Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS
70.1 There were no apologies for absence.
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER REGISTRABLE OR NON REGISTRABLE INTERESTS BY MEMBERS
71.1 Councillor David Penny attended the meeting to speak as an Objector in his personal capacity in respect of application number DC/23/03872. The Planning Lawyer confirmed that if attending as a member of the committee, or speaking as a ward member, Councillor Penny would have a disclosable pecuniary interest as a neighbouring landowner but it had been agreed with the Interim Monitoring Officer that it was acceptable for Councillor Penny to speak as an Objector and leave the room before the start of the debate for the application.
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING
72.1 There were no declarations of lobbying.
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS
73.1 There were no declarations of personal site visits.
It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME
75.1 None received.
Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.
76.1 In accordance with the Councils procedures for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as follows:
Proposal Full Planning Application – Change of use of land for grazing of horses, and erection of stables with new vehicular access
Site Location Land Adjacent to, 17 Brockford Road, Mendlesham, IP14 5SG
Applicant Moss and Humphreys
77.2 The Case Officer provided details to Members of the content of the Tabled Papers. An additional email received from the Heritage Team was circulated to Members to read. The Case Officer explained to Members how the comments from Heritage impacted the application.
77.3 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, the site constraints, the Mendlesham Neighbourhood Plan (NP), the layout and proposed block plan of the site, the boundary treatments, the proposed landscaping scheme, existing access to the site, the location of adjacent dwellings and the view of the site, and the recommendation of approval subject to conditions as details in the Officer report.
77.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: access to the site by larger vehicles, the previous planning applications at the site, the weight which should be given the Neighbourhood Plan, and the allocation of the site as visually important.
77.5 The Chief Planning Officer provided clarification to Members regarding the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework and how this should be considered.
77.6 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the location of the heritage assets, the size of the site, the boundary between the site and the adjacent cemetery, the Heritage comments regarding the orientation of the stable block, the existing pedestrian access to the site, and the changes made to this area in the revised 2022 Neighbourhood Plan.
77.7 Members considered the representation from Paul Allen who spoke on behalf of Mendlesham Parish Council.
77.8 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues regarding the effects of the recent flooding in the village.
77.9 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members and advised that the age or condition of the horses was not a material planning consideration.
77.10 The Area Planning Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the different types of outbuildings and applicable permitted developments rights.
77.11 Members considered the representation from Ben Elvin who spoke as the Agent.
77.12 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the permeability of the hardstanding for the parking area, the proposed lighting plans, the potential for the stable to be relocated as suggested by the Heritage team, and the potential for future development at the site.
77.13 The Chief Planning Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members regarding the conditions which could be applied to the application to restrict use to non-commercial only.
77.14 Members considered the representation from Councillor Andrew Stringer who spoke as the Ward Member.
77.15 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the number of objections, and the inclusion ... view the full minutes text for item 77.
78.1 Item 7B
Proposal Planning Application – Erection of additional E(g) business unit building, and associated works
Site Location Hemingstone Fruit Farm, Main Road, Hemingstone, IP6 6RG
Applicant J Gorham
78.1 A break was taken from 11:13am until 11:25am, after application number DC/23/00305 and before the commencement of application number DC/23/03872.
78.2 The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the planning history at the site, the location and constraints of the site, the proposed site layout, the proposed elevations, the existing access and car parking plans, the boundary between the existing and proposed car parking areas, and the recommendation of refusal as detailed in the Officer report.
78.3 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Officers on issues including: the amount of undeveloped employment land in the district, and the comments received from the Heritage team.
78.4 Members considered the representation from Tina Newell who spoke on behalf of Hemingstone Parish Council.
78.5 Members considered the representation from David Penny who spoke as an Objector.
78.6 The Objector responded to questions from Members regarding potential noise and light pollution.
78.7 Members considered the representation from Nick Barber who spoke as the Agent.
78.8 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the use class of the existing units on site and whether any consideration had been given to a masterplan for the future of the site.
78.9 Members considered the representation from Councillor John Whitehead who spoke as the Ward Member.
78.10 David Penny left the meeting at 11:52, after the public speaking and before the debate.
78.11 Councillor Hadingham proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
78.12 Councillor Lawrence seconded the proposal.
78.13 Following a question from Members, the Area Planning Manager provided clarification on the various business use classes.
78.14 Members debated the application on issues including: the ecological features of the building, and the location of the site.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission for the following reason(s): -
The proposal represents new build commercial development in the countryside, where new build employment development is subject to a strategic, environmental, or operational justification. The applicant has failed to evidence a commercial need for the proposed development, nor have they provided strategic, environmental, or operational justification in regard to this location and therefore, the proposal is considered unacceptable in principle. The significant extension of the small-scale industrial site in the countryside would materially compromise the spatial strategy of the Council and undermines the aims and objectives of those policies. The proposal is contrary to: policies CS2, E9 and E10 of the Development Plan; emerging JLP policies SP03 and SP05; and is not considered to represent sustainable development when assessed against the provisions of the NPPF, taken as a whole.
78.1 There were no requests for site inspections.