Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.
Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 24/09/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 24/09/2019
Decision:
11.1 Councillor Arthey, Cabinet Member for Planning, introduced report BC/19/18 and clarified the statutory requirements for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and outlined the content of Appendices A and B. He reminded Members that the information in Appendix B was available on the Website, which included further information regarding CIL funding and commissions collected.
11.2 He detailed that Babergh had potential outstanding commissions for CIL of £11.4M, of which £3.5M had been collected previously in CIL commissions. There was a further £2M commissions collected more recently.
11.3 Councillor Arthey MOVED recommendation 3.1, which was SECONDED by Councillor Davis.
11.4 Councillor Barrett enquired what action the Council could take if a developer was slow to pay CIL. She was referring to a specific case.
11.5 Councillor Arthey responded that if Councillor Barrett could forward the details of that particular case to him, he would be able to provide an answer outside of the meeting.
11.6 Councillor Maybury queried Appendix B, as she felt there were discrepancies in the list provided and Councillor Arthey offered to assist Councillor Maybury to locate specific CIL allocations after the meeting.
11.7 Councillor Jan Osborne referred to Appendix B and said that this was good news for the Council, which should be circulated. CIL funding had provided communities with funding, which had been used effectively and efficiently and she thanked officers for their efforts.
11.8 Recommendation 3.1 was put to Members for voting and the vote was UNANIMOUS.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the Babergh CIL Regulation 62 Monitoring Report for 2018-19 be noted.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 24/09/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 24/09/2019
Decision:
10a.1 Councillor Hurren, Chair of the Joint Audit and Standards Committee, introduced report JAC/19/4 and summarised the main points in the report. He MOVED recommendations 3.1 and 3.2, which was SECONDED by Councillor Ward.
10a.2 Councillor Ward commented that the Report detailed how the Council was able to Fund the work decided by Committees, Council and Cabinet.
10a.3 Councillor Maybury asked if the Council incurred a penalty for the one occasion when the Council exceeded its daily bank account limit, and Councillor Hurren responded that no penalty had been incurred.
10a.4 Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 were put to Members for voting and the vote was CARRIED.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the Treasury Management activity for the year 2018/19 be noted. Further, that performance was in line with the Prudential Indicators set for 2018/19 be noted.
That Babergh District Council treasury management activity for 2018/19 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that, except for one occasion when the Council exceeded its daily bank account limit with Lloyds by £391k, as mentioned in Appendix C, paragraph 4.6, the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management Indicators for this period be noted.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 24/09/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 24/09/2019
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 24/09/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 24/09/2019
Decision:
Councillor McCraw, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, summarised the main points in his report to Members. He informed Members that a Task and Finish Group was to be set-up for a cross-authority scrutiny process for Citizens Advice. The Authorities participating were West Suffolk Council, Ipswich Borough Council, Mid Suffolk District Council and Babergh District Council.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 24/09/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 24/09/2019
Decision:
It was RESOLVED: -
That the Minutes of the meeting held on the 23 July 2019 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 23/07/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 23/07/2019
Decision:
12.1 The Chair invited Councillor Malvisi to move the Motion on Notice.
12.2 Councillor Malvisi began by advising Members on some background information including:
· That the United Nations Inter-Governmental panel on climate change warned that there were twelve years to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 centigrade, and that failure to do so would see a marked increase in sea levels and flooding, severe changes in weather patterns, crop failure, extinction of animals and global economic crisis.
· That failure to take action would have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of the population including Babergh residents and billions of people around the world.
· At the global climate talks in December 2018 the UK signed up together with two hundred countries and agreed action on Climate change with a much greater role applied for Local and regional authorities in assisting Government in achieving their carbon emissions savings.
· Eighty-five local authorities had so far passed a climate emergency Motion to reduce their carbon footprint and to promote sustainable urban environments and economies.
· Tackling climate change could not be left to the Government alone but was the responsibility of everybody to stop the threat to the planet.
12.3 As the portfolio holder for Environment, Councillor Malvisi would like Council to resolve to support the environmental sustainability task force and to consider the following actions:
· A commission and environmental audit to identify pollution hotspots;
· An urban assessment with an aim to identify areas of improvement across the district;
· Consult experts in the field as appropriate;
· Collaborate with neighbouring and regional authorities and communities to encourage practical measures to reduce carbon footprints and to develop community renewable energy projects;
· Encourage all sectors across the district to take steps to reduce waste and become carbon neutral;
· Develop a road map for Babergh District to go carbon neutral by 2030;
· Report to Cabinet and Full Council within six months of the task force starting with an action plan setting out conservation and environmental sustainability goals to address the targets by 2030;
· Incorporate proposals on the investment implications of this proposed activity;
· Write to the Minister of State for Clean Energy and Clean Growth and state that national policy is urgently developed to reflect the seriousness of the current emergency and to release funds to authorities encouraging them to take the necessary measures at local level.
12.4 Councillor Malvisi then read the Motion to Members:
“This Council pledges to:
1. Acknowledge a climate emergency.
2. Set up a Task Force, commencing by September 2019, to examine ways in which Babergh & Mid Suffolk Councils will respond to the climate change challenge on a spend to save basis, with the ambition to make Babergh & Mid Suffolk Councils carbon neutral by 2030.
3. To work with partners across the county and region, including the LEP and the Public Sector Leaders, towards the aspiration of making the county of Suffolk carbon neutral by 2030.
4. To work with Government to a) deliver its 25-year Environment Plan and b) increase the powers and resources available to local authorities in order to make the 2030 target easier to achieve.
12.5 Councillor Malvisi PROPOSED the Motion as set out in the Agenda, which was SECONDED by Councillor Ward.
12.6 Councillor Hardacre PROPOSED an amendment to the Motion, which was included in the tabled papers and advised Members that the proposed amendments to the Motion were highlighted in yellow:
The Council pledges to:
Acknowledge a climate emergency.
Declare a goal to make the council carbon neutral by 2030
Request that in 2019 the Cabinet member for the Environment convenes a working group of citizens selected to reflect the range of demographics in the district.This group would meet to consider the climate change impact of each area of the Council's activities, and in consultation with scientific and expert advisors produce a set of recommendations for ways to bring each of these areas to zero by 2030.
To work with partners across the county and region, including the LEP, Public Sector Leaders and the Suffolk Climate Change Partnership to implement the recommendations of the working group and work towards the aspiration of making the entire county of Suffolk carbon neutral by 2030.
To work with Government to a) deliver its 25-year Environment Plan and b) increase the powers and resources available to local authorities in order to make the 2030 target easier to achieve.
12.7 He welcomed the original Motion and said he would be voting for the Motion. However, the amendment was an attempt to clarify the Motion in a collaborative way.
12.8 Councillor Hardacre stated that paragraph 3 had been completely re-written and that the key issues were to get Members of the public involved in a consultation from the start. He described examples from another authority Campden?? and Oxford, in which 50 people had been involved in a citizen’s working group, as part of the consultation and had made recommendations to the Council. He felt that this amendment would allow the public to be involved and that the Council should implement the recommendations from the working group.
12.9 Councillor Jamieson stated that he supported Councillor Hardacre and SECONDED the amendment.
12.10 The Chair put the amendment to the Councillor Malvisi, the proposer of the Motion, who did not accept the amendment.
12.11 She stated that a task force would be set up and that the Motion stated that work would be undertaken with partners and that the Suffolk Climate Change Partnership was one of these partners.
12.12 She continued that the Councillors had been elected to be the voice of the people and that the public would be included at a later stage.
12.13 The Task Force would bring a plan back to Council for approval in six months’ time, including Terms of Reference, which was critical to the success of the project.
12.14 She stated there was no need for an amendment at this point.
12.15 Members debated the amendment.
12.16 Councillor Ward supported Councillor Malvisi and said that the year 2030 would be difficult to achieve and that the Government had set the date to 2050.
12.17 He continued that often citizens representative groups did not represent the general population. He re-initiated Councillor Malvisi’s point that Members were elected as representatives and that this was the responsibility of the Members.
12.18 Councillor Lindsay specified that the group of citizens were to be selected from across the District by inviting people to come and be involved. This would ensure a general cross section, which would add impact to the work undertaken. He hoped that Councillor Malvisi did not rule out the idea of a task force.
