Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for absence/substitutions Minutes: Councillors Roy Barker and John Matthissen were substituting for Councillors Gerard Brewster and Anne Killett respectively.
|
|||||||||
To receive any declarations of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest by Members Minutes:
There was no declaration of interest.
|
|||||||||
Declarations of lobbying Minutes: It was noted that Members had been lobbied on Application 4402/16. |
|||||||||
Declarations of personal site visits Minutes: Councillor David Burn declared a personal visit to the site of Application 4656/16 and Councillor Diana Kearsley to the site of Application 4402/16.
Councillor John Matthissen advised that he had attended meetings at the Conference Centre adjacent to the site for Application 4714/16.
|
|||||||||
NA/04/17 Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2017 PDF 285 KB Minutes: Report NA/04/17 Pages A to H
The Minutes of the meeting held on the 11 January 2017 were confirmed as a correct record subject to an amendment to Minute NA122 to read:
Note: Councillor Matthissen attended but for administrative reasons was unable to participate.
|
|||||||||
NA/05/17 Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2017 PDF 143 KB Minutes: Report NA/05/17 Pages I to L
The Minutes of the meeting held on the 18 January 2017 were confirmed as a correct record. |
|||||||||
To receive notification of petitions in accordance with the Council's Petition Scheme Minutes:
None received.
|
|||||||||
Questions by the Public The Chairman to answer any questions from the public of which notice has been given no later than midday three clear working days before the day of the meeting in accordance with Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rule 7. Minutes:
None received.
|
|||||||||
Questions by Councillors The Chairman to answer any questions on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affects the District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee, of which due notice has been given no later than midday three clear working days before the day of the meeting in accordance with Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rule 8. Minutes:
None received.
|
|||||||||
NA/06/17 Schedule of planning applications PDF 193 KB Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public. |
|||||||||
4656/16 Four Oaks Caravan Park, Brome and Oakley PDF 2 MB Additional documents: Minutes: Report NA/06/17
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
Item 1 Application Number: 4656/16 Proposal: Use of land for stationing of 31 holidays homes and relocation of site office. Site Location: BROME & OAKLEY – Four Oaks Caravan Park. Applicant: Mr B Gregory
Members were advised that an amended recommendation was contained in the supplementary papers.
PhillCobbold, Agent, advised that the additional holiday homes would be sited on the existing touring pitches and site office area. Touring caravans/tents would no longer be able to use the site. The existing ’28 day rule’ for occupancy had been considered unreasonable at appeal and the proposed occupancy condition reflected the wording commonly used for holiday units across the country. It was also much easier to enforce.
Councillor David Burn, Ward Member, advised that he had received no comments from local residents. The site was tidy and well managed and he supported the application.
Members considered the proposal satisfactory and Councillor David Whybrow proposed the motion which was seconded by Councillor Sarah Mansel.
By an unanimous vote
Decision – That Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions including:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of threeyears fromthe dateof thispermission.
2. ApprovedDrawings Condition
3. The holiday units (up to 31 no. hereby approved) shall meet the definition of a caravan as set out within the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1990 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (as amended), or any such legislation that may amend or replacethem. ·
4. The holiday units (up to 31 no. hereby approved) shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not be occupied as a person's sole, or main place of residence.The holidayunits shallnot beoccupied duringthe monthof Februaryeach year. The owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of all owners/occupiers of individual holiday units on the site and of their main home addresses and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the local planningauthority.
5. The mobile home sited at the roadside entrance into the site described on the approved drawings as "Site Manager's Accommodation" shall be occupied solely by a person employed in the management of the Four Oaks Caravan Park to which this permission relates.
6. Other than lighting already approved prior to the permission hereby granted, Prior to the erection/installation of any floodlighting or other means of external lighting at the site, details to include position, height, aiming points, lighting levels and a polar luminance diagram shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be carried out and retained as may be approved.
7. Those previously approved and installed 'Schwegler Bat Roosting Boxes', as identified on Drawing no. 16/1268/002A, shall be maintained throughout the lifetime ... view the full minutes text for item 150. |
|||||||||
4714/16 Kerrison Conference and Training Centre, Thorndon PDF 2 MB Additional documents: Minutes: Item 2 Application Number: 4714/16 Proposal: Variation of Condition 2 and 14 Site Location: THORNDON – Kerrison Conference and Training Centre. Applicant: Witnesham Ventures Ltd.
Councillor Glen Horn, Ward Member, advised that the parish, who had supported the application from the start, was keen for the site to be brought forward. The parish was also very supportive of the work done by Officers to ensure the agreed Section 106 monies aligned with the CIL payment now agreed.
