Note: The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public
Minutes:
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
Schedule of Planning Applications
Application Number |
Representations from |
04113/17 |
None |
4555/16 |
Conal Kearney (Agent) Josh Davies (Consultant) |
0210/17 |
Rosanna Metcalfe (Agent) |
02755/17 |
Jackie Ward (Objector) Nicky Parsons (Agent) |
The items of business were taken in the order as follows as set out by the Chairman at the beginning of the meeting.
1. 04113/17
2. 0210/17
3. 02755/17
4. 4555/16
Item 1
Application 04113/17
Proposal Outline Planning Application for the erection of 98 dwellings (including 34 affordable homes), provision of a junior football pitch, areas of public open space and off site highway improvements.
Site Location HAUGHLEY – Land East of King George’s Field, Green Road, Haughley, IP14 3RA
Applicant Ruby Homes (East Anglia) Ltd
The Chair informed the Committee that further information had been received after the publication of the agenda of an Education land allocation in the 1998 Local Plan which effects part of the site and proposed that the application be deferred for further investigation of this issue. Councillor Michael Burke seconded the motion.
By a unanimous vote
Decision – Deferred to consider policy designation for school.
Item 2
Application 4555/16
Proposal Erection of 143 dwellings and 15 Class B1 units
Site Location STOWMARKET – Phases 3A and 3C Cedars Park, Land South of Gun Cotton Way, Stowmarket, IP14 5EP
Applicant Lansbury Developments Ltd
For Application 4555/16 only, Vice-Chairman Roy Barker took the Chair.
The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee noting that the application had been previously deferred from the meeting on Wednesday 9 August 2017 to seek further information on amenity issues, specifically regarding potential odour issues from the adjacent sewage works.
The Case Officer updated Members that an odour assessment had been carried out as detailed in the papers, that further remodelling had taken place for the proposed business units on site 3A. In addition to this further information had been provided about complaints to Mid Suffolk District Council (MSDC) and The Environment Agency regarding the odour, but did not receive any complaints information from Anglian Water.
The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions that the odour assessment provided a worst-case scenario and not constant levels of odour. She confirmed that the layout of the site placed the industrial units within the strongest concentrations of OU’s (Odour Units) and that complaints to MSDC had been resolved.
Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE, Ward Member, said that the land needed to be delivered, but said that even half an hour a day of the smell was not right. He said that recent complaints had outlined that the odour was unacceptable. The Ward Member cited the response on pages 103 and 104 of the agenda from Anglian Water that although agreeing with the methodology that they did not find the area suitable for residential development.
At this point Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE left the meeting.
Conal Kearney, The Agent, said that the odour assessment provided a robust assessment of the situation representing the worst case scenario. He said that any odour benchmark would not be exceeded by 2% and reminded members that there were currently residential dwellings within the 5-10 OU area and that on average there was only 1 complaint per year from abnormal odour events. He concluded that due to the lack of complaints it did not show a loss in residential amenity under the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Chairman then read out an email from Ward Member Councillor Dave Muller as follows:
“Planning Application 4555/16 was deferred by Planning Committee B in August 2017. At that time I and my colleagues raised the issue of the odour from the sewage works which was the worst it has been for many years. I received many complaints from local residents who were unable to enjoy their gardens or leave their windows open as the odour was so bad.
I made a formal complaint to Anglian Water and also wrote to the Chief Environmental Officer at MSDC of my concerns. Following this action I received 3 phone calls from Anglian Water apologising for the offensive odours. They explained the reasons for the particularly bad odour and as a result the action taken by Anglian Water, I am pleased to say that I have received no further complaints from local residents and the odour has hardly been noticeable. I also informed the Chief Environmental Officer of the improvement.
I have also received no complaints from local residents regarding the this planning application other than they would not want 24 hour working if there was going to be any significant noise overnight.
In view of this I am happy to give this application my full support, subject to the conditions mentioned in the recommendation on pages 117 and 118 of the papers.”
Members’ debated the application commenting on the impact of the odour for potential residents and the loss of amenity that would be caused even if only for a short period of time.
