Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS Minutes: 95.1 There were no apologies for absence. |
|||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS Minutes: 96.1 Councillor Hicks declared a local non-pecuniary interest in respect of application number DC/21/03589 as he had previously had work undertaken by the architect. |
|||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING Minutes: 97.1 There were no declarations of lobbying. |
|||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS Minutes: 98.1 Councillor Mansel declared personal site visits in respect of application numbers DC/21/02956 and DC/21/03589. |
|||||||||||||||
NA/21/16 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 NOVEMBER 2021 PDF 431 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2021 were confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: 100.1 None received. |
|||||||||||||||
NA/21/17 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS 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: Minutes: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on Planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:
The Chair advised the Committee that application number DC/21/02927 had been withdrawn by Officers. |
|||||||||||||||
DC/21/02956 LAND EAST OF WARREN LANE AND WEST OF, CRESMEDOW WAY, ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK PDF 1 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: 102.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/02956 Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (Access to be considered, all other matters reserved Townand Country Planning Act 1990 - Erection of 44 dwellings, including bungalows, affordable housing, open space, landscaping; and associated infrastructure. Site Location ELMSWELL - Land East of Warren Lane and West of, Cresmedow Way, Elmswell, Suffolk Applicant JD and RJ Baker Farms Ltd
102.2 The Area Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed housing mix, the previously approved outline planning permission, the content of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of approval.
102.3 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of bungalows proposed on the site, the allocation of the site as detailed in the draft Joint Local Plan, the adjacent quarry, the status of the play area, the comments from Suffolk County Council (SCC) Flood Team, the conclusions drawn from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the proposed housing mix, the consultation response from Environmental Health, and the proposed highway improvements.
102.5 Members considered the representation from Peter Dow who spoke on behalf of Elmswell Parish Council.
102.6 The Planning Lawyer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the lack of information regarding the proposed extension to the adjacent quarry.
102.7 Members considered the representation from James Bailey who spoke as the Agent.
102.8 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proposed housing mix, and the potential noise from the adjacent quarry.
102.9 Members considered the representation from Councillor Mansel who spoke as the Ward Member.
102.10 Members considered the representation from Councillor Geake who spoke as the Ward Member.
102.11 Members debated the application on issues including: the need for highways improvements and a footpath between the villages of Elmswell and Woolpit, household waste issues, and the adjacent quarry.
102.12 Councillor Passmore proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation and subject to additional conditions.
102.13 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the improvements made to the proposal since the previous application at the site including increased open space and improvements to the access to the site, and the location of the quarry and its potential expansion.
102.14 Councillor Passmore withdrew his proposal for approval.
102.15 Councillor Passmore proposed that the application be deferred to enable Officers to obtain further clarity regarding the expansion of the quarry including in relation to the Suffolk County Council Waste and Minerals Plan.
102.16 Councillor Humphreys MBE seconded the proposal.
102.17 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the proximity of the quarry to the site and related issues.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be deferred to enable officers to obtain further information regarding the quarry and potential impact.
|
|||||||||||||||
DC/21/03589 LAND TO THE REAR OF THE LEAS, QUOITS MEADOW, STONHAM ASPAL, SUFFOLK PDF 412 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 103.1 Item 7B
Application DC/21/03589 Proposal Application for approval of reserved matters following grant of outline application DC/18/04191dated: 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
103.2 A break was taken from 10:58am until 11:07am after application number DC/21/02956 and before the commencement of application number DC/21/03589.
103.3 The Area Planning Manager introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the updated response from the Heritage Team, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the committee report.
103.4 Members considered the representation from Beverly Brady who spoke as an objector.
103.5 The Area Planning Manager commented on an email received from the Applicant.
103.6 The Chair read out a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Morley.
103.7 Councillor Eburne proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.
103.8 Councillor Humphreys MBE seconded the proposal.
103.9 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the reasons for refusal.
