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: Committee Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

81.

APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTIONS

Minutes:

81.1    There were no apologies for absence.

82.

TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Minutes:

82.1    Councillor Field declared a local non-pecuniary interest in respect of application DC/21/00324 as he is a resident of Baylham.

 

82.2    Councillor Hicks declared a local non-pecuniary interest in respect of application DC/21/03589 as he had previously had work undertaken by the architect.

83.

DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING

Minutes:

83.1    All Members declared they had been lobbied in respect of applications DC/21/01735, DC/21/03292 and DC/21/00324.

 

83.2    Councillor Hicks declared that he had previously attended Parish Council meetings at Stonham Aspal Parish Council in his role as County Councillor, where applications DC/21/02299 and DC/21/03589 had been discussed.

84.

DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS

Minutes:

84.1    Councillor Mansel declared a personal site visit in respect of application number DC/21/03589.

 

84.2    Councillor Eburne declared a personal site visit in respect of application number DC/21/03292.

 

84.3    Councillor Matthissen declared a personal site visit in respect of application number DC/21/01735.

85.

NA/21/14 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13 OCTOBER 2021 pdf icon PDF 398 KB

To Follow.

Minutes:

85.1    Councillor Matthissen commented that paragraph 77.2 of the minutes should refer to application number DC/21/01220.

 

85.2    The Chair confirmed that the minutes would be amended accordingly.

 

By a unanimous vote

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2021 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2021 Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 86.

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

    Minutes:

    86.1    None received.

    87.

    NA/21/15 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS pdf icon PDF 147 KB

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

     

    Additional documents:

    88.

    DC/21/01735 WAKELYNS FARM, METFIELD LANE, FRESSINGFIELD, EYE, SUFFOLK, IP21 5SD pdf icon PDF 492 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    88.1    Item 7A

     

              Application              DC/21/01735

    Proposal                  Planning Application. Change of use of part of land for siting up to 12 glamping pods and up to 6 mobile homes. Retention of conversion of part of the farm building to create educational baking facility 

    Site Location           FRESSINGFIELD – Wakelyns Farm, Metfield Lane, Fressingfield, Eye, Suffolk, IP21 5SD

              Applicant                 Wakelyns

     

     

    88.2    The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location, layout and proposed use of the site including the design of the units, the amended plans received since the application was previously presented to the committee, access to the site, the visibility of the proposed development from the public footpath, the proposed management of the site including parking plans, the conditions secured through the S106 agreement, the amended Officer conditions, and the Officer recommendation of approval.

     

    88.3    The Case Officer and the Chief Planning Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proposed number of passing places, the appearance of the units, the potential events taking place at the site, the area where the glamping pods would be located, and capacity issues for parking at events taking place on the site.

     

    88.4    Members considered the representation from Peter Mortimer who spoke on behalf of Metfield Parish Council.

     

    88.5    The Planning Lawyer responded to a question regarding the licensing law requirements for events.

     

    88.6    Members considered the representation from Paul McCann who spoke as an objector.

     

    88.7    The Objector and the Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: how the objector had calculated the additional number of people on site referred to in his representation,  and the proposed lighting to be used on site.

     

    88.8    Members considered the representations from Maisie Dyvig and Chloe Tatum who spoke as supporters.

     

    88.9    Members considered the representation from David Wolfe who spoke as the Applicant.

     

    88.10  The Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether there were plans for measures to be put in place to control some of the issues discussed, the adequacy of the car park and parking issues, potential alternative access to the site, the site management plan, whether the site is still considered to be a research centre, the number of employees, the number of people living on site, and the ownership and maintenance of the mobile homes.

     

    88.11  Members considered the representation from Councillor Hadingham who spoke as the Ward Member.

     

    88.12  Following a question from the Committee the Case Officer provided clarification of the definition of rural workers and agricultural workers.

     

    88.13  The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the response from Fressingfield Parish Council.

     

    88.14  Members debated the application on issues including: the benefits for rural businesses, access issues, and the support from Fressingfield Parish Council.

     

    88.15  Councillor Eburne proposed that the application be approved, as detailed in the updated officer recommendation.

     

    88.16  Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the diverse range of business at the site, local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application number DC/21/01735 be approved as detailed in the Officer recommendation contained in the presentation to Committee and the additional conditions and updated S106 agreement as read out by the Chief Planning Officer and the Case Officer Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 89.

