Agenda and minutes
Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Robert Carmichael - Email: committees@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk - 01449 724930
Media
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS Minutes: 11.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Tim Passmore.
11.2 Councillor James Caston subsituted for Councillor Tim Passmore. |
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS Minutes: 12.1 Councillor Dave Muller declared a local non-pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/21/01682 in his capacity as Chair of Cedars Park Community Interest Company Limited.
12.2 Councillor Muller confirmed that as Ward Member for this item he would not be participating in the vote.
|
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING Minutes: 13.1 All Members declared that they had been lobbied on application numbers DC/19/05740, DC/19/05741, DC/21/00248 and DC/21/01188. |
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS Minutes: 14.1 Councillor Sarah Mansel declared a personal site visit in respect of application numbers DC/19/05740 and DC/19/05741.
14.2 Councillor Dave Muller declared a personal site visit in respect of DC/21/05741. |
|||||||||
NA/21/3 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 JUNE 2021 PDF 247 KB To Follow. Minutes: 15.1 Councillor Matthissen queried paragraph 9.15, bullet point 2 of the minutes.
15.2 It was agreed that the minutes would be reviewed.
15.3 By a vote of 7 votes for and 1 against:
It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2021 be deferred in order for content to be reviewed.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: 15.1 None received. |
|||||||||
NA/21/4 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS PDF 325 KB Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
Additional documents:
Minutes: 17.1 The Chair advised the Committee that application number DC/20/05516 had been withdrawn by the applicant and as such would not be heard by the Committee.
17.2 In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:
|
|||||||||
DC/19/05740 LAND WEST OF OF JOHN SHEPHERD ROAD, FRESSINGFIELD, SUFFOLK PDF 478 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 18.1 Item 7A
Application DC/19/05740 Proposal Application for Outline Planning (all matters reserved) – Residential development (up to 27 dwellings, including affordable housing) and the construction of estate roads and footpaths together with related drainage and landscaping. Site Location FRESSINGFIELD – Land West of John Shepherd Road, Fressingfield, Suffolk Applicant F. G. Brown and Son
18.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including the location and layout of the proposal, access to the site, drainage and flooding issues, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the Committee Report.
18.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including the housing numbers for Fressingfield and the Neighbourhood Plan.
18.4 Members considered the representation from Di Warne who spoke on behalf of Fressingfield Parish Council.
18.5 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including foul water drainage issues, whether an independent survey had been undertaken in relation to highways and drainage.
18.6 Members considered the representation from John Castro, SAFE, who spoke as an objector.
18.7 Members considered the representation from Councillor Lavinia Hadingham who spoke as Ward Member.
18.8 Members debated the application on issues including housing numbers and the Fressingfield Neighbourhood Plan.
18.9 Councillor Eburne proposed that the application be refused as per the officers recommendation.
18.10 Councillor Muller seconded the proposal.
18.11 Members considered to debate the application on issues including sustainability, drainage and environmental issues.
18.12 By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED outline planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed 27 dwelling development, located outside the settlement boundary, on land not allocated for housing and lacking a justifiable need, fails to accord with Policy FRES1 of the adopted Fressingfield Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018 - 2036, Policy FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review 2012, Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy 2008, Policy H7 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan 1998 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
2. The development proposed is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations which indicate otherwise.
That Members delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to defend any appeal for the reasons set out above, being amended and/or varied as may be required.
|
|||||||||
DC/19/05741 LAND OFF STRADBROKE ROAD, STREET FARM, FRESSINGFIELD, IP21 5PR PDF 539 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 19.1 Item 7B
Application DC/19/05741 Proposal Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) – Erection of shop (Class A1) and residential development (up to 21 dwellings including affordable and self-build housing), construction and the construction of estate roads and footpaths together with related drainage and landscaping. Site Location FRESSINGFIELD – Land off Stradbroke Road, Fressingfield, Suffolk Applicant Mr Simon Brown
19.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout and location of the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the committee report.