103.10 Members debated the application on issues including the scale and size of the proposed dwellings.
103.11 Councillor Eburne and Councillor Humphreys agreed to include the following additional reason for refusal:
‘and out of keeping with the surrounding rural character’.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
REFUSE reserved matters for the following reasons, and/or those reasons as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:
RECOMMENDED REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL - IMPACT ON SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE ASSET AND OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING RURAL CHARACTER
Development plan policy CS5 requires all development proposals to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the built historic environment. Development Plan Policy HB1 requires that all such proposals should protect the character and appearance of all buildings of architectural or historic interest. Furthermore, the NPPF provides that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
The proposed layout and scale and appearance of the buildings proposed would constitute a considerable erosion of the remaining historically rural character of the setting of the Grade II Listed Orchard Farmhouse and harm its character. The proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of this heritage asset. The public benefit(s) of the proposal are not considered to outweigh the level of harm identified. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the aforementioned planning policies for these reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: 104.1 Item 7C
Application DC/21/02927 Proposal Application for approval of reserved matters following approval of Outline application DC/17/05549 Town and Country Planning (General Management Procedure) (England) Order2015 - Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale for Erection of 64 No dwellings (including22 No. affordable homes) with vehicular access from Stowmarket Road and additional 2 No.dwellings accessed from Hill House Lane. Site Location NEEDHAM MARKET – Land North West of, Hill House Lane, Needham Market, Suffolk, IP6 8EA Applicant HHF (EA) Ltd
104.2 Item withdrawn by Officers.
|
|||||||||||||||
DC/21/02047 BARLEY BRIGG FARM, LAXFIELD ROAD, STRADBROKE, SUFFOLK, IP21 5NQ PDF 518 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 105.1 Item 7D
Application DC/21/02047 Proposal Planning Application. Retention of extension to an agricultural building approved underDC/19/01673 including minor changes to eaves and ridge height and use of the building for crop drying and storage Site Location STRADBROKE – Barley Brigg Farm, Laxfield Road, Stradbroke, Suffolk, IP21 5NQ Applicant Rattlerow Farms Ltd
105.2 The Case Officer presented the application to Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the previous presentation to Committee, and the officer recommendation of approval.
105.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proposed condition 6 of the report relating to removal of permitted development rights to change of use of barn, and noise and light pollution issues.
105.4 Members considered the representation from Odile Vladon who spoke on behalf of Stradbroke Parish Council.
105.5 Members considered the representation from Steven Bainbridge who spoke as the Agent.
105.6 The Chair read out a statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Flatman.
105.7 Councillor Passmore proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation.
105.8 Councillor Passmore agreed to the following amendments to the proposed conditions:
Condition 2 (within 5 months instead prior to and within 5 months a monitoring period shall be agreed) Any external lighting that may be imposed shall be agreed in writing with the LPA. 105.9 Councillor Matthissen seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject toconditions as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer: · Development to accord with the approved plans. · Noise condition suggested by the Environmental Health team with the additional note that any mitigation works be in place prior to agreement of the works and within 5 months a monitoring period shall be agreed. · Light condition suggested by the Environmental Health team. · Restriction on addition of extra floors within the barn unless shown on the approved drawings as requested by Stradbroke Parish Council. · Restriction on change of use of building as requested by Stradbroke Parish Council. · Restriction on source of goods to be dried within the barn to those produced on the farm or for use on the wider farm as requested by Stradbroke Parish Council. · Removal of permitted development rights from the barn itself as requested by Stradbroke Parish Council. · Any external lighting that may be imposed shall be agreed in writing with the LPA.
|
|||||||||||||||
DC/21/01048 CHERRYGATE FARM, NORWICH ROAD, MENDLESHAM, STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK, IP14 5NE PDF 519 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 106.1 Item 7E
Application DC/21/01048 Proposal Planning Application – Change of use of land and buildings from poultry unit to structural insulated panels manufacturer (Class B2) Site Location MENDLESHAM – Cherrygate Farm, Norwich Road, Mendlesham, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 5NE Applicant Supersips Ltd
106.2 A break was taken from 12:00pm until 12:04pm after application number DC/21/02047 and before the commencement of application number DC/21/01048.