12.19 Councillor Dawson felt that the amendment was slightly inflammatory by naming it ‘Climate Emergency’, which was sometimes associated with extremism. She stated that mechanisms had already been put in place nationally to deal with climate change and that carbon admission targets were set to deal with carbon emissions. She felt that damage could be inflicted on the economy of Babergh if carbon reduction was being forced through too quickly.
12.20 Councillor Lindsay raised a point of order and reminded Members that the words ‘Climate Emergency’ were included in the Motion and asked if Councillor Dawson was objecting to the Motion.
12.21 Councillor Dawson stated that she expressed her point of view for both the Motion and the amendment.
12.22 Councillor Fraser felt that the suggestion of selecting members of the public from the electoral role and inviting them to be part of a Climate working group was likely to have a low attendance and would be unworkable.
12.23 Councillor McCraw returned to the question of the Task Force and asked that it had representatives from the different political groups. He understood the Green group’s point of view, however he stated that Members had the mandate to take action as elected representatives of the public.
12.24 He continued that that green issues were now on everybody’s agenda, which was a result and a success of the green politics, however he would not be voting for the amendment, as he thought that citizens working groups was not effective and that the Motion was sufficient to be a starting point for achieving the target of being carbon neutral.
12.25 Councillor Malvisi responded to Members that she was concerned by using the electoral roll to ask people to join a task force due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). She was sure that the Parish Councils would not appreciate members of the public being paid to attend a task force, when it was the purpose of the Councillors to undertake this.
12.26 She continued that the task force had not been selected yet, but it was the intention to have a cross section of Members included in the task force and that the Terms of Reference would be central to enable the task force to remain focussed on the purpose of the task force.
12.27 The Monitoring Officer reminded Members that the Council could comment and commit to pledge to the Motion, however that Cabinet had to approve the Terms of Reference.
12.28 Councillor Cresswell agreed that Members had been elected to represent the people.
12.29 The amendment was put to Members for voting and was LOST.
12.30 Members then debated the Motion and the Monitoring Officer clarified that Babergh was voting on the Motion for Babergh, but as it was a joint policy Mid Suffolk District Council was included in the wording.
12.31 Councillor Davis fully supported the Motion and stressed the importance of reducing carbon dioxide. He detailed the advantage of Hydro power from the North Sea and to use the natural resources provide energy to the community.
12.32 Councillor Lindsay stated that he supported the Motion however, it was important to be clear of what the Council was committing to, as every policy had to be scrutinised to ensure that it reduced or increased the use of carbon dioxide. He was concerned the support for the Sudbury Bypass and the Ipswich Northern Bypass would increase the use of cars. He continued that the increase of the use of electric cars did not necessarily achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and it was not likely to support the target set by the Council for 2030. He stated that more emphasis should be put on the use of public transport, cycling and walking.
12.33 Councillor Beer asked for a point of clarity to Councillor Lindsay with regards to the support of the Sudbury Bypass and the Ipswich Northern bypass.
12.34 Councillor Lindsay replied that he referred to the Sudbury Vision and that he personally did not support either of the bypasses.
12.35 Councillor Malvisi did not think it was within the Council’s remit to change business models and were not able to influence the way business preferred to conduct business. The Council acknowledged that there was an issue, and this was what the Motion was for.
12.36 The Motion was put to Members for voting and the Motion was CARRIED by a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
“This Council pledges to
1. Acknowledge a climate emergency.
2. Set up a Task Force, commencing by September 2019, to examine ways in which Babergh & Mid Suffolk Councils will respond to the climate change challenge on a spend to save basis, with the ambition to make Babergh & Mid Suffolk Councils carbon neutral by 2030.
3. To work with partners across the county and region, including the LEP and the Public Sector Leaders, towards the aspiration of making the county of Suffolk carbon neutral by 2030.
4. To work with Government to a) deliver its 25-year Environment Plan and b) increase the powers and resources available to local authorities in order to make the 2030 target easier to achieve.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 23/07/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 23/07/2019
Decision:
11.1 Councillor Ward PROPOSED Councillor Davis and Councillor McLaren as Representatives on the Western Suffolk Community Safety Partnership which was SECONDED by Councillor Newman.
11.2 The proposal was put to the Council and the vote was CARRIED.
It was RESOLVED:?
That Councillor Davis and Councillor McLaren be elected as Babergh District Council’s representatives on the Western Suffolk Community Safety Partnership.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 23/07/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 23/07/2019
Decision:
It was RESOLVED-
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2019 be confirmed and signed as a true record with the following amendment:
Page 6, paragraph 8.22 replace ‘week’ with ‘period’
Page 7, paragraph 9.3 replace ‘Join’ with ‘Joint’
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2019
Decision:
8.1 To appoint the following Committees and Joint Committees:
· Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee
· Planning Committee
· Babergh Licensing and Regulatory Committee
· Joint Audit and Standards Committee
· Joint Appointments Committee
8.2 Councillor Busby MOVED the proposal, which was SECONDED by Councillor Beer.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the following Committees and Joint Committees be appointed:
· Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee
· Planning Committee
· Babergh Licensing and Regulatory Committee
· Joint Audit and Standards Committee
· Joint Appointments Committee
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2019
Decision:
2.1 Councillor Ward MOVED the proposal for Councillor Adrian Osborne to be Vice-Chair of the Council, which was SECONDED by Councillor Carpendale.
It was RESOLVED:-
That Councillor Adrian Osborne be elected as Vice-Chair of the Council for the Municipal year 2019/20.
2.2 Councillor Adrian Osborne thereupon made his Declaration of Office.
2.3 Councillor Adrian Osborne thanked Members for their kind words, and he looked forward to supporting the Chair of the Council.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2019
Decision:
1.1 Councillor Arthey MOVED the nomination of Councillor Kathryn Grandon as Chair of the Council and Councillor Ward SECONDED the proposal.
It was RESOLVED: -
That Councillor Kathryn Grandon be elected as Chair of the Council for the Municipal year 2019/20
1.2 Councillor Grandon thereupon made her Declaration of Office.
1.3 Councillor Kathryn Grandon thanked everyone, who had voted for her as Chair of the Council and welcomed new and returning Councillors to the Chamber. She would do her best to help business and to move the Council forward in a democratic and efficient way. Her chosen charity for the next year would be Hadleigh Dementia Action Alliance. This charity was started in 2014 and trained volunteers to become Dementia Friends to raise awareness and to provide support for local people living with dementia.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2019
Decision:
It was RESOLVED: -
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2019 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
Decision Maker: Joint Appointments Committee
Made at meeting: 02/04/2019 - Joint Appointments Committee
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 02/04/2019
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Cabinet
Made at meeting: 04/02/2019 - Mid Suffolk Cabinet
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 04/02/2019
Decision:
Subject to Councillor Diana Kearsley being added to the list of attendees the minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2019 were confirmed as a correct record.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 17/01/2019 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 17/01/2019
Decision:
53.1 Katherine Steel, Assistant Director for Corporate Resources introduced report MOS/1/24 and outlined the changes in the report layout. There was no longer a Medium Financial Term report, as this was incorporated into the general budget report
53.2 The Chair updated Members on points raised the previous Cabinet meeting:
· The Needham Lake Visitor Centre was not included in the budget and would be funded by the business rates capital budget;
· Council Tax Care Leavers Relief would be funded equally between by Suffolk County Council and Mid Suffolk District Council, and would be a continued relief;
· The Locality Budget was £250K and would be divided into 34 parts. Mid Suffolk would receive 1/34 of the budget.
· The significant risk register was updated on Connect.
53.3 Councillor Hadingham ask for clarification on the net income for the proposed investment of £25m and referred to page 21, 8.20 and page 29, line 13.
53.4 Councillor Field expressed concern for the proposed £25m investment for CIFCO and that the investment was outside the District. He was also concerned regarding the risk as some of the investments were in the retail market.
53.5 Councillor Welham suggested that additional risk management and more explanation round the issues regarding the economic conditions becoming worse should be included.
53.6 He also asked for clarity for the returns on the loans in Table 7 and 8, page 19 to 20.
53.7 The Assistant Director – Corporate Resources responded to the questions and said that paragraph 8.20 was net income.
53.8 In repose to the investments she referred to the CIFCO Board of Directors and said that currently investments were being made into retail.
53.9 The Cabinet Member for Finance explained that economic downturn would be an issue if the Council decided to sell assets invested by CIFCO as the Council received income from the rents. However, the investments were made for a minimum period of 10 to 15 years, which was historically considered a good capital investment period.