19.3 Councillor Hicks declared that he uses the existing shop.
19.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including whether the Neighbourhood Plan includes retail premises, how many affordable homes are included, the tenure of the flats, compatibility of the development with NPPF, and the ownership of the existing shop.
19.5 Members considered the representation from Di Warne who spoke on behalf of Fressingfield Parish Council.
19.6 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including any sites considered in the Neighbourhood Plan.
19.7 Members considered the representation from John Kelsall who spoke as an objector.
19.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Lavinia Hadingham who spoke as Ward Member.
19.9 Councillor Muller proposed that the application be refused as per the Officers recommendation.
19.10 Members debated the application on issues including the need for a shop in the village, and the compatibility of the development with the Neighbourhood Plan.
19.11 Councillor Mansel seconded the proposal.
19.12 Members continued to debate the application on issues including foul water drainage and consultee responses.
19.13 By a unanimous vote It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED outline planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed 21 dwelling development, located outside the settlement boundary, on land not allocated for housing and lacking a justifiable need, fails to accord with Policy FRES1 of the adopted Fressingfield Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018 - 2036, Policy FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review 2012, Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy 2008, Policy H7 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan 1998 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
2. The proposed development is contrary to the development plan and there are no considerations which indicate otherwise.
That Members delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to defend any appeal for the reasons set out above, being amended and/or varied as may be required.
|
|||||||||
DC/21/01682 CEDARS PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE, PINTAIL ROAD, STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK, IP14 5FP PDF 447 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 20.1 A break was taken from 10:50am until 11:00am.
20.2 Item 7C
Application DC/21/01682 Proposal Full Planning Application – Retention of a Marquee for events Site Location STOWMARKET – Cedars Park Community Centre, Pintail Road, Stowmarket, Suffolk Applicant Mr Peter Worthington
20.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the location of the site, the reason for referral to committee, and the officer recommendation of the approval as detailed in the tabled papers.
20.4 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including the hours of use of the marquee, security and accessibility of the structure, and the condition relating to the removal of the marquee when not in use.
20.5 Members considered the representation from Councillor Dave Muller who spoke as a Ward Member.
20.6 The Area Planning Manager and Planning Lawyer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the planning restrictions regarding gazebos and tents and the premises licence does not have to relate to the planning permission.
20.7 Members debated the application on the issues including: the use of the gazebo and whether the permission should be temporary.
20.8 Councillor Sarah Mansel proposed that the application be approved as detailed in updated officer recommendation as detailed in the tabled papers with the additions points below:
- Removal of 4 week condition - 5 year temporary use condition.
20.9 Councillor John Field seconded the motion.
20.10 By a unanimous vote.
20.11 RESOLVED
That the application is GRANTED planning permission and includes the following conditions: -
- Approved plans / size constraints - Marquee to be retained in good condition – - Hours of use for public 10am to Midnight (to match use of centre)
Additional Condition
- 5 year temporary use condition.
|
|||||||||
DC/20/05516 THE IVY HOUSE, WILBY ROAD, STRADBROKE, EYE, SUFFOLK, IP21 5JN PDF 421 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: It was noted by Members that the application was withdrawn by the applicant following the publication of the agenda but before the commencement of the meeting. |
|||||||||
NA/21/5 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS THAT WILL NOT BE HEARD BEFORE 1PM PDF 226 KB Additional documents: Minutes: 22.1 A lunch break was taken between 11:34-13:00 after it was noted that application DC/20/05516 had been withdrawn but before the commencement of DC/21/00248.
22.2 In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:
|
|||||||||
DC/21/00248 LAND ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF, THE STREET, BACTON, SUFFOLK PDF 494 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 23.1 Item 8A
Application DC/21/00248 Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 1no. dwelling and associated ancillary accommodation. Change of use of agricultural land to residential use. Site Location BACTON- Land on the South East side of, The Street, Bacton, Suffolk Applicant Mr M MacAusland
23.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the tabled papers before Members, and the officer recommendation of approval.
23.3 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including the previous appeal on the site, and how the application related to DC/21/01188 and its emphasis on paragraph 79 of the NPPF, the positioning of the property, the impact on the countryside, other developments in the area, and that the site was within flood zone 1.
