Venue: Frink Room (Elisabeth) - Endeavour House. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS
80.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Terry Lawrence.
80.2 Councillor Adrienne Marriott substituted for Councillor Lawrence.
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER REGISTRABLE OR NON REGISTRABLE INTERESTS BY MEMBERS
81.2 There were no declarations of Interests.
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING
82.1 There were no declarations of lobbying.
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS
83.1 There were no declarations of personal site visits.
It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME
85.1 None received.
Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
86.1 In accordance with the Councils procedures for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as follows:
87.1 Item 7A
Proposal Outline planning application (all matters reserved, access to be considered) Residential development of up to 80No dwellings (including affordable dwellings), provision of a new school car park and bus drop off area, land for a new pre-school facility, public open space, upgrades to Mill Lane and associated works.
Site Location Land South of, Mill Lane, Stradbroke, Suffolk
Applicant Earlswood Homes
87.2 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and constraints of the site, the site boundary, the adopted Stradbroke Neighbourhood Plan, the proposed site layout and parameter plan, potential noise and odour pollution issues from the adjacent factory, the proposed highway improvements to Mill Lane, the contents of the tabled papers including the additional proposed condition, the late representation received from Suffolk County Council Highways, and the Officer recommendation of approval.
87.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the view of church was designated a protected view in the Neighbourhood Plan, other large developments in the surrounding area, the odour mitigation plans, conditions to secure the provision of the car park, ownership and maintenance of the car park, the suitability of the pavements for wheelchair users, the location and size of the early years setting, and the proposed landscaping scheme.
87.4 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the requirements for S106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions in relation to the application.
87.5 The Case Officer and the Chief Planning Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the proposed SuDS, the potential flood risks, foot and cycle path widths and location, the pedestrian access to the Early Years provision, the timing requirements for the Highway improvements, the provision of accessible dwellings, the market housing mix, and the hierarchy of settlements in the newly adopted Joint Local Plan Part 1.
87.6 Members considered the representation from Odile Vladon who spoke on behalf of Stradbroke Parish Council.
87.8 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: the safety of the pedestrian access to the Early Years provision, and any suitable alternative locations for public footpaths.
87.8 Members considered the representation from David Whipps who spoke as an Objector.
87.9 The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: access to the adjacent factory site, and any complaints received regarding noise from existing residents close to the site.
87.10 Members considered the representation from Billy Clements who spoke as the Applicant.
87.11 The Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including: the inclusion of accessible market dwellings, the proposed noise mitigation scheme, the pavement widths, the market housing mix, the proposed parking plan, the environmental sustainability features of the development, and the implications of the late representation received from Suffolk County Highways.
87.12 Members considered the representation from Councillor Anders Linder who spoke as the Ward Member.
87.13 A break was taken from 11:05am until 11:11pm.
87.14 Councillor ... view the full minutes text for item 87.
88.1 Item 7B
Proposal Planning Application - Erection of extension to existing factory facility to provide additional packing and storage space
Site Location Roger Skinner Ltd, Queen Street, Stradbroke, IP21 5HL
Applicant Roger Skinner Ltd
88.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the site location, the proposed site layout, the proposed parking plan, the plans and elevations of the proposed extension, and the Officer recommendation of approval as detailed in the report.
88.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the location of the proposed storage unit, any consideration given to the use of the roof space for power generation, and the proposed condition relating to a restriction in operating hours and which area of the site this related to.
88.4 Members considered the representation from Odile Wladon who spoke on behalf of Stradbroke Parish Council.
88.5 Members considered the representation from James Tanner who spoke as the Agent.
88.6 The Agent, and the Mr Skinner, the Applicant, responded to questions from Members on issues including: the attenuation basin and bund and whether it was raised above existing ground level, the installation of solar panels, any consideration given to the use of the roof space for power generation, potential flooding, and whether there would be any increase in production at the site following the expansion.
88.7 The Case Officer and the Chief Planning Officer responded to further questions from Members relating to the proposed limit to operating hours.
88.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Anders Linder who spoke as the Ward Member.
88.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the condition relating to the restriction in operating hours, and the potential reduction in traffic movement.
88.10 Councillor Matthissen proposed that the application be approved with an amendment to the condition relating to working hours to apply to the application building and extended yard facility only.
88.11 Councillor Hadingham seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
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.
· Approved Plans (Plans submitted that form this application).
· Use of the approved extension for storage and packing purposes only.
· Development to be undertaken in accordance with the ecological appraisal.
· Approval of a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy.
· Approval of a Wildlife Sensitive Lighting Design Scheme.
· Approval of soft and hard landscaping schemes.
· Approval of a Landscape Management Plan.
· Development implemented in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment
· Submission of Drainage Verification Report
· Approval of Construction Surface Water Management Plan
· Approval for on-site foul water drainage works
· Agreement of a Construction Management Plan
· Control over the hours of construction of the development
· No plant and equipment installed on the application site without acoustic specification being previously approved by the LPA.
· Control over hours of activities and operations within the application building and working within the extended ... view the full minutes text for item 88.
89.1 Item 7C
Proposal Full Planning Application - Installation of a solar array, associated infrastructure and construction of new vehicular access
Site Location Land at Woodlands Farm, Stowmarket Road, Badley, Suffolk
Applicant Elgin Energy EsCo Ltd
89.2 A break was taken from 12.17pm until 12.25pm, after application number DC/22/02971 and before the commencement of application number DC/22/01530.
89.3 The case officer introduced the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, the site constraints, the location of the surrounding heritage assets, the agricultural land classification of the site, the indicative site layout, the proposed landscaping plans and the landscaping character assessment, the design and dimensions of the various solar farm equipment, the location of the existing public rights of way, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the report.
89.4 It was noted that the application site was partly in Onehouse Ward. As Ward Member for Onehouse, Councillor Matthissen advised he would take no further part in the debate and vote on the application, and did not participate in the rest of the meeting as a Member.
89.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the ancient monument, the proposed landscape mitigations plans, the public benefit of the application, the heritage harm, any guidance received from central government regarding the use of agricultural land for food and energy, and the lack of a noise assessment and whether this could be conditioned.
89.6 Members considered the representation from Fenella Blyth who spoke as a Supporter.
89.7 The Supporter responded to questions from Members on issues including: the area of land remaining as agricultural use, the proposed plans for screening of the panels, and the potential heritage harm.
89.8 Members considered the representation from Michelle Howley who spoke as the Applicant.
89.9 The Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including: the advice received from Place Services and whether there was any scope to further reduce the distance between the panels and the heritage assets and the conservation area, the proposed landscaping plans, and the lack of a noise assessment.
89.10 The Case Officer provided clarification to Members that a completed noise assessment would be required to prior to determination of the application to enable noise mitigation conditions to be applied.
89.11 Members debated the application on issues including: the lack of a noise assessment, the potential harm to the heritage assets and local landscape, the visual impact of the solar panels on the heritage assets, the number of objections from local residents and the Parish Council, the agricultural classification of the land, and the proposed plans for mitigation of potential heritage harm.
89.12 The Planning Lawyer and the Case Officer provided confirmation to Members of the determination of assessment of heritage harm.
89.13 Councillor Davies proposed the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
89.14 Councillor Hardingham seconded the proposal.
By a vote of 6 votes for and 1 against
It was ... view the full minutes text for item 89.
90.1 There were no requests for site inspections.