    DC/21/03292 LAND SOUTH OF BIRCH AVENUE, BACTON, SUFFOLK, IP14 4NT pdf icon PDF 751 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    89.1    Item 7B

     

              Application              DC/21/03292

    Proposal                  Planning Application – Erection of 85no dwellings (including 30no Affordable Housing dwellings) including vehicular access from Birch Avenue, open space provision, community facility provision, soft landscaping, biodiversity enhancements, SuDS and parking provision

    Site Location           BACTON – Land South of Birch Avenue, Bacton, Suffolk, IP14 4NT

    Applicant                 Bellway Homes

     

    89.2    A short break was taken between 11:41am and 11:52am, after application DC/21/01735 and before the commencement of application DC/21/03292.

     

    89.3    The Area Planning Manager presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, access to the site, the changes made since the original approved outline planning application, the proposed housing mix and the Officer recommendation of approval.

     

    89.4    The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the reduction in the number of access roads and the access provision for emergency vehicles, the proposed number of bungalows on site, and the holding objection from Suffolk County Council Flood Team.

     

    89.5    Councillor Eburne commented that a correction was required to page 105 of the report and confirmed that work is underway at Mendlesham Surgery and not the Bacton branch of the surgery.

     

    89.6    The Area Planning Manager responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the location of the single storey dwellings and affordable dwellings on site, the proposed depth of the hedge landscaping, the railway crossing, whether nationally described space standards are being met, cycle paths, the sustainability statement, management charges, right of access to the existing properties on the Northern boundary, and the childrens play area.

     

    89.7    Members considered the representation from David Fletcher who spoke on behalf of the agent.

     

    89.8    The Agent and the Applicant, Laura Spriggs, responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the affordable homes met nationally described space standards, the low number of smaller homes proposed, the location of the cycle link, the width and maintenance of the landscape buffer, the funding of the childrens play area equipment, the level of control applicable to the financial behaviour of management companies, and the potential provision of M43 compliant dwellings.

     

    89.9    Following a question from Members, the Area Planning Manager provided clarification of conditions which could be applied in relation to the landscape buffer.

     

    89.10 Members considered the representation from Councillor Mellen who spoke as the Ward Member.

     

    89.11  The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether there were any plans for the railway crossing to be closed, and the safety of the increased number of pedestrians as a result of the development.

     

    89.12  Members debated the application on issues including: the buffer between the development and the existing dwellings to the north of the site, and sustainability issues.

     

    89.13  Councillor Humphreys MBE proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation with an additional condition relating to the size of the landscaping buffer.

     

    89.14  Councillor Passmore seconded the proposal, and proposed further conditions relating to the provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application DC/21/03292 be approved as detailed in the Officer recommendation and the additional condition and delegation as read out by the Area Planning Manager. Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 90.

    DC/21/03589 LAND TO THE REAR OF THE LEAS, QUOITS MEADOW, STONHAM ASPAL, SUFFOLK pdf icon PDF 418 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    90.1    Item 7D

     

              Application              DC/21/03589

    Proposal                  Application for approval of reserved matters following grant of outline application DC/18/04191 dated: 07/02/2019 - Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale for Erection of 5no. dwellings and construction of new access, following demolition of 1no. existing dwelling. Discharge of Condition 9 (Hedgerows), Condition 10 (Surface Water Drainage Details), Condition 11 (Roads and Footpaths), Condition 13 (Parking and Turning), Condition 14 (Refuse Bins and Collection Areas), Condition 15 (Fire Hydrants) and Condition 16 (Construction Management)

    Site Location           STONHAM ASPAL – Land to the Rear of the Leas, Quoits Meadow, Stonham Aspal, Suffolk     

    Applicant                 Mr Tydeman

     

    90.2    A break was taken from 13:13pm until 13:47pm, after application DC/21/03292 and before the commencement of application DC/21/03589.

     

    90.3    The Chair advised Members of a change in the order of business and confirmed that application DC/21/03589 would be considered before application DC/19/02299.

     

    90.4    The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.

     

    90.5    The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the previous applications presented to Committee for the site and the reasons for the outcome.

     

    90.6    The Area Planning Manager provided an overview of the differences in the current proposal being considered to those which had previously been presented to Committee.

     

    90.7    The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the lack of response from the Heritage team, the management responsibility of the open space on site, the increase in size and orientation of the units from the previous application, and the distance between the units and existing neighbouring dwellings.

     

    90.8    Members considered the representation from Rob Stevenson who spoke on behalf of Stonham Aspal Parish Council.

     

    90.9    The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the lack of footpaths was typical of a development in Stonham Aspal.

     

    90.10  Members considered the representation from Beverly Brady who spoke as an objector.

     

    90.11  Members considered the representation from Craig Beech who spoke on behalf of the Agent.

     

    90.12  The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the sustainability features of the development.

     

    90.13  The Chair read out a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Morley.

     

    90.14  The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to further questions from Members on issues including: whether the construction area would be removed once the development was completed, whether there was a requirement for the landscaping to be replaced, and the inspectors comments regarding heritage issues.

