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: Robert Carmichael - Email: committees@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk - 01449 724930 

Media

Items
No. Item

11.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS

Minutes:

11.1    Apologies were received from Councillor Tim Passmore.

 

11.2    Councillor James Caston subsituted for Councillor Tim Passmore.

12.

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.

 

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

NA/21/3 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 JUNE 2021 pdf icon 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.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
That the minutes of the meeting held on the 3 June 2021 be deferred for clarity over the resolution for the application in Finningham Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 16.

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

    Minutes:

    15.1    None received.

    17.

    NA/21/4 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS pdf icon 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:

     

    Application Number:

    Representations From:

    DC/19/05740

    Di Warne (Fressingfield Parish Council)

    John Castro (SAFE)

    Councillor Lavinia Hadingham (Ward Member)

    DC/19/05741

    Di Warne (Fressingfield Parish Council)

    John Kelsall (Objector)

    Councillor Lavinia Hadingham (Ward Member)

    DC/21/01682

    Councillor Dave Muller (Ward Member)

     

    18.

    DC/19/05740 LAND WEST OF OF JOHN SHEPHERD ROAD, FRESSINGFIELD, SUFFOLK pdf icon 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.

     

     

     

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application DC/19/05740 be Refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 19.

    DC/19/05741 LAND OFF STRADBROKE ROAD, STREET FARM, FRESSINGFIELD, IP21 5PR pdf icon 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.

     

     

             

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application DC/19/05741 be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 20.

    DC/21/01682 CEDARS PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE, PINTAIL ROAD, STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK, IP14 5FP pdf icon 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.

     

     

     

     

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That Application DC/21/01682 be approved as detailed in the updated officer recommendation, but removal of 4week condition and imposing of 5 year temporary use Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 21.

    DC/20/05516 THE IVY HOUSE, WILBY ROAD, STRADBROKE, EYE, SUFFOLK, IP21 5JN pdf icon 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.

    22.

    NA/21/5 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS THAT WILL NOT BE HEARD BEFORE 1PM pdf icon 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:

     

    Application Number

    Representations From:

    DC/21/00248

    David Chambers (Bacton Parish Council)

    Cllr Andrew Mellen (Ward Member)

    DC/21/01188

    David Chambers (Bacton Parish Council)

    Cllr Andrew Mellen (Ward Member)

     

     

     

    23.

    DC/21/00248 LAND ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF, THE STREET, BACTON, SUFFOLK pdf icon 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.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application DC/21/00248 be refused for the reasons read out by the Area Planning Manager Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 24.

    DC/21/01188 LAND ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF, THE STREET, BACTON, SUFFOLK pdf icon 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.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application DC/21/01188 be refused for the same reasons as application DC/21/00248 Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 25.

    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.