The Area Planning Manager clarified that Anglian water own the asset in question (the Sewage Works) and do have an interest in this application and reminded the Committee that Mid Suffolk District Council had already approved and application on site 3B on Cedars Park for business use (application 0019/17)
Members’ continued to debate the application referring to comments from the Ward Members and the evidence from the Odour assessment. Councillor Keith Welham proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the Odour issue would cause a significant and adverse impact to the detriment of residential amenity. Councillor Kathie Guthrie seconded the motion.
By a unanimous vote.
Decision – The proposed development would, if approved, include the siting and location of dwellings and their occupiers adjacent to Anglian Water Sewage Works. As evidenced by odour assessments submitted with the application this would result in occupiers being exposed to significant and adverse odour impact to the detriment of residential amenity. On this basis the development is considered contrary to Policy H17 of the Local Plan and paras 17, 50, 57, 61, 64, 120, 122, and 123 of the NPPF.
Item 3
Application 0210/17
Proposal Outline Planning Application for the development of up to 106 residential units with all matters reserved except for access
Site Location ELMSWELL- Land to the East of Ashfield Road, Elmswell
Applicant The Godbold Turner Partnership
The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee and responded to Members’ questions regarding the amended layout avoiding further impact on the listed building and that landscaping of the site and protection from the drainage ponds would be included within the reserved matters application.
Rosanna Metcalfe, Agent, said that the applicant had a strong record of housing delivery and that they had worked closely with the Parish Council. She said that the development would include 35% affordable housing and that the village was sustainable and able to accommodate new development. She concluded that any impact on the landscape could be mitigated, that no technical objections had been received subject to conditions and that the applicant had worked to reduce the level of harm on the heritage asset.
Councillor Sarah Mansel, Ward Member, said that the application would bring improvements for the footpath network and that the site had been mooted for development 20 years beforehand. She said it was a shame that this application had come forward as residents know that infrastructure is at capacity despite the consultee responses and that there was no guarantee of a new school being provided and said that residents were not happy about a possible expansion of the existing site. She said that any money for public transport go to the railway station and concluded that the application had come too late for her full support.
Councillor John Levantis, Ward Member, said that the application had come in the wake of many others being approved. He said that there were concerns over the increased amounts of traffic but that Suffolk County Council could mitigate the impact and that the drainage and flooding provision was adequate. He concluded by saying that the application was sustainable and recommended it for approval.
The Ward Members’ responded to questions from the Committee regarding land that had been identified for a school and associated access.
The Case Officer advised Members that in the wake of the Thurston Appeal Case(APP/W3520/W/17/3172098) in respect of the travel plan coordinator sum, that the CIL test obligation must be reasonable and relatable to the development and recommended removal of the condition. He added that allocating money to railway infrastructure would mean a double dip on the Community Infrastructure Levy and that no evidence had been submitted.
Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendations with the additional condition that the green area as shown in the indicative plan is not built on with housing. The motion was seconded by Councillor Julie Flatman.
By a unanimous vote
Decision –
(1) That the Corporate Manager- Growth and Sustainable Planning be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act , 1990, including to provide:-
- 35% affordable housing
- £6,287.50 for public rights of way improvements
- Travel Plan implementation Bond, or cash deposit -£106,105 (£884 per dwelling- based on the estimated cost calculated by Suffolk County Council of fully implementing the travel plan). This is to cover the cost of implementing the travel plan on behalf of the developer, if they were to fail it themselves.
- Implementation of interim Travel Plan (when approved).
- Provision of an approved welcome pack to each dwelling on first occupation.
- Approval and full implementation of full Travel Plan.
- Monitoring the Travel Plan for a minimum of five years, or one year after the occupation of the final dwelling, whichever is longer.
- Securing and implementing remedial Travel Plan measures if the vehicular targets are not achieved, or if the trip rate in the Transport Assessment is exceeded when the site is occupied.
- Details of provision, future management, and maintenance of open space, including public open space.
(2) Subject to the adequate resolution of outstanding drainage matters, that authority be delegated to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:-
- Time limit for reserved matters (standard)
- Definition of reserved matters
- Approved plans
- Quantum of residential development fixed to a maximum of 106 no. dwellings.