53.10 Councillor Welham suggested a change to the wording for the risk assessment and that this required more explanation of the risks.
53.11 The Cabinet Member for Finance agreed.
53.12 Councillor Gibson-Harries suggested a short information piece which could be made available for Parish Council meetings.
53.13 The Assistant Director responded to Members questions including:
· Bullet point 7.6 Risk Management covered a ranger of areas including Gateway 14, the previous HQ sites, Stowmarket Middle School, Paddock Site in Eye and investment in the commercial market;
· Bullet point 8.10, c), business rates funding was uncertain after 2019/20 and the estimate had been prudent. The business rate base line had been moving upwards.
· Table 7, page 19 staff salary was detailed further in the Budget book, page 31
· The surplus in the General Fund for housing was ringfenced for Homelessness.
53.14 Members debated the budget including business rates and that the District had a lot of small and medium companies. The current market for retail could have an effect on the business rate.
53.15 Members debated the possible information note to parish Councils for CIFCO and the Chief executive added that explaining the purpose of CIFCO was relatively easy, but it would a challenge to clarify the complicated reason for the investments.
53.16 Some Members agreed and considerations as to how it would be possible to choose topics to include in a note for Parish Councils was debated further.
53.17 Councillor Welham thanked officers for a prudent budget, which was modest through out. CIFCO was a long-term investment strategy to maintain reasonable levels of Council Tax.
53.18 Members was provided with information to answer queries at Parish Council level.
53.19 Members agree that comments from the meeting should be delivered to Cabinet.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee endorse Recommendations 3.1 to 3.4.
1.2 That the comments made by the Committee at the meeting be considered by Cabinet.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 17/01/2019 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 17/01/2019
Decision:
It was RESOLVED: -
49.1 The minutes of the meeting held on the 20 December 2018 be confirmed as a correct record with the following amendments:
Page 1, minute number 36: …. held on the 19 November 2018 be confirmed
Page 5, minute number 40.3 …… That the Information Bulletin be confirmed.
Page 6, minute number 46 … be amended to Hurstlea Road in both lines.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 19/02/2019 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 19/02/2019
Decision:
It was Resolved:-
That subject to Minute 85.6 being clarified to say “in response the Chair of Scrutiny stated that from a scrutiny point of view they were glad to hear that it was funded for as much as two years”, Councillor Plumb being added to the list of attendees and Councillor Rose being added to the list of apologies the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2018 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Licensing and Regulatory Committee
Made at meeting: 07/12/2018 - Mid Suffolk Licensing and Regulatory Committee
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 07/12/2018
Decision:
15.1 David Price, Licensing Officer, presented Paper MLR/18/4 reporting back to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee the outcome of a full targeted and public consultation, which ran between 31 August 2018 and 12 October 2018, in respect of the draft Statement of Principles (Appendix A to Paper MLR/18/4). Members also had before them a Summary of the changes made to the draft Statement of Principles (Appendix B), consultation responses received (Appendix C) and the consultee list (Appendix D).
15.2 The Licensing Officer responded to questions from Members and confirmed that no changes had been made to the draft Statement of Principles (Appendix B) as a result of the consultation process.
15.3 During the course of the discussion, Councillor Stringer proposed an additional recommendation to ask Council to debate whether to pass a ‘No Casino’ rule.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the post-consultation draft ‘Statement of Principles’ in respect of Gambling Act 2005 functions, be approved.
It was RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:
1. That the ‘Statement of Principles’ document be adopted.
2. That Council determines whether to pass a ‘No Casino’ resolution under section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Licensing and Regulatory Committee
Made at meeting: 07/12/2018 - Mid Suffolk Licensing and Regulatory Committee
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 07/12/2018
Decision:
None declared.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Council
Made at meeting: 19/12/2018 - Mid Suffolk Council
Decision published: 20/12/2019
Effective from: 19/12/2018
Decision:
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Burke, Councillor Burn, Councillor Eburne, Councillor Ekpenyong, Councillor Gibson-Harries, Councillor Hadingham, Councillor Haley, Councillor Jewson, Councillor Mayes, Councillor Morley, Councillor Muller, Councillor Osborne and Councillor Whybrow.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2017 - Mid Suffolk Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2017
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2017 - Mid Suffolk Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2017
Decision:
By a majority vote
RESOLUTION
That the Committees and Joint Committees as detailed on the agenda be agreed
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2017 - Mid Suffolk Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2017
Decision:
RESOLUTION
That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2017 be agreed
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2017 - Mid Suffolk Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2017
Decision:
By a unanimous vote
RESOLUTION
That Councillor Nick Gowrley be elected Leader of the Council and Chairman of the Executive Committee for 2017/18
Councillor Gowrley thanked Members for electing him as Leader for the coming year and said it was an honour to be appointed and that he wanted to recommit the administration to continue to work with transparency and openness. He said a lot had happened the past year; the Council had moved on to the Cabinet-Leader Governance, the new Constitution, the move to Endeavour House and the set-up of an Investment Company. For the coming year he wanted to continue progressing the housing development and develop further some of the strategic projects.
Councillor Gowrley wanted to thank Councillor Glen Horn for his work and support during the past year.
He announced the following appointments:
Deputy Leader – John Whitehead
Cabinet Member for Housing – Jill Wilshaw
Cabinet Member for Planning – David Whybrow
Cabinet Member for Economy – Gerard Brewster
Cabinet Member for Environment – David Burn
Cabinet Member for Communities – Julie Flatman
Cabinet Member for Customers – Glen Horn
Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments – Nick Gowrley
Cabinet Member for Finance – John Whitehead
Cabinet Member without Portfolio – Andrew Stringer
Cabinet Member without Portfolio – Penny Otton
Lead Member for Health and Wellbeing – Diana Kearsley
Lead Member for Waste – Roy Barker
Lead Member for Customer Service – Suzie Morley
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2017 - Mid Suffolk Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2017
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Council
Made at meeting: 22/05/2017 - Mid Suffolk Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 22/05/2017
Decision:
By an unanimous vote
RESOLUTION
That Councillor Derrick Haley be appointed Chairman of the Council for 2017/18
Note: Councillor Haley duly signed the declaration of acceptance of office of Chairman and took the chair
Councillor Haley thanked Councillor Elizabeth Gibson-Harries for her work during her time as Chairman, and said he looked forward to continuing the work of integrity and transparency and hoped to make those before him proud. He thanked Members and said he considered it an honour to be elected Chairman and looked forward to representing the Council at civic functions during the coming year. His chosen charities were Suffolk Family Carers and the Museum of East Anglian Life.
Councillor Haley welcomed Councillor Michael Burke, the Ward Member for Eye, to the Council.
Councillor Elizabeth Gibson–Harries said it had been a privileged to attend the many wonderful events throughout the year and that it had been an honour to represent the Council. Councillor Gibson–Harries thanked Members for their support not just in the Council Chamber but also on the trips and events she had attended with them in both Members’ wards and in the District.
Councillor Nick Gowrley thanked Councillor Gibson-Harries for the magnificent way she had been Chairman this year and that he was eternally grateful to her for her work. Councillor Gowrley said she had done the Council proud.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 15/06/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 15/06/2017
Decision:
RESOLUTION
That the minutes of the meeting held on the 15 March 2017 be confirmed as a correct record.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 15/06/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 15/06/2017
Decision:
RESOLUTION
That the minutes of the Joint Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 19 April 2017 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:
Councillor Paul Munson attended the Joint Scrutiny Meeting 19 April 2017
Page 7 paragraph 26. The following to be included:
- Need for flexibility (e.g.: using sheltered housing to support a discharge)
- Process for adaptations to be managed quickly
- Need for stronger links regarding preventing admissions
It was also noted that for the spend of the (disabled adaptations) grant and improvement plan was in place and the committee could hear back on this.
Page 7, paragraph 27 to read: Paul Bryant and Paul Munson Heritage Enabling Officer responded…
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 15/06/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 15/06/2017
Decision:
Emily Yule, Assistant Director of Law and Governance, presented the Way of Working for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and outlined the following points:
The responsibility of the Committee was to provide a critical friend challenge to executive policy and decision makers by challenging in a constructive and purposeful way. The Committee could give a strategic review of corporate policies, plans, performances, and budgets in an a-political atmosphere. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee enabled the voice and concerns of the public to be heard by conducting public meetings and by using innovative public communication, consultation, and feedback. It was important that both Members and Officers were well prepared to answer questions at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting.
