94.1 Item 1
Proposal Planning Application – Erection of extension to existing production premises, associated car parking, landscaping, and drainage infrastructure
Site Location POLSTEAD- Hill Farm, Stoke Road, Polstead, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 5NY
Applicant Konings Juices and Drinks UK Ltd
94.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the history of the site, the constraints on the site, the layout of the proposal and the Officer Recommendation of Approval with conditions
94.3 The Acting Chief Planning Officer advised Members that although the NPPF had been republished on the previous day (19 February 2019), the application before Members could still be determined.
94.4 Members considered the representation from Andrew Wade of Polstead Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
94.5 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the evidence of low water pressure and the consultee response from Anglian Water.
94.6 Members considered the representation from Barbara Rowe of Leavenheath Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
94.7 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: whether there had been instances of queueing on the A134 in association with the site.
94.8 Members considered the representation from Martin Neilsen of Stoke by Nayland Parish Council, who spoke against the application.
94.9 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the lighting on the site. The Case Officer advised the Committee that a lighting condition had been included in the Officer Recommendation if Members were minded to approve the application.
94.10 Members considered the representation from Richard Tindall who spoke as an Objector.
94.11 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the pavements on the A134 and the current and proposed HGV movements from the site.
94.12 Members considered the representation from Phil Clark who spoke as the Applicant.
94.13 The Applicant and Agent (Matt Clarke) responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current employment on the site and the proposed increase, that a taller building was required for an Aseptic storage tank which would allow pressed apple juice to be stored for a longer amount of time, that the current application would not exceed the previous 2007 application that had allotted 314 HGV movements a week and that even with the new proposal the site would have 250 HGV movements a week.
94.14 The Applicant and Agent responded to further questions from Members’ on issues including: the height of the building and associated conditions, and that it was not financially feasible to construct the application below the originally proposed levels.
94.15 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor John Ward who spoke in support of the application.
94.16 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Jennie Jenkins, who spoke against the application.
94.17 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Melanie Barrett, who spoke in support of the application.
94.18 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor Bryn Hurren, who spoke in support of the application.
94.19 The Case Officer responded to a question regarding the application being denoted a major application within the AONB and that Officers had come to the conclusion as listed within the report that the proposal did not constitute major development in the AONB.
94.20 Members debated the application on the issues including: the impact of the proposal on the AONB, the height of the proposal, the location and visibility of the site, the footprint of the building compared to a previously approved application and that current jobs would be secured if the application was approved.
94.21 Councillor Michael Holt Proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer Recommendation. Councillor Michael Creffield Seconded the motion.
94.22 The Proposer and Seconder agreed to include a condition regarding the height and levels on the application.
(1) That the Corporate Manager - Planning for Growth be authorised to grant Planning Permission subject to conditions including:
· Standard time limit
· External colour finishing details
· Highways – HGV movements during construction
· Highways- provision and retention of manoeuvring and parking areas
· Highways - parking for loading and unloading
· Highways – exit signage HGV weight limit
· Construction Management Plan implemented as approved
· Flood Risk Assessment and surface water disposal strategy implemented as approved
· Sustainable Urban Drainage System details
· Construction Surface Water Management Plan
· Western hedgerow protective buffer zone details - construction phase
· Landscaping – implemented as approved
· Fire hydrants
· Secure mitigation and ecology enhancement measures
· Lighting scheme details to be submitted
Height and levels
Highways - Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980
SCC Flood and Water:
Any works to a watercourse may require consent under section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 Any discharge to a watercourse or groundwater needs to comply with the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003.
Any discharge of surface water to a watercourse that drains into an Internal Drainage Board catchment is subject to payment of a surface water developer contribution.
Any works to lay new surface water drainage pipes underneath the public highway will need a section 50 license under the New Roads and Street Works Act.