- Details of external facing materials
- Proposed levels and finished floor levels details
- Hard landscaping scheme (including boundary treatments and screen/ fencing details)
- Soft landscaping scheme (including identification of existing trees and planting and tree protection measures).
- Details of surface water drainage scheme
- Details of implementation, maintenance, and management of surface water drainage scheme.
- Details of sustainable urban drainage system components and piped networks
- Details of construction surface water management
- Details of foul drainage
- Programme of archaeological investigation and post investigation assessment
- Sustainability and energy strategy
- Fire Hydrant provision details
- Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Arboricultural Method Statement
- External lighting details
- Provision of access
- Details of footway
- Details of the estate roads and footpaths
- Parking, manoeuvring, and cycle storage details
- Details of a construction management plan
- Details of the areas to be provided for storage of refuse/recycling
- Provision of estate road junctions
- Provision of visibility splays
- Provision of carriageways and footways
- Contamination investigation
- Restriction on noise intrusive works
- No burning of waste during construction
- Green area as shown on indicative plan is not built on with housing.
(3) That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured the Planning Lead – Growth and Sustainable Planning be authorised to refuse Planning Permission, for reason(s) including:-
- Inadequate provision of infrastructure contributions which would fail to provide compensatory benefits to the sustainability of the development and its wider impacts, contrary to the development plan and national planning policy.
Item 4
Application 02755/17
Proposal Submission of details (Reserved Matters) under Outline Planning Permission 3112/15 – Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale for 75 dwellings (Phase 1); estate roads, footpaths, parking, garaging, open space, landscaping, substation and ancillary works.
Site Location STOWUPLAND – Land between Gipping Road and Church Road, Stowupland.
Applicant Bloor Homes (Eastern)
The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining that this would be the first phase of development for 75 dwellings.
The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions regarding the density of the proposal and whether electric car charging points could be included in the proposal.
Jackie Ward, Objector, said that she was speaking on behalf of residents and the preservation society outlining that there were differences between the original submission and the reserved matters. She said that residents would like to know when the play area would become available and whether conditions applied to this application would also be added to the second phase of the development. She continued by saying that the drainage scheme would not be well maintained and that the design would not be of the Suffolk Vernacular. She concluded by saying that the design was not good enough for Stowupland.
Nicky Parsons, Agent, said that the original permission was up to 175 homes and that this permission was for the first phase and that the application was in complete accordance with the outline plan. She added that Stowmarket Town Council had objected to the development in principle but not in detail. She said that the application addressed the concerns of the Parish Council with the inclusion of 2 bungalows, 26 affordable homes, and met the parking standards. She concluded that the second phase would be 100 homes with a higher proportion of bungalows and that there had been no statutory objections and no policy conflicts.
The Agent responded to Members’ questions that construction traffic for phase 2 of the site would have to travel through this application.
Councillor Keith Welham, Ward Member said that the applicant had conducted discussions with the Parish Council but that their requests had not been met. The Ward Member said that the application had been allowed on appeal but that the detailed design should be in line with the permission, however, the density of the site had changed. He continued by saying that there were concerns that a further application could be submitted on the phase 2 site for a larger application and that the attenuation pond at the south of the site was below the level of the existing bungalows. He added that the design of the development was not in the traditional Suffolk vernacular and that there was a lack of pedestrian paths and cycle links being provided. The Ward Member concluded by saying that the development would mean the loss of a popular view and asked the Committee to defer the application.
The Case Officer clarified that Officer’s relied on the advice of the Flood Authority (Suffolk County Council) who had not objected and that the totality of the development would be capped at 175 dwellings. He advised that the applicant could put in a new application but would mean that the current application being discussed would become a material consideration.
Members’ debated the application on the proposed design of the development.
Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation, and was seconded by Councillor Jane Storey.
Members’ continued by debating the density of the application and the route of the construction traffic travelling through the first phase of the site.
By 7 votes to 1
Decision
That authority be delegated to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to grant approval of the reserved matters subject to conditions including:-
- Approved plans
And that an informative note be added to this permission reminding the applicant of the need to discharge conditions pertaining to the outline planning permission 3112/15.
Supporting documents: