Note:  The Chairman may change the listed order of items to accommodate visiting Ward Members and members of the public.

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:

 

Schedule of Applications

 

Application Number	Representations From
DC/18/02380	Victoria Whitehead (Combs Parish Council) Desiree Shelley (Objector)
1884/16	Phil Cobbold (Agent)
DC/18/03381	None

 

 

39.1 Item 1

 

Application          DC/18/02380

Proposal             Outline Planning Application- Erection of up to 160 No. dwellings  with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system and creation of new vehicular access 

Site Location      STOWMARKET- Land to the East of, Poplar Hill, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 2EJ  

Applicant             Gladman Developments Ltd

 

39.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, the response from Suffolk Wildlife Trust in the tabled papers and consequentially the amended Officer Recommendation for refusal within the tabled papers.

 

39.3 Members considered the representations from Combs Parish Council, the Objector and the Ward Members.

 

39.4 The Ward Members responded to a question from the Committee regarding engagement from the developer.

 

39.5 Councillor Lavinia Hadingham proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the amended Officer Recommendation in the tabled papers.

 

39.6 Councillor Derrick Haley seconded the proposal.

 

39.7 Members debated the application on the issues including: the harm that would be caused to the Grade 1 listed Church in Combs, the location of the houses, the impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI), and the response regarding Archaeology.

 

39.8 By a unanimous vote

 

39.9 RESOLVED

 

That authority be delegated to Corporate Manager - Growth & Sustainable Planning to refuse outline planning permission for the following reasons:

 

 1. The proposed development is situated on land outside of the settlement boundary of Stowmarket, the proposal fails to accord with the developments permitted within the countryside, contrary to Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (2008). The proposal is also contrary to the allocation of the site within policy 6.20 of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan (2013). Furthermore, the development fails to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 8 and 11 of the NPPF (2018) with regards to the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the proposal would have limited benefits outweighed by harm identified to the environmental objective, with particular regards to the natural and historic environment. As such the proposal is not acceptable in principle, being contrary to paragraphs 8, 11, 193 and 196 of the NPPF (2018), Policies CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008), Policy FC1 and FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) Policies HB1, HB14, CL8 and CL9 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998) and the Stowmarket Area Action Plan (2013).

 

2. The proposal results in the loss of the site as an area of open countryside, forming part of the setting and contributing to the significance of the adjacent Grade I listed Church. The proposal would therefore fail to protect, preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the locality, landscape and therefore the setting and significance of the surrounding heritage assets, which would result in a high level of less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Listed Buildings not outweighed by public benefits. As such the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF including with regards to the environmental role of sustainable development and furthermore with particular respect to paragraphs 8, 11, 193 and 196 of the NPPF (2018), Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008) and Policy HB1 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998).

 

3. The proposed development results in the imposition of built development into the open countryside in a location where this would result in significant impacts on the character and appearance of the countryside, failing to protect or conserve landscape qualities,  considering both the natural and historical dimensions of the landscape in this locality. As such the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of Policy HB1 of the adopted Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998), Policy CS5 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (2008), 6.20 and 6.22 of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan (2013) and paragraphs 8, 11 and 170 of the NPPF (2018).

 

4. The application fails to demonstrate that the development would not risk harm to Combs Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest with regards to the impact of additional visitors to the SSSI, by reason of insufficient information, given that the SSSI is within regular walking distance of the site wherein there is a likely increase in recreational pressure on the wood. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 8, 11, 170 and 175 of the NPPF (2018), Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008), and Policies CL8 and CL9 of the adopted Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998).

 

5. The application risks harm to heritage assets in terms of archaeological interest, with particular regards to the risk that significant finds may be identified which require preservation in situ, by reason of insufficient information being submitted to demonstrate that the archaeological impacts of the development are appropriately assessed, considered and mitigated. As such the proposal is contrary to paragraphs 8, 11, 189 and 190 of the NPPF (2018), Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (2008), and Policy HB14 of the adopted Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998).

 

39.10 Item 2

 

Application          1884/16

Proposal             Application for Outline Planning Permission for the erection of 18 dwellings, parking for primary school and extension to cemetery.

Site Location      STOWUPLAND-  Land on the South East side of, Church Road, Stowupland

Applicant             Porch Builders

 

39.11 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the history of the application as follows:

 

That the application was first presented to the MSDC Development Control B Committee on 3 January 2018 where it was subsequently deferred to review proposed mitigation measures for Highway safety.

 

Subsequently the application returned to MSDC Development Control B Committee on 23 May 2018 where the application was approved with conditions.

 

The Case Officer clarified that the application was before Members as the Section 106 Agreement had not been completed prior to Mid Suffolk District Council having a five-year land supply thus causing the application to be returned to Committee.

 

39.12 The Case Officer outlined the proposal to Members, the Officer Recommendation of approval with conditions, and the replacement slide contained within the tabled papers.

 

39.13 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the response from place services, the proposed highways crossing point, and the car park being secured through the Section 106 Agreement.

 

39.14 Members considered the representation from the Agent.

 

39.15 The Area Planning Manager brought the Committees attention to an omission within the Officer Recommendation and as such amended it to include an additional condition to secure the pedestrian crossing as recommended by Suffolk County Council’s Highways Department.

 

39.16 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Keith Welham.

 

39.17 Members debated the application on issues including: the proposed highways mitigation measures and the application of Policy CS2.

 

39.18 The Area Planning Manager clarified to Members that if Members were minded to refuse the application, he did not feel that Officers would be able to defend an appeal on sustainability grounds and that the sites’ location formed a natural infill development.

 

39.19 Councillor David Whybrow proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the amended Officer Recommendation.

 

39.20 Councillor Derrick Haley seconded the motion.

 

39.21 Members debated the application on the issues including: the location of the site in relation to Stowupland and the size and scale of the proposed development.

 

39.22 By a unanimous vote

 

39.23 RESOLVED

 

1.     That the Corporate Manager – Growth & Sustainable Planning be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to provide:-

 

· 35% Affordable Housing

· The use of the car park

 

2.     Subject to the adequate resolution of outstanding drainage matters, that the Corporate Manager – Growth & Sustainable Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions, including: -

 

· Time limit for commencement (standard)

· Approved plans

· Reserved matters

· Details of external facing materials

· Proposed levels and finished floor levels details

· Landscape Maintenance Plan

· Scheme of Contamination Investigation

· Hours restriction for noise intrusive works

· Programme of archaeological investigation and post investigation assessment

· Development to be completed in accordance with Ecology Report recommendations

· Lighting design scheme

· Gradient of vehicular access

· Details of estate roads and footpaths

· Construction of carriageways and footways

· Formation of estate roads

· Provision of parking and manoeuvring areas

· Provision of visibility splays

· Construction surface water management plan

· SUDs details

· Surface water drainage scheme

· Flood Risk Assessment implementation

 

3.     That, in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured the Corporate Manager – Growth & Sustainable Planning be authorised to refuse Planning Permission, for reason(s) including:-

 

· Inadequate provision of affordable housing contribution 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.

 

 

Additional Condition:

 

·       To secure pedestrian crossing as recommended by Suffolk County Council Highways Department which included no narrowing of the highway for the pedestrian crossing point.

 

 

39.24 Item 3

 

Application          DC/18/03381

Proposal             Planning Application. Change of Use from A2 (Professional and Financial Services) to Mixed Uses (incorporating A3 (Food and drink), A4 (Drinking establishment) and D2 (Assembly and Leisure).

Site Location      STOWMARKET- 11 Market Place, Stowmarket, Suffolk, IP14 1YY

Applicant             Mid Suffolk District Council

 

39.25 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal, that there were no tabled papers for the item and that the Officer Recommendation was for approval with conditions.

 

39.26 The Chair clarified that the application was only before Members because the applicant was Mid Suffolk District Council.

 

39.27 In response to a question from the Committee, the Planning Lawyer explained that if planning permission were granted it would still be necessary to obtain a licence under the Licensing Act 2003 if that had not already been done.

 

39.28 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member present, Councillor Lesley Mayes.

 

39.29 Members debated the application on issues including the operational hours of the premises and Councillor David Whybrow proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer Recommendation.

 

39.30 Councillor Mansel seconded the motion.

 

39.31 By a unanimous vote

 

RESOLVED

 

That authority be delegated to Corporate Manager - Growth & Sustainable Planning to grant planning permission, subject to conditions including:

 

· Standard time limit

· Approved Plans

· Hours of opening including deliveries to be agreed by condition

· Details of floorspace for proposed uses to be agreed by condition

· Hours in which amplified music/speech is permitted

· Sound-proofing measures to be agreed

· Details of extract ventilation etc.