Venue: Virtual Teams Video Meeting
Contact: Robert Carmichael - Email: committees@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk - 01449 724930
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS Minutes: None received. |
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS Minutes: Councillor Sarah Mansel declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in application DC/21/00662 as discussions of development on the Hawes lane site started when she was Ward Member for the area.
Councillor John Field declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest as the County Councillor for the area in which application DC/20/05586 is located. |
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING Minutes: Councillors Mansel and Muller declared that they had been lobbied on application DC/21/00662.
Councillors Hicks, Mansel, Muller, Field and Eburne declared that they had been lobbied on application DC/20/05586 |
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS Minutes: Councillors Mansel and Meyer declared personal site visits in respect of application number DC/21/00662. |
|||||||||
NA/20/13 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17 MARCH 2021 PDF 265 KB To Follow. Minutes: It was Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2021 were confirmed as a true record and would be signed at the next practicable opportunity.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: None received. |
|||||||||
NA/20/14 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS PDF 143 KB Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
Additional documents:
Minutes: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as detailed below.
|
|||||||||
DC/21/00662 LAND OFF HAWES LANE, NORTON, BURY ST EDMUNDS, IP31 3LS PDF 289 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 76.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/00662 Proposal Outline Planning Application (access to be considered) – erection of 9.no dwellings and construction of vehicular access and pedestrian links ( re-submission of DC/20/04429). Site Location NORTON - Land off Hawes Lane, Norton, Bury St Edmunds, IP31 3LS Applicant Ash Property Consortium Ltd
76.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the site layout, the proposed increase to the road width, the proposed addition of passing bays, the pedestrian links to the existing bridleway, the proposed access, and the officer recommendation of approval.
76.3 The Case Officer responded to Member’s questions on issues including: the increased road width, the capacity of facilities in Norton and the visibility splays of the footpath.
76.4 Members considered the representation from the Parish Council representative David Etchells-Butler.
76.5 The Parish Council Representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the use of the main road, whether a housing needs survey had been conducted, the location of the facilities in Norton, and the current number of houses in Norton.
76.6 Members considered the representation from the Objector Andrew Sedgewick.
76.7 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues such as: the pedestrian links, sewage and water issues, and the impact on the highways network.
76.8 Members considered the representation from the Supporter Steve Bean.
76.9 Members considered the representation from the Agent Philip Cobbold.
76.10 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues such as: the mix of housing, the footpath and access, and whether the site was in the emerging Joint Local Plan.
76.11 Members considered the representation from Ward Members Councillor Wendy Turner and Councillor Harry Richardson, who spoke against the application.
76.12 The Ward Members responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the local transport links and the current use of the lane.
76.13 Members debated the application on issues including: the urbanisation of a rural area, the sewage system, the traffic along the A1088, the traffic impact on the country lane and the impact the development would have on the character in the village.
76.14 Councillor John Field Proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
1. Notwithstanding the highways improvements proposed, the proposed development accessing Hawes lane would, if approved, likely result in a significant conflict between cars and pedestrians by construction traffic and during the lifetime of the development and given the design and character of the lane would be detrimental to highway safety and amenity for existing and future residents.
Furthermore, wear and tear as well as the highways improvements proposed would be visually detrimental to the character of the rural lane due to increased traffic including cars and larger vehicles and urbanisation of the lane.
On this basis it is contrary to Policies T10, GP1 and H16 of the Local Plan, FC1.1 of the Focus Review and NPPF including section 12, and Paras 108 and 110.
76.15 Councillor Richard Meyer seconded the motion.
76.16 By 7 votes to ... view the full minutes text for item 76.
|
|||||||||
DC/20/05586 COCK INN, THE STREET, BRAMFORD, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK, IP8 4DU PDF 286 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 77.1 Item 7B
Application DC/20/05586 Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 1 single storey dwelling (C3) to the rear of the public house (Sui Generis), with associated access, parking and landscaping (amended scheme to DC/20/02269). Site Location BRAMFORD – Cock Inn, The Street, Bramford, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP8 4DU Applicant Punch Partnerships (PML) Limited.
77.2 A short comfort break was taken between 11:38-11:51 after the completion of DC/21/00662 but before the commencement of DC/20/05586.
77.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the reduction in car parking for the pub, the private amenity spaces, the proposed measures to reduce the noise impact, the heritage and highways changes from the previous application, the landscaping plans, and the officer recommendation of approval.
77.4 The Case Officer responded to Member’s questions on issues including: the potential parking conflicts, the response from the Council’s Environmental Health Team, access to the beer garden from the car park, noise survey, and highways assessment.
77.5 The Parish Council representative Caroline Wolton spoke against the application.
77.6 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the asset of community value.
77.7 Members considered the representation from the Objector Albert Horn.
77.8 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues such as: noise issues within the village.
77.9 Members considered the representation from the Agent Lauren Parsons.
77.10 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: t measures to minimise disturbance for future occupants of the dwelling, and parking conflicts.
77.11 Members considered the representation from Councillor James Caston who spoke against the application.
77.12 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: how the general ambience of the pub would be compromised.
77.13 Members debated the application on issues including: the asset of community value, noise generated from the pub and outside ambience, the viability of the pub, and pedestrian access to the dwelling.
77.14 Councillor Timothy Passmore proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The sub-division and loss of part of the beer garden, that is an asset of community value, would likely impact the financial viability and function of the public house by reducing the outdoor dining/drinking area and thereby limiting the number of customers that the public house could serve. This would be detrimental to its valued contribution to the community and local employment. In addition, the development would further enclose the public house leading to potential increased concerns of concentrated noise and disturbance in a decreased beer garden area acting as an unnecessary form of significant restraint on the current business operation and viability. It is considered that the benefits of a single dwelling would not outweigh these material issues. On this basis the proposal is contrary to Policies E6, H17 and the aims of Paragraphs 8, 80 and 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
2. The development would result in an unsafe pedestrian and vehicle access arrangement, create an inappropriate residential/commercial interface and ... view the full minutes text for item 77.
|
|||||||||
SITE INSPECTION Note: Should a site inspection be required for any of the applications this will be decided at the meeting. Minutes: 78.1 None requested. |