The types of Scrutiny were outlined as Pre-Scrutiny, Scrutiny of Services/Projects, Joint Scrutiny, and Call-in:
· Pre-Scrutiny could be initiated by the committee, Cabinet of Officers. It was important that Overview and Scrutiny monitored the Forward Decision’s List, to identify any areas the Committed wished to look at.
· Scrutiny of Services/Projects included reviews of a service area or project, periodic reviews and standing items or scrutiny of something which had gone wrong.
· Joint Scrutiny, not only included Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils, but also other partners and external scrutiny.
· Call-in was when a Cabinet Decision was called in by 5 or more members, one of which must be an opposition member. The Call-in had to be evaluated by the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the Monitoring Officer to assess if the Call-in was valid. Often this was when a decision had not been taken on based on all the pertinent information. Timing was critical when a Call-in was requested.
There was a Call-in form and a check list available for Members to use. The Call-in could be submitted by e-mail from the Lead Member and supported by four additional supporters.
There were two elements involved when a decision could be questioned and a Call-in could be raised. One was when not all the relevant information available had been considered by the Cabinet and the second element was when a prober decision procedure had not been followed.
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee would construct an Overview and Scrutiny Forward Plan, and Members were advised to keep the plan concise to enable an in-depth investigation of a review. Each review would include a scoping exercise and a scoping template would be available for Members to use. It was suggested that Members set up Task and Finish Groups to develop a deeper understanding of the topic and items under scrutiny.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 15/06/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 15/06/2017
Decision:
Ben Staines, Project and Research Officer, explained to Members that items on the suggested list had been compiled of uncompleted items from Scrutiny Committee’s Agendas from the previous two years.
Members considered the items in the report and discussed various issues including:
· VOIDS
· Poverty strategy and the possibility for an Officer to provide a summery update to the Committee
· Waste Service
· Small Businesses and how Mid Suffolk District Council was supporting to businesses in the District. This item had been part of the Open For Business Initiative and it was suggested that a summery was to be given to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
· Performance reports
· Performance reporting and the link between homelessness and residents in Bed and Breakfasts
· Neighbour Plans, the outcome from the Task and Finish Group was to be reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
· Community Housing Fund
· Home Ownership Review
· Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced in April 2016 and the Scrutiny Committee decided then that review was to take place after a year
· Leisure Strategy, Chris Fry – Assistant Director of Environments and Projects, to bring the Overview and Strategy Committee up to date
· Babergh and Mid Suffolk Building Services (BMBS)
In response to the consideration of the Leisure Strategy the Director of Strategic Planning, informed Members that the Leisure Strategy consisted of two parts they were the Leisure and Activity Strategy and the Leisure Facilities Strategy. It was suggested that any questions on how the Stratbroke and Stowmarket Indoor Swimming pools were managed should be directed directly to Chris Fry, Assistant Director of Environments and Projects. Members were concerned that Mid Suffolk Leisure Centre took an appropriate approach to make an impact on public fitness and to encourage schools to use the swimming pools.
Councillor James Caston to speak to the Assistant Director of Environments and Projects regarding the changes made to the facilities management and how this was affecting the target audience.
Further information and two leisure report were available to Members on Connect.
RESOLVED
The Forward Plan to be:
The Home Ownership Review
Community Infrastructure Levy
Neighbour Plan
VOIDS
BMBS Review after twelve month’s implementation
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 15/06/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 15/06/2017
Decision:
Emily Yule - Assistant Director – Law and Governance, informed Members of the training available for Members and Officers, and outlined this as follows:
· Introduction to Scrutiny (Officers and Members)
· Chairing Skills for Scrutiny (Chairs and Vice-Chairs)
· Questioning Skills (All Scrutiny Members)
· Dealing with Call-ins (All Scrutiny Members)
· Setting a Forward Plan for Scrutiny/ Scoping (All Scrutiny Members/ Cabinet Members/ Senior Leadership Team)
· Supporting Scrutiny (Senior Officers, Scrutiny Officers, and Policy Support)
· Responding to Scrutiny (Extended Leadership Team)
Councillor Rachel Eburne requested that all training was to be relevant to Mid Suffolk District.
Members were informed that the Transformation bid would covere the cost of training.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 15/06/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 15/06/2017
Decision:
Kevin Jones – Interim Strategic Director, presented the report to Members and explained how the Housing Revenue Account Financial Plan (HRA) had been updated to adapt to the evolving needs and demands and to reflect legislative, financial and technological changes. The HRA Financial Plan included an outline for the new homes in Mid Suffolk District Council and the financial changes brought about by the Government.
It was pointed out to Members that the Model used in the HRA Financial Plan was from the Chartered Institute of Housing and that the Chartered Institute had been involved in the process to ensure consistency. The assumptions in the report had also been reviewed.
The review had led to changes to the Babergh Mid Suffolk Building Services (BMBS), as it had previously been considered viable that the service would make a surplus after two years. However, it was now predicted that this process would take four to five years.
The position of the HRA Business Plans in relation to the Debt Cap imposed by the Government, was up to ten years and the reduction of the Capital working programme was explained to members.
Councillor Rachel Eburne said that the Summery of HRA Efficiency Gains Plan, page 53, had performed better than the estimated £300,000.
In response to question of the current debt of 86.6 Million, Members were reminded that in 2012 Mid Suffolk District Council had taken on their share of debt of 50 Million which was added to the already existing debt of 20 million. The debt was in effect the ‘Mortgage’ of owing the housing stock in Mid Suffolk District.
Members inquired if it was possible to borrowing from the General Fund to increase the HRA and it was clarified that this would be difficult, but could be achieved by buying services. The Interim Strategic Director pointed out to Members that the current HRA Financial Plan concentrated on improving the HRA Budget to accommodate the debt cap.
Members questioned Officers on the BMBS and if it would be better to outsource the services. Officers said that contracted services often had constraints and that in-house services provided better service and other benefits to the tenants. The current plans for BMBS had taken into consideration start-up, training, and staffing and as a result the estimated profit period had been extended to four years.
The cost of running the BMBS was high for this kind of organisation and as indicated on page 55, bullet point 2 early considerations would be given to reduce this. It had been difficult to monitor similar services in the past but the BMBS had a new Corporate Manager and he would be responsible for the BMBS budget, timings, and performance monitoring. The Summery Improvement Plan on page 60, indicated that BMBS had the potential for the biggest savings
Generally, the Summery Improvement Plan had identified the worst cases to enable the HRA Business plan to identify the potentially best areas for improvements.
The turnaround time for Voids were discussed as Members felt that improvement should have been made to the currently sixty-six days. It was hoped the turnaround time would improve as the BMBS became fully operational.
An Amendment was proposed by Councillor Rachel Eburne and seconded by Councillor John Field, that a reporting framework for a performance monitoring system be put in place.
By a unanimous vote
RESOLUTION
2.1 that the updated HRA 30 year Business and financial plan(Appendix A to MOS/17/4) to be approved.
2.2 That a reporting framework for a performance monitoring system be put in place.
The business of the meeting was concluded at 11.35am
………………………………………
The Chairman
Decision Maker: Babergh Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 21/06/2017 - Babergh Planning Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 21/06/2017
Decision:
PAPER PL/17/3 – PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Members had before them an Addendum to Paper PL/17/3 (circulated to Members prior to the commencement of the meeting) updating Members on items in the report, together with errata.
In accordance with the Council’s Charter for public speaking at Planning Committee, representations were made as detailed below relating to Paper PL/17/3, and the speakers responded to questions put to them as provided for in the Charter:-
B/16/01457 Jonathan Ralph (Parish Councillor) Rebecca McVittie (Objector) Stephanie Sage (Applicant) B/17/00023 David Marsh (Parish Councillor) Frances Self (Objector) Tim Harbord (Agent for the Applicant) RESOLVED
That subject to the imposition of conditions or reasons for refusal (whether additional or otherwise) in accordance with delegated powers under Council Minute No. 48(a) (dated 19 October 2004) decisions on the items referred to in Paper PL/17/3 be made as follows:-
HINTLESHAM
Application No B/17/00023/OUT Paper PL/17/3 – Item 4 Outline application – Erection of detached two-storey dwelling with garage/carport and parking/turning area incorporating existing vehicular access from Raydon Road. As amplified by additional information comprising Agricultural Viability Statement, Land valuation, additional demolition quotation and plans 2489/01A and 02A received 25 April 2017, Ceylon House, Raydon Road.