     

    90.15  Members debated the application on issues including: the surface water drainage scheme, heritage issues including the lack of response from the heritage team, provision of footways, the size and mix of dwellings, the construction area, access to the site, the design of the dwellings, the impact on the adjacent listed building, and whether there was adequate information available to make an informed decision.

     

    90.16  Councillor Passmore proposed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application number DC/21/03589 be deferred to seek an expert heritage assessment and review. Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 91.

    DC/19/02299 LAND SOUTH OF THE STREET, STONHAM ASPAL, SUFFOLK, IP14 6AN pdf icon PDF 360 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    91.1    Item 7C

     

              Application              DC/19/02299

    Proposal                  Full Planning Application - Erection of 46 dwellings, sport pitches and a sports community building with associated access improvements, parking, play space, infiltration basin and landscaping.

    Site Location           STONHAM ASPAL – Land South West of The Street, Stonham Aspal, Suffolk, IP14 6AN

    Applicant                 Mr DJ And Mr CJ Tydeman And Capel Properties Ltd

     

    91.2    The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including:      the reason for referral to Committee, the history of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.

     

    91.3    The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the length of the lease, the sports facilities being provided, the difference between a 25-year lease and a transfer, and the adequacy of the length of the lease.

     

    91.4    Councillor Humphreys MBE proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation.

     

    91.5    Councillor Meyer seconded the proposal.

     

    By a unanimous vote        

     

    It was RESOLVED:

     

    That Planning Committee note the discrepancy in the use of language in the officer’s report and resolve to accept the 25-year lease offered to the football club be secured within the Section 106 Agreement.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That the committee note the discrepancy in the use of language in the officer's report, and resolve to accept the lease offered to the football club be secured within the Section 106 Agreement Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 92.

    DC/21/00324 LAND SOUTH WEST OF FAIRVIEW, CIRCULAR ROAD, BAYLHAM, IPSWICH, SUFFOLK, IP6 8LE pdf icon PDF 443 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    92.1    Item 7F

     

              Application              DC/21/00324

    Proposal                  Full Planning Application - Change of Use of land from equine to agricultural use; Erection of agricultural barn and construction of solar panels to roof slope (following demolition of stable building/s) and hardstanding.

    Site Location           BAYLHAM – Land South West of Fairview, Circular Road, Baylham, Suffolk, IP6 8LE

    Applicant                 Mr Ed Meredith

                                  

     

    92.2    The Chair advised Members of a change in the order of business and confirmed that application DC/21/00324 would be considered before application DC/21/00393.

     

    92.3    The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed change of use, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

     

    92.4    The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the definition of agricultural use in planning terms, the previous planning applications at the site, the difference in size of the proposed building and the existing building, and proposals for screening of the shipping containers on site.

     

    92.5    Members considered the representation from Keven Thomas who spoke on behalf of Baylham Parish Meeting.

     

    92.6    The Chair read a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Norris.

     

    92.7    Members debated the application on issues including: the increased size of the proposed building, the suitability of the location, the shipping containers on site, and the site being within a special landscape area.

     

    92.8    Councillor Passmore proposed that the application be refused a detailed in the officer recommendation.

     

    92.9    Councillor Humphreys MBE seconded the proposed. 

     

    By a unanimous vote

     

    It was RESOLVED:

     

    That the application be refused for the following reason:

     

    The application fails to adhere to the wording of Paragraph 85 of the NPPF, particularly where it is required to sensitively respond to its surroundings. The application sits within an identified Special Landscape Area, a gently undulating area of countryside which is visually attractive and positively informs the context of the surrounding area and village of Baylham. In particular, the application site is located on a valley ridge, a sensitive and prominent position within the landscape and would have a wide range of visual impact. As such that the application also fails to accord with Core Strategy policy CS05 with regards to the protection of Mid Suffolk’s landscape and Saved Local Plan policies GP1, CL2 and CL13 regarding agricultural development in Special Landscape Areas.

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application number DC/21/00324 be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 93.

    DC/21/00393 BOUNDARY LODGE FARM, CRATFIELD LANE, LAXFIELD, WOODBRIDGE, SUFFOLK, IP19 0DE pdf icon PDF 387 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    By a unanimous vote

     

    It was RESOLVED:

     

    That the application be deferred to be heard at the next available meeting.

             

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    That application number DC/21/00393 be deferred to be heard at the next available meeting. Ad-Hoc Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 94.

    SITE INSPECTION

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

    Minutes:

    94.1    None requested.