The Officers were thanked for securing this funding by Councillor David Whybrow, who proposed the motion which was seconded by Councillor John Matthissen.
By an unanimous vote
Decision - Subject to the prior agreement of a Section 106 Planning Obligation on appropriate terms to the satisfaction of the Corporate Manager – Development Management to secure
· Affordable housing contribution · Estate management
That the Professional Lead - Growth and Sustainable Planning be authorised to grant the variation of conditions 2 and 14, subject to conditions including
· Standard time limit; · Approved plans; · Tree protection plan and methodstatement; · Assessment and mitigation of activities around retainedtrees; · Engineering and construction methods for any works; required within Root Protection Areas; · Auditable system of arboriculture sitemonitoring; · Hard andsoftlandscaping; · Demolition carried out in full prior to firstoccupation; · Land contamination; · Biodiversity enhancementmeasures; · Carrying capacity of pumping/high reachappliances; · Vehicular access surfaced prior to firstoccupation; · Means to prevent the discharge of surface water; from the development onto the highway; · Construction of carriageways andfootways; · Provision of parking and manoeuvringareas; · Cycle parking andstorage; · Removal ofpermitted developmentrights Schedule 2Part 1Class A,B, C,D, Eand G; · Construction management to include demolition; management and constructionworking hours; · Provision of walls and fences prior to first occupation and subsequentlyretained; · Materials to include roadsurfaces; · Details lighting column andbollards; · Foul and surface waterdrainage.
That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to above not being secured the Corporate Manager - Development Management be authorised to refuse planning permission, for reason(s) including:-
· Inadequate provision/contribution towards infrastructure and management contrary to policy CS6 of the Core Strategy 2008 without the requisite S106 obligation being inplace.
|
|||||||||
4402/16 The Little House, High Street, Gislingham PDF 2 MB Additional documents: Minutes: Item 3 Application Number: 4402/16 Proposal: Erection of detached single storey dwelling with detached garage utilising existing vehicular access Site Location: GISLINGHAM – The Little House, High Street, IP23 8JG Applicant: Burgess Homes Ltd.
The planning officer advised Members of the following changes:
· Page 45, under the heading Conclusion, reference to policy HB8 to be deleted as this was not relevant · Page 46, Section 2, reference to policy HB8 to be deleted as this was not relevant
Phil Cobbold, the Agent, said that the protected trees would not be lost and any future pruning would have to be by application to the Council. The proposed dwelling was sensitively designed to give the appearance of an outbuilding and was situated to the rear of and subservient to the cottage. The Old Rectory was approximately 70 metres from the proposed dwelling, and there was no adverse impact on its setting. He also pointed to other dwellings built in the village within the curtilage of listed buildings and also backland development.
Councillor Diana Kearsley, Ward Member, repeated the concerns for the protected trees and the impact on the listed buildings from the proposed development. She also had concerns with regards to the shared drive and the limited visibility on the bend.
The Arboricultural Officer responded to Member’s questions regarding the impact of the proposed dwelling on the protected trees.
During the debate Members raised question regarding the footprint of the proposed dwelling and generally agreed that this would be overdevelopment of the site. It was felt that the proposed site of the dwelling would restrict the growth of the protected trees leading to repeated requests to lop and shape them preventing them from growing to their full potential. There would also be an adverse impact on the adjacent listed buildings.
It was generally felt that the proposal was unacceptable in its current format.
Councillor David Whybrow proposed the motion which was seconded by Councillor Roy Barker.
By 7 votes to 2
Decision – That Full Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed dwelling would be positioned in close proximity to an Oak tree (T9) and an Ash tree (TB) at the rear of the plot which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (No. MS 283). Whilst the accompanying arboricultural report identifies measures to help lessen direct impact upon the trees the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that it adequately addresses their above ground attributes which will have an adverse impact on living conditions and usability of the garden. Furthermore, the Oak tree (T9) has a low broad spreading crown and will not have adequate space for future growth without significant pruning. Accordingly, it is considered that the layout design of this proposal does not provide suitable integration of new development with the natural environment and is likely to result in pressure to fell or ongoing pruning. Such requests will be difficult for the Council to resist and would threaten the value of the trees ... view the full minutes text for item 152. |
|||||||||
Site Inspection Note: Should a site inspection be required for any of the applications this will be held on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 (exact time to be given). The Committee will reconvene after the site inspection at 12:00 noon in the Council Chamber.
Would Members please retain the relevant papers for use at that meeting. |