The Case Officer, John Davies, drew Members’ attention to the Addendum which set out further comments from the Highway Authority, the full text of a letter from Barry Gasper, one of the two Ward Members, and a late objection from a local resident.
Members were aware that if they were minded to approve the outline application, the Highway Authority’s conditions would include those detailed in the Addendum. During the course of the debate, reference was made to minimising energy consumption and Members were advised that an appropriate condition could be attached in the event of an approval being granted.
RESOLVED
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including:-
· Standard outline consent time limit · External facing materials · Removal of all glasshouses prior to occupation of new dwelling · Contamination assessment · Ecological mitigation and enhancements · Hard and soft landscaping · Hedgerow protection · As required by Highway Authority · R…… M….. to demonstrate design and layout take account of landform, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption
The Case Officer, Melanie Corbishley, referred Members to the updates in the Addendum, including the revised recommendation which included six further conditions to reflect comments by consultees, including conditions to address local residents’ concerns about the construction phase.
RESOLVED
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including:-
· List of approved plans and documents · Compliance with Environmental Management Plan · Provision of fire hydrants · Highway conditions · Submission of verification report (contaminated land) · Flood evacuation plan · Flood proofing of the building · Requirement to meet BREEAM Excellent · Compliance with lighting report and noise report · No burning on site · Compliance with ecological mitigation report · Safeguarding of footpath 13 · Drainage conditions · Landscaping · Materials TBA · Levels · Car parking and surface treatment · Means of enclosure · Shift pattern condition · Compliance with phasing plan · Submission of Construction Management Plan · Compliance with FRA · Submission of gantry details · Construction hours · Lighting design scheme SUDBURY
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Application No B/16/01670/FUL Full application - erection of part two storey and part three storey building containing 15 residential flats (existing building façade to Station Road and Great Eastern Road retained with the remainder of the existing building to be demolished) Easterns 31 Station Road. Paper PL/17/3 – Item 2
The Case Officer, James Platt, referred to the update to paragraph 91 of Item 2, as set out in the Addendum. He also corrected the reference to the ‘Sudbury Preservation Society’ which should read ‘Sudbury Society.’ |
|
|
|
||||||||||
RESOLVED
That the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 or Undertaking on terms to his satisfaction to secure the following heads of terms:-
· Tiered approach to providing housing in Sudbury first - £50,000 for the provision of off-site affordable housing
and that such permission be subject to conditions including:
· Standard time limit · Approved plans · Details and samples of external materials · Details of fenestration · Details of finishing to all new openings · Details of a surface water management strategy · Parking, manoeuvring and cycle storage areas to be provided in accordance …. · Details of a construction management plan · No burning on site during the construction phase · Specification of provision of illumination and to control light pollution · Measures to improve sustainability
ALDHAM
Application No B/16/01457 Full Application – erection of temporary dwelling for rural worker in relation to existing pony and cob stud, land east of Samsons Lodge, Whatfield Road.
|
|
|
|
Paper PL/17/3 – Item 3
The Case Officer, Alex Scott, referred to the Addendum which included details of an amended condition to secure the removal of the temporary dwelling, which could be included in the event that the Committee was minded to approve the application.
In considering this application, which was recommended for approval subject to conditions, Members concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated the need to live on site and that were no exceptional circumstances. A motion to refuse permission based on the lack of a demonstrable need was carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:-
The applicant has failed to demonstrate a functional need to live on the site in connection with the existing use of the land, contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 55 of the NPPF, and in light of the guidance set out in Annex A of PPS7.
SUDBURY
Application No B/17/00200
Paper PL/17/3 – Item 5 Full Application – erection of 2 bungalows and new means of access from Queens Close, land to rear of Dunedin, Queens Close.
The Case Officer, John Davies, referred to the comments of Sudbury Town Council as set out in the Addendum and confirmed that the conditions proposed in the recommendation of approval would address the concerns of the Town Council if permission were to be granted.
RESOLVED
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including:
· Standard time limit
· Facing materials
· Existing and Proposed Slab levels
· Construction Management Plan
· Removal of permitted development
· Barrier to prevent use of access to East Street
· Structural survey of Footpath boundary and Bridge Terrace
· As required by LHA
GREAT CORNARD
Application No B/17/00232
Paper PL/17/3 – Item 6 Full Application – erection of detached annex (following demolition of garage) 46 Broom Street.
RESOLVED
That planning permission be granted subject to:-
· Standard time limit
· Approval of details of facing materials
· Restriction of occupation of annexe to be ancillary to 46 Broom Street
Note:
The meeting adjourned for refreshments between 10.35 a.m. and 10.55 a.m. and for a short comfort break after consideration of Item 3.
The business of the meeting was concluded at 1.30 p.m.
…………………………………… Chairman
Decision Maker: Babergh Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 21/06/2017 - Babergh Planning Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 21/06/2017
Decision:
At its meeting on 1 March 2017 the Committee considered Application No B/16/00955/FUL – erection of 1 detached dwelling and construction of new vehicular access, Lodge Farm, Kersey Road Lindsey. As a result of their discussion, Members deferred a decision to enable further information to be gathered, and to allow a site visit to take place on a date to be confirmed.
RESOLVED
(1) That a site inspection be held on Wednesday 28 June 2017 in respect of Application No B/16/00955/FUL prior to it being reported back to the Committee.
(2) That a Panel comprising the following Members be appointed to inspect the site:-
Peter Beer Sue Burgoyne David Busby Derek Davis Alan Ferguson Kathryn Grandon |
Michael Holt Adrian Osborne Stephen Plumb Nick Ridley David Rose |
Decision Maker: Babergh Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 21/06/2017 - Babergh Planning Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 21/06/2017
Decision:
RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meetings held on 26 April 2017 and 10 May 2017 be confirmed and signed as correct records.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 18/07/2017 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 18/07/2017
Decision:
Lee Parker, Cabinet Member for Planning introduced Paper BC/17/9 Strategic Planning seeking Council approval of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan: Consultation Document (July 2017) referred to as Appendix 1 to the report, and to the commencement of the consultation process.
Lee Parker, Cabinet Member for Planning introduced Paper BC/17/9 Strategic Planning seeking Council approval of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan: Consultation Document (July 2017) referred to as Appendix 1 to the report, and to the commencement of the consultation process.
Councillor Parker outlined the way in which the new Joint Plan will identify the up-to-date requirements of our communities and how it was intended to complement the priorities of the Council. He referred to the considerable amount of work which had been done since last summer and the extensive consultation process which was envisaged. Bill Newman, Corporate Manager – Strategic Planning responded to Members’ questions and undertook to send information on the NPPF requirements outside the meeting. He confirmed that amendments would be made as necessary to the Document to reflect policy-related changes including those arising from the progress of Long Melford and Lawshall Neighbourhood Plans. In response to a query about strategic infrastructure provision being in place ahead of development, Officers will pursue this in partnership with relevant providers including Suffolk County Council.
RESOLVED
(1) That the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan: Consultation Document (July 2017) – Appendix 1 to Paper BC/17/9 be approved, with the amendment identified at the meeting in relation to land in Lawshall.
(2) That the Corporate Manager – Strategic Planning, in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Planning, be authorised to make consequential amendments to the consultation document arising from:
(i) the outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal of the document,
(ii) removal of drafting and technical errors and typing mistakes, and
(iii) improvements to the layout of the document necessitated by printing requirements.
(3) That consultation on the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan: Consultation Document (July 2017) be commenced.
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Planning Referrals Committee
Made at meeting: 12/07/2017 - Mid Suffolk Planning Referrals Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 12/07/2017
Decision:
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
Planning Application Number |
Representations from |
|
|
4963/16 |
Peter Robinson (Parish Council) Jonathan Masters (Objector) Darren Cogman (Agent) |
5070/16 |
Peter Robinson (Parish Council) Rob Snowling (Applicant) |
4386/16 |
Richard Fawcett (Parish Council) Ian Stammers (Objector) Leslie Short (Agent) |
4942/16 |
Richard Fawcett (Parish Council) Andrew Adams (Objector) Phil Cobbold (Agent) |
2797/16 |
Vicky Waples (Parish Council) Vicky Waples (Objector) Geoff Armstrong (Agent) Robert Eburne (Applicant) |
5010/16 |
Vicky Waples (Parish Council) Robert Eburne (Applicant) |
The Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning outlined the proposed order of proceedings as follows:
i. Overview of the applications
ii. Officer presentation of each case, followed by speakers case by case
iii. Debate
iv. Motions
He advised that the parish had requested the Secretary of State to call in the applications but the Committee needed to express ‘minded to’ recommendations regardless of whether this happened. In response to Members’ questions he explained the implications of refusing one or more applications and how the cumulative impact of decisions could be considered. He confirmed that as Members were asked to make ‘minded to’ decisions at this meeting, final decisions would be made at a later date with the exception of the appeal application.
