Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, Needham Market
Contact: Email: Committees@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for absence/substitutions Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillors Julie Flatman, Barry Humphreys MBE, Diana Kearsley, Anne Killett and Lesley Mayes. |
|||||||||||||||||
To receive any declarations of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest by Members Minutes: Councillor Roy Barker declared a non-pecuniary interest as he knew a number of the landowners.
Councillor Kathie Guthrie declared a non-pecuniary interest as her husband owned shares in Persimmon Homes Limited (understood to be below the limit required for declaration). |
|||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Lobbying Minutes: It was noted that the majority of Members had been lobbied. |
|||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Personal Site Visits Minutes: Councillors Gerard Brewster, Kathie Guthrie, Matthew Hicks, John Levantis, Sarah Mansel, Julie Flatman and David Whybrow had undertaken a personal site visit.
It was noted that Councillor Sarah Mansel had also attended the public consultation exercise. |
|||||||||||||||||
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. |
|||||||||||||||||
RF/17/1 - Schedule of Applications PDF 564 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
The Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning outlined the proposed order of proceedings as follows:
i. Overview of the applications ii. Officer presentation of each case, followed by speakers case by case iii. Debate iv. Motions
He advised that the parish had requested the Secretary of State to call in the applications but the Committee needed to express ‘minded to’ recommendations regardless of whether this happened. In response to Members’ questions he explained the implications of refusing one or more applications and how the cumulative impact of decisions could be considered. He confirmed that as Members were asked to make ‘minded to’ decisions at this meeting, final decisions would be made at a later date with the exception of the appeal application.
(i) Overview of the applications
The Senior Planning Officer gave an overview of Thurston, the development proposals and cumulative benefits. Thurston was a key service centre due to its facilities and its accessibility to Bury St Edmunds and surrounding villages and Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy was clear that the majority of development should be directed to main towns and key service centres. The County Council (SCC) had identified that the existing primary school was at capacity and incapable of being extended and there was a need for a new school to meet any future growth. Two of the schemes would provide land for a new primary school with one also providing land for use by the Community College. Safety issues with parts of the highway network had also been identified and SCC and MSDC had worked with the developers to resolve this situation. All the developers had agreed to contribute funding towards the provision of a new school and road safety and connectivity improvements throughout Thurston, together with contributions towards a travel plan and improvements to local health care, library service and the railway station.
Steve Merry, Suffolk County Council Highways gave a presentation outlining the work undertaken in collaboration with the five developers and the parish council. Transport assessments had been carried out and a matrix was produced showing traffic flow at eleven junctions, four of which were either over capacity or would be following further development. Proposed mitigation measures had been considered for these junctions but it was noted that further work was required to investigate whether further improvements could be made.
Neil McManus, Development Contributions Manager, Suffolk County Council advised that the provision of a new primary school with early years provision was essential to ... view the full minutes text for item 31. |