23.4 Members considered the representation from David Chambers of Bacton Parish Council who spoke against the application.
23.5 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Mellen, who spoke against the application.
23.6 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the visibility splay and the current use of the land.
23.7 Members debated the application on the issues including: the differences between the application before members and the previously appealed application, that there was no public benefit from the proposal, that it did not enhance the characteristics of the area, the distance of the site from the proposed access point, the proposed design of the building.
23.8 Councillor Rachel Eburne proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:
- The site and the surrounding area are within the countryside outside any settlement boundary as defined by Mid Suffolk's Local Plan 1998 and as amended by the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008. Policy H7 of Local Plan 1998 and Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008 as reviewed under the Core Strategy Focus Review 2012 aim to protect the landscape quality and character of the countryside for its own sake by restricting development in the countryside to that which is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, forestry and appropriate recreation. New residential development is directed to normally take the form of infilling within settlement limit area boundaries. In this case it is considered that there is no proven agricultural, horticultural or forestry need for any new dwelling or other exceptional reason and so any residential development of any kind would be contrary to adopted policy and does not enhance the surrounding area.
- Some services to ensure sustainable development is supported are within 2km of the site, however the route to access these services is not suitable by reason of lack of lit footways leading to potential conflict with traffic and likely reliance of private motor vehicle use, increase in traffic and less integrated communities. The rural character of the area is considered and in some instances walking along unlit area or areas without footways is accept, the route to services in this case ... view the full minutes text for item 23.
|
|||||||||
DC/21/01188 LAND ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF, THE STREET, BACTON, SUFFOLK PDF 494 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 24.1 Item 8B
Application DC/21/01188 Proposal Planning Application. Erection of 1no dwelling and associated ancillary accommodation. Change of use of land from agricultural to residential use. Site Location BACTON- Land on the south east side of, The Street, Bacton, Suffolk Applicant Mr M MacAusland
24.1 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the differences between this application and DC/21/00248 which had just been heard and the officer recommendation of approval.
24.2 Members considered the representation from David Chambers of Bacton Parish Council who spoke against the application.
24.3 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Mellen, who spoke against the application.
24.4 Councillor Sarah Mansel proposed that the application be refused for the same reasons as application DC/21/00248 as follows:
- The site and the surrounding area are within the countryside outside any settlement boundary as defined by Mid Suffolk's Local Plan 1998 and as amended by the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008. Policy H7 of Local Plan 1998 and Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk LDF Core Strategy 2008 as reviewed under the Core Strategy Focus Review 2012 aim to protect the landscape quality and character of the countryside for its own sake by restricting development in the countryside to that which is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, forestry and appropriate recreation. New residential development is directed to normally take the form of infilling within settlement limit area boundaries. In this case it is considered that there is no proven agricultural, horticultural or forestry need for any new dwelling or other exceptional reason and so any residential development of any kind would be contrary to adopted policy and does not enhance the surrounding area.
- Some services to ensure sustainable development is supported are within 2km of the site, however the route to access these services is not suitable by reason of lack of lit footways leading to potential conflict with traffic and likely reliance of private motor vehicle use, increase in traffic and less integrated communities. The rural character of the area is considered and in some instances walking along unlit area or areas without footways is accept, the route to services in this case would lead to travel along roads not suitable for such travel given road speeds and nature of the road network. There is insufficient access to public transport alternatives available within short walking distance from the site to otherwise outweigh other considerations of the location and poor access to services outlined. In conclusion the site would not provide an appropriate location for new housing in relation to its connectivity to nearby facilities and services. It would therefore fail to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 11, 78, 79 and 102 of the NPPF. As such it is considered that the proposal represents unsustainable development, contrary to the NPPF, policies of the Development as referenced above and Policy FC1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) and its public benefit ... view the full minutes text for item 24.
|
|||||||||
SITE INSPECTION Note: Should a site inspection be required for any of the applications this will be decided at the meeting. Minutes: 25.1 None requested. |