(i) Overview of the applications
The Senior Planning Officer gave an overview of Thurston, the development proposals and cumulative benefits. Thurston was a key service centre due to its facilities and its accessibility to Bury St Edmunds and surrounding villages and Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy was clear that the majority of development should be directed to main towns and key service centres. The County Council (SCC) had identified that the existing primary school was at capacity and incapable of being extended and there was a need for a new school to meet any future growth. Two of the schemes would provide land for a new primary school with one also providing land for use by the Community College. Safety issues with parts of the highway network had also been identified and SCC and MSDC had worked with the developers to resolve this situation. All the developers had agreed to contribute funding towards the provision of a new school and road safety and connectivity improvements throughout Thurston, together with contributions towards a travel plan and improvements to local health care, library service and the railway station.
Steve Merry, Suffolk County Council Highways gave a presentation outlining the work undertaken in collaboration with the five developers and the parish council. Transport assessments had been carried out and a matrix was produced showing traffic flow at eleven junctions, four of which were either over capacity or would be following further development. Proposed mitigation measures had been considered for these junctions but it was noted that further work was required to investigate whether further improvements could be made.
Neil McManus, Development Contributions Manager, Suffolk County Council advised that the provision of a new primary school with early years provision was essential to underpin any development. The existing school was on a small constrained site with no possibility of expansion and the proposal to relocate the school was supported by both the diocese and the Academy. Two proposals included land reserved for a new school and either site was suitable. Agreement had also been reached with all five developers that they would proportionally fund the cost of the new school from CIL contributions.
Members asked the Officers questions including:
· Any proposed improvement to access at the railway station / Rail network proposals
· Impact on funding for highways mitigation measures if not all schemes were approved
· Flooding on roads caused by a rising water table
· Preferred option for primary school site
· Additional funding to build the primary school if required
· Pedestrian link between proposed developments and school site
· Capacity issues at Fishwick Corner
· Safety audits on the mitigation proposals
· Developer contributions to community facilities
· Listed building designation of Manor Farm group of buildings
· Potential halt on development if the existing school capacity, including the temporary classroom, is exceeded
(ii) Officer presentation and speakers case by case
Item 1
Application Number: 4963/16
Proposal: Outline Planning Application sought for up to 250 new dwellings, open space and associated infrastructure, and up to 4.4ha of land for educational uses for Thurston Community College and a new Primary School site, including details of access on land west of Ixworth Road
Site Location: THURSTON – Land west of Ixworth Road IP31 3PB
Applicant: Persimmon Homes Limited
The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that the Highway Officer’s consultation response had been amended to that in the tabled papers. The main changes were:
· A correction to the description of the application which was incorrect on the previous version
· Condition 5 had been altered and allowed up to 150 dwellings to be built before the emergency access from Mill Lane was completed
It was noted that the recommendation should read ‘… to grant outline planning permission …’
Peter Robinson speaking for the Parish Council said that it was not considered the Section 106 and CIL financial provision would address the problems brought by the application. There was no proven benefit to Thurston. There was also concern that SCC Highways had not carried out their own traffic assessment and that there was no software available that could predict traffic flows on minor roads. The existing traffic flow, speeding and parking around the Community College were already a problem, all of which would be adversely impacted by the proposal. No traffic flow data was available for traffic through the village and vehicles must use a rural lane to reach Junction 46. The police had expressed concerns regarding increased traffic during peak flow times. Further concern was expressed regarding the adverse impact on the countryside.
Jonathan Masters, an objector said the application was out of character to the village and its rural setting. There were concerns regarding its size, the adverse impact on wildlife, loss of amenity to existing residents and light and noise pollution. Ixworth Road was a narrow rural road which was used by numerous HGVs accessing the Sugar Beet Factory, subject to flooding and could not cope with increased traffic. Pedestrian safety was a major concern. The proposed education land was lacking in transparency with no detail of what might happen if a school was not built on it and there was concern it might be used for additional dwellings. The western boundary proposals needed improvement and a wildlife belt should be included.
Darren Cogman, the agent, advised that the application had been subject to considerable partnership working with Mid Suffolk District Council and Suffolk County Council. The Highways Department had developed mitigation measures at a number of junctions around Thurston. This was an outline application with only access to be approved with all other matters to be determined at the Reserved Matters stage. A three metre wide foot and cycle way would be provided to improve connectivity to the Community College and Rugby Club. Following consultation land for education use was also provided which would allow both a new primary school to be built and an extension to the play area for the Community College. 35% affordable housing would be provided which was much needed locally.
Councillor Derrick Haley, Ward Member made an opening statement. He advised that Ward Members had been put in an impossible position trying to balance the views of the community with the wider corporate role. The priority of Mid Suffolk was to build houses but in the right place at the right time. Thurston over many years had seen development and a large increase in population and although not against development considered it should be on a different scale to the current proposals. He felt the infrastructure was not being put in place for any of the developments and any mitigations for highways and education did not address the underlying issues of an overall plan for Thurston. He asked the Committee to take on board both the Parish Council and community objections which were applicable to all the applications.
In relation to this application he said he could not support the use of this type of agricultural land which was in such short supply in Mid Suffolk and any loss was significant. The highways and safety issues were also of great concern as even with the proposed mitigation measures increased problems were likely. SCC Highways had previously made promises to Great Barton regarding changes to the A143 but not been able to afford to carry out the work and he considered that the applications were seen as a way to fund the improvements which would be of little benefit to Thurston.
Councillor Esther Jewson, Ward Member, also made an opening statement. She said it was a question of balance and sustainability. Houses were needed but infrastructure was a serious problem and the additional strain was not addressed adequately and she was very concerned about the collective potential harm to the community. The collective applications represented a leap from a rural village to a town and would change the face of the village without addressing the impacts. Highway impacts and safety were also a major concern
In relation to this application she said she could not support the loss of prime agricultural land which was irreplaceable and was against the NPPF, paragraph 112, and poorer land should be used for development. The lack of detail in the proposed infrastructure improvements was unacceptable. Highways issues were of great concern, traffic transference onto surrounding roads had not been looked at, speed limits were already not adhered to and any reduction was not enforceable, and no improvements were shown to Pokeriage Corner, which was a main entrance/exit to the village which was unacceptable.
Item 2
Application Number: 5070/16
Proposal: Outline Planning Permission sought for the erection of up to 200 homes (including 9 self-build plots), primary school site together with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping and amenity space (all matters reserved except for access
Site Location: THURSTON – Land at Norton Road
Applicant: Pigeon Capital Management 2 Ltd and Mr Peter Hay
The Senior Planning Officer presented the application and it was noted that the recommendation should read ‘… to grant outline planning permission …’ He advised that updates to the proposal were included in the tabled papers and that within the report pages 258 and 263 were duplicates of each other and the full document was on page 263 onwards.
Peter Robinson, speaking for the Parish Council said the parish was not against development providing it was shared among the villages of Mid Suffolk. The location for this proposal was well outside the built up area and was in open countryside which would be severely impacted by the development. The proposed pedestrian footway did not link up to the public right of way from Norton Road to Church Road. The Travel Plan did not demonstrate a lack of reliance on the car. There was concern regarding water and sewage issues as there was no evidence of the necessary enquiries being made and raw sewage had been found in the stream running through the village. Anglia Water and the Environmenht Agency had been informed and it appeared to come from the sewage works adjacent to the Pakenham Road.
Rob Snowling, the agent, said the proposal was for a high quality, sustainable and landscaped development. A three hectare primary school site was included together with infrastructure and green space for the whole village, The scheme had been amended to meet the challenges of what the community were seeking to provide for the village. The school site met the immediate need and provided a parking and drop off area. New informal footpath links were proposed together with extensive existing footpath/cycle way enhancements to improve connectivity to the village and Community College. The proposed housing density was lower than all the other schemes and was in keeping with the surrounding area and it also provided the highest number of bungalows. The applicant was happy to accept a condition requiring that the indicative plan be put forward at Reserved Matters stage.