106.3 Councillor Hicks left the meeting at 12:00pm.
106.4 Councillor Humphreys MBE took the Chair.
106.5 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the proposed use of the site, access to the site, the existing use of the buildings, and the officer recommendation of approval.
106.6 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the response from Highways regarding Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), the conditions applicable to the site access, transport of chemicals via HGVs, the response from the Environment agency, any residential properties on the site, and the number of vehicle movements to and from the site.
106.7 The Case Officer, the Area Planning Manager and the Planning Lawyer provided clarification to Members of the implications of the change of use to class B2, and whether permission could be personalised to a particular user.
106.8 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to further questions from Members on issues including: noise pollution, potential odours from the site, the red line area and whether the change of use applied to the buildings on site or the land, whether HGV movements could be restricted, and the future use of the redundant buildings on site.
106.9 Members considered the representation from Kevin Blatch who spoke as an Objector.
106.10 The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the traffic crash map information.
106.11 Members considered the representation from James Platt who spoke as the Agent. 106.12 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the access to the site, the size of the vehicles visiting the site, potential odour issues and the number of vehicle movements to the site.
106.13 The Applicant responded to questions from Members regarding the manufacturing process.
106.14 Members considered the representation from Councillor Stringer who spoke as the Ward Member.
106.15 Members debated the application on issues including: the potential employment opportunities, access to the site, potential contamination issues, the sustainability of the products, and the suitability of the site.
106.16 A break was taken between 13:19pm and 13:43pm to allow Officers to discuss potential additional conditions with the applicant.
106.17 The Area Planning Manager read out the revised recommendation as detailed below:
That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the agreement of the Environment Agency and Essex and Suffolk Water, or should their holding objection be maintained, REFUSE Planning permission for such reasons considered defensible by Officers at appeal. Any approval subject to the following conditions:- · Standard time ... view the full minutes text for item 106.
|
|||||||||||||||
DC/21/05100 ERIC JONES HOUSE, 6 IPSWICH ROAD, STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK, IP14 1BL PDF 474 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 107.1 Item 7F
Application DC/21/05100 Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 2No modular units to provide homeless accommodation. Site Location STOWMARKET – Eric Jones House, 6 Ipswich Road, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 1BL Applicant Mid Suffolk Council
107.2 The Area Planning Manager 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 as detailed in the committee report.
107.3 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: proposed private amenity space for the occupants, the removal of the tree on site and whether this would be replaced, and fire safety issues.
107.4 Members considered the representation from Lucy Smith who spoke as the Agent.
107.5 The Agent and the Applicants representative, Hazel Ellard, responded to questions from Members on issues including: the existing use of the dwelling on site, and the number of units in the dwelling.
107.6 The Planning Lawyer provided clarification that the existing building was not a hostel.
107.7 The Agent and the Applicant responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the number of potential occupants, and whether children would be occupying the units.
107.8 The Chair read out a written statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Brewster.
107.9 The Chair read out a written statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Scarff.
107.10 Members debated the application on issues including: the suitability of the location, and the loss of the tree.
107.11 Councillor Mansel proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation and with an additional condition relating to a replacement tree.
107.12 Councillor Field seconded the proposal.
107.13 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the requirement for an automatic fire alarm system, the overdevelopment of the site, and the importance of providing homeless accommodation.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to GRANT FULL PLANNING PERMISSION.
(1)That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:
· Standard time limit (3yrs for implementation of scheme) · Approved plans (Plans submitted that form this application). · Limited construction working hours. · Occupation restriction.
(2)And the following informative notes as summarised and those as may be deemed necessary:
· Proactive working statement
And the following additional condition:
· Replacement tree to be planted in a suitable location on site.
|
|||||||||||||||
SITE INSPECTION Note: Should a site inspection be required this will be decided at the meeting.
Minutes: 103.1 None requested. |