5      The objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the use of the outbuildings on the neighbouring property.

9.6      Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Mellen.

9.7      Members debated the application on issues including: the biodiversity of the application, and the impact of the application on existing residents residential amenity.

9.8      Councillor Passmore proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation.

9.9      Councillor Meyer seconded the motion.

By 6 votes to 2 with no abstentions

RESOLVED:-

That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to grant planning permission:

(1)  That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer

·        Section 73 Time Limit (Development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the approval date of host planning permission ref: DC/20/02022)

·        Approved Plans (Plans submitted that form this application)

·        Those required by the Local Highway Authority

·        Those required by the Council’s Arboriocultural Officer

·        Alternative permission (to ensure the proposed development is carried out as a replacement of, and not in addition to, other extant permissions on the site)

·        Removal of Permitted Development Rights (in the interest on neighbouring and environmental amenity)

Note: Should a site inspection be required for any of the applications this will be decided at the meeting.

There were no requests received.