Councillor Esther Jewson, Ward Member said her concerns remained the same as with the other applications regarding infrastructure issues. She noted that this developer had engaged with the community and tried to take the community views into account. She asked the Committee to hold the developer to these commitments and endorsed the Historic Officer’s request for more robust boundary landscaping on the eastern boundary. She drew attention to the surface water drainage issue and asked what mitigation measures would be put in place. She asked what evidence there was that there would be increased pressure on the Ixworth Surgery as she believed more people used the Woolpit Surgery. She also considered that traffic mitigation had not been addressed.
Councillor Derrick Haley, Ward Member said that this was the only applicant that had engaged with the Parish Council and community, attending meetings to listen to comments, and tried to take them on board. He questioned the maximum cost of £100k per acre for the school site as he believed this to be high. He pointed out that in the report the second bullet point under ‘Infrastructure’ should read ‘Mount Farm Surgery’. He also believed that most residents used Woolpit Surgery followed by Mount Farm not Ixworth. He said that with an ever aging population strain on the health service would only get worse and there was no bus service to Ixworth.
Item 3
Application Number: 4386/16
Proposal: Erection of 138 dwellings including the construction of a new vehicular access and provision of cycle/pedestrian link to Barton Road together with the provision of road and drainage infrastructure, landscaping and open space
Site Location: THURSTON – Land on the west side of Barton Road IP31 3NT
Applicant: Bovis Homes Ltd
The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that there were updates in the tabled papers. A further letter had also been received from one of the original objectors stating that the majority of points raised had been addressed by the amended plans. However, they had raised two new points as follows:
· the amended plan had altered the layout so that more properties were now facing their rear garden and were now 23m distant as opposed to 25m
· the applicant is proposing to plant trees and hedging as a garden boundary which was unacceptable as they may be removed or fail to grow.
Officers considered that 23m was an acceptable distance between properties but agreed with the second point and had asked for details of hard garden boundaries to ensure privacy was maintained.
Richard Fawcett, for the Parish Council, said there was overall concern regarding the cumulative impact of the developments. Health care was a major concern as the local surgeries were almost at capacity. Also Woolpit Surgery was five miles away and Manor Farm Surgery over four miles and with an aging population a surgery in the village would be more appropriate. A management company was proposed to look after the open spaces but no funding was available and no plan if this failed. There was a lack of adventurous play area or field for unregulated sport. The location was on the approach to the village and the proposed development would have a major impact on this rural area. Highway safety was another major concern. Overall there was no improvement or benefit to Thurston village from the proposed mitigation measures.
Ian Stammers, an objector, said he represented twelve households that bordered the development all of whom strongly objected. The proposed scheme was of an urban design not in keeping with the existing properties, 90% of which were bungalows. Little effort had been made to screen the development. Highway safety was a serious concern. Barton Road was a major access and a very busy road used by a significant amount of buses at school times with insufficient width for two large vehicles to pass each other in places. Speed checks had also shown that many vehicles travelled in excess of 70mph. Although it was intended to extend the speed limit many people would still flout it. SCC Highways had not carried out a full traffic survey while admitting the significant impact of the development. There would be increased footfall at the railway station but no funds were available to increase safety. Development needed to be sustainable and not of this magnitude.
Leslie Short, the agent said the application was for a fully detailed scheme capable of early delivery. There was a good cross section of house types well designed to Thurston and the site. It was a full application which would provide 48 affordable dwellings in the locations shown on the site plan. If Members wished a condition could be included that allocation was prioritised for local people. The impact on local infrastructure was recognised hence the full complement of CIL contributions together with additional contributions via a Section 106 obligation. It was a sustainable development. Representatives had attended two parish council meetings and a public engagement exercise had been held in the Community Centre. Following this consultation the layout had been amended to reflect comments made.
Councillor Derrick Haley, Ward Member said there was no benefit to the village whatsoever from this proposal. Any engagement with the public had been minimal and should be dismissed. He did not support the application.
Councillor Esther Jewson, Ward Member, said the proposal did significant harm and offered nothing to residents. The scheme was not in keeping with and directly contravened the principles of paragraph 109 of the NPPF. The proposed three storey flats were not keeping with the surrounding development and the rural nature of the village. The flood issues had not been resolved and there was no satisfactory mitigation to highway safety issues.
Item 4
Application Number: 4942/16
Proposal: Residential development consisting of 64 dwellings and associated highway, car parking and public open space
Site Location: THURSTON – Land at Meadow Lane IP31 3QG
Applicant: Laurence Homes (Eastern) Ltd
The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that updates to the proposal were contained in the tabled papers. A further letter had also been received from one of the objectors commenting on the latest amended plans. They still had fundamental objections to the proposal but noted that the amended layout plan had gone some way to alleviating concerns about the proximity of the proposal to their garden boundary. The Parish Council had also made a late representation on the amended plans. They raised comments in relation to residential amenities and highway safety, issues already raised and addressed in the report. Waste provision for the site had also been queried and comments made regarding bust stops on Norton Road. Regarding waste bins, the applicant had not provided the level of detail required to respond but this matter could be covered by planning condition if the application was approved. It was proposed as part of the highway infrastructure works to have new bus stops on Norton Road to improve connectivity through the village.
Richard Fawcett, representing the Parish Council said insufficient regard had been given to the aging population of Thurston and its needs. Consultation for the Neighbourhood Plan had shown that more elderly would like to remain in the village and no bungalows or care home was proposed or small homes designed to life time homes standards. The overall design and density was inappropriate for the village. There was concern regarding the highway access and road safety and the boundary issue on the western side needed resolving. No sustainable employment gain or leisure/retail facilities were proposed. There was a danger the village would become a dormitory town resulting in added pressure on the roads and health care.
Andrew Adams, an objector said he was directly affected by both this application and the one on Ixworth Road. There had been no prior consultation or opportunity to make comments. The process had lacked transparency due to computer problems with documents missing from the website, policy constraints were not mentioned and national policy overrides not publicised. A detailed agricultural report had been made for some sites but not all. He believed that Officer opinion regarding land loss was wrong, the loss was in excess of 20 hectares cumulatively and Natural England had not been consulted on the cumulative effect. The report had dismissed the impact on adjacent properties when they were adversely affected. He felt the application should be dismissed pending further consultation on the missing documents and the results of the call in to the Secretary of State.
Phil Cobbold, the agent advised that the proposal provided 22 affordable homes of the size, tenure and location as agreed by the Housing Enabling Officer. It was the smallest of the five proposed schemes and the number of dwellings had been reduced during pre-application discussion as more suitable for the edge of village location and was a coherent extension of the existing settlement area. It was a full application which had been carefully designed to reflect with the surroundings and accorded with the space standards in the Suffolk Design Guide. All technical consultees found the proposal acceptable and in the absence of a five year land supply and no significant impacts to outweigh the social, economic and environmental benefits the application met policy.
Councillor Esther Jewson, Ward Member said although this was the smallest scheme it still put pressure on infrastructure. She also had concerns regarding the single access point which she felt was unrealistic for 64 houses and a density of 50 houses would be more acceptable to the community.
Councillor Derrick Haley, Ward Member said his main concern was the single access point. It was the smallest of all the proposals but still had a number of the same issues as the other applications.
Item 5
Application Number: 2797/16
Proposal: Outline Planning Application (with all matters other than means of access reserved) for residential development of up to 175 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping, public open space areas, allotments and vehicular access from Sandpit Lane
Site Location: THURSTON – Land to the south of Norton Road IP31 3QH
Applicant: Hopkins Homes
The Senior Planning Officer advised that there were updates to the proposal in the tabled papers. He went on to clarify the difference between this proposal and application 5010/16. He explained that application 5070/16, although the same proposal, was an appeal on the grounds of non-determination under the statutory time period. Under the appeal process the Inspectorate would need to know how the Authority would defend the appeal and therefore Members needed to resolve a ‘minded to’ decision to allow Officers to present the case in an appropriate manner.
Vicky Waples, speaking for the Parish Council, said that the cumulative figure of 830 dwellings could all come forward at the same time and no thorough assessment of the impacts of this had been undertaken. There was no strategic planning. There were serious concerns regarding the railway station around both parking and safety. Parking in the village was already a problem as there was no parking at the station and this would increase with additional use. There would also be increased use of the crossing, which was already rated a high risk category, with a severe impact on safety unless appropriately mitigated. No applicant had addressed future usage of the station and the Mid Suffolk decision to refuse Section 106 monies towards mitigation and to have this funded by a CIL bid was not satisfactory. The application was non-sympathetic to the surrounding areas, the road infrastructure could not cope with additional traffic, there was inadequate cycle provision and the single point of entry was unsatisfactory.
Vicky Waples, speaking as an objector, said the village was at an advanced stage of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan which should be accorded some weight. The Neighbourhood Planning Team considered the masterplan unimaginative and more in keeping with an urban edge of the town design. Three storey buildings were not in keeping with a rural village. There was a better need for screening round the edge of the site to protect the natural environment. The majority of comments received wished to see starter homes and bungalows and none were shown in the outline application submitted. It was disappointing that the concept Masterplan did not encourage housing stock to meet the needs of current and future residents. Little mention was made of pedestrian access or bus and rail services or the impact on highway safety. The access would increase traffic volume onto a road with no pavement increasing the danger to pedestrians.
Geoff Armstrong, the agent speaking on this and application 5070/16 said work had been ongoing on this site for two years. Hopkins Homes was a locally based firm with an excellent record in the delivery of high quality development. There had been extensive engagement with the community and a public exhibition where the majority accepted the need for more houses and the application had been amended following consultation. No technical consultees had objected. The yellow strip on the plans indicated where bungalows were intended, and allotments and open space were provided, including a kickabout area. Additional screening and housing mix could be agreed at the Reserved Matters stage. Without a five year land supply the application should be considered with the presumption of favour for sustainable development unless the impacts outweighed the benefits. Thurston was the largest of the key service centres with a good range of facilities and despite the position of the nearby town it had seen no significant housing growth in the last few years.
Councillor Derrick Haley, Ward Member, said a question must be asked regarding what would happen to the existing primary school site if a new school was built, inevitably an application would come forward for more residential development. When dealing with an application in 2004 he had raised safety issues regarding the barrier at the railway station none of which had been acknowledged by Network Rail. Now Network Rail was suggesting mitigation measures were necessary due to the increased usage. A big issue was parking as there was already insufficient and the proposed development would worsen the situation considerably. He urged the Committee to consider carefully before making any decisions because of the significant impacts on the residents of Thurston. An increase of the proposed magnitude would change Thurston forever and he could not support any of the applications.
Councillor Esther Jewson, Ward Member advised that she supported the well thought through objections from the Parish Council. The lack of a cohesive transport statement was a significant problem. There was no sustainable transport, overburdening of the road system was an issue for all the developments, there would be standstill and chaos. The necessary infrastructure must come first. Too many houses were proposed and the damaging effect on the rural village of Thurston was considerable. Development should be carried out in a sustainable manner and the Parish Council and residents should be listened to. She asked Members to consider any decision carefully.
Item 6
Application Number: 5010/16
Proposal: Appeal for non-determination of a major planning application within the 13 week statutory timescale for Outline Planning Permission (with all matters other than means of access reserved) for residential development of up to 175 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping public open space areas, allotments and vehicular access from Sandpit Lane (Application 2797/16 is a duplicate proposal to this one)
Site Location: THURSTON – Land to the south of Norton Road IP31 3QH
Applicant: Hopkins Homes
Vicky Waples, speaking for the Parish Council, said the Parish Council noted that the settlement hierarchy directed development to towns and key service centres, but to apply a 62% uplift was disproportionate if the Granary flats were included. That scale of development would leave services unable to cope. The mitigation measures for the cumulative effect had not been tested and the highways proposals in particular needed more work. There was no mechanism to mitigate if the proposed new school did not come forward and no condition that if the existing school was at capacity that development would stop. Thurston was a village and not a town.
Robert Eburne, the applicant, said that no one application was proposing 827 homes but the various developers had agreed to come together to look at infrastructure provision to try to deliver the best solution for the cumulative impact. The infrastructure benefits on this wider level should be considered carefully, there was £6.6 million arising from CIL, £7 million from New Homes Bonus in addition to £6 million Section 106 monies. This was a colossal amount of infrastructure money and it was not yet determined how it would be spent although much work had been undertaken with both Mid Suffolk and Suffolk County Council Officers.
(iii) Debate
It was considered that although the cumulative number of dwellings was very large, considering the applications together was beneficial as if looked at individually there would have been a much lesser offer of mitigation measures.
Some Members felt that there was insufficient evidence provided to evaluate the applications but it was noted that the recommendation was for a ‘minded to’ decision and if additional information was required this could be requested for when the application was reported back. It was further noted that the applications would be reported back ‘en bloc’ apart from application 5010/16. Questions were raised regarding the funding for highways mitigation measures and it was noted that funding was not apportioned against individual applications and if a scheme failed then apportionment and sustainability must be reconsidered.
Some concern was expressed regarding the Environmental Impact Screening and whether a proper consultative assessment had been carried out on priority species and habitats. Officers advised that the proper screening had been undertaken on sites both individually and cumulatively but further exploration could be requested if Members wished. It was also noted that mitigation for the loss of skylark habitat was proposed.
Further concern was expressed regarding the cumulative loss of agricultural land and the lack of consultation with Natural England on the total area, and the lack of any mechanism to deal with the impacts on the railway station. Officers advised that the total area of agricultural land was below the trigger figure for consultation with Natural England and that railway improvements were included in the CIL contribution for transport improvements.
There was also concern that no commercial facilities were proposed to bring employment to the enlarged community. It was suggested that perhaps the increase in people could bring forward commercial opportunities.
The Committee advised that greater clarification of CIL and other benefits was required when the applications were returned to Committee, together with further clarification of the cumulative ecological and land quality issues..
(iv) Motions
Item 1
Application Number: 4963/16
Proposal: Outline Planning Application sought for up to 250 new dwellings, open space and associated infrastructure, and up to 4.4ha of land for educational uses for Thurston Community College and a new Primary School site, including details of access on land west of Ixworth Road
Site Location: THURSTON – Land west of Ixworth Road IP31 3PB
Applicant: Persimmon Homes Limited
Some Members felt that while the site was outside the settlement boundary it was contiguous with existing development. Without a five year land supply the presumption was in favour of sustainable development and Thurston was a key service centre. The proposed infrastructure contributions would bring forward improvements, the school provision was oversubscribed and the application brought forward a new school and improved play space and there was no adverse impact on residential amenity. Affordable housing was provided increasing social sustainability. Public open space was provided helping to secure the Visually Important Open Space to the south of the site. No objections had been received from the technical consultees.
A motion to approve the recommendation was proposed.
Others felt that there was only development to the left of the site and that the proposed scheme stuck out and was too far from the village centre making it unsustainable.
There was concern that the safety issues at the railway station were a major issue and further information regarding mitigation measures was required. Highways issues were also a major concern and it was suggested that further information was needed including a traffic assessment at the primary school site, further consideration of the increased traffic through the Great Barton junction which was already heavily used by traffic from other villages travelling through and traffic calming measures on Norton Road.
It was felt that there should be no three storey elements to the development as it would be inappropriate for a village setting and that consideration should be given to layout and design at the Reserved Matters stage.
An amended motion was proposed to approve the recommendation subject to further information being brought forward regarding Highways matters and solutions, railway station safety issues and material considerations requiring further information and proposed conditions. The motion was seconded.
By 9 votes to 6
Decision – That the Authority would be minded to delegate to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to grant outline planning permission as recommended subject to:
a) Highways matters and solutions
b) Railway station safety issues
c) Material considerations requiring further information and proposed conditions
Item 2
Application Number: 5070/16
Proposal: Outline Planning Permission sought for the erection of up to 200 homes (including 9 self-build plots), primary school site together with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping and amenity space (all matters reserved except for access
Site Location: THURSTON – Land at Norton Road
Applicant: Pigeon Capital Management 2 Ltd and Mr Peter Hay
Members commented that this application was broadly similar to 4963/16 although somewhat tenuously adjacent to existing settlement. However when looking at it in context it became more adjacent to existing development and following engagement with the community the number of dwellings had been reduced and it was low density development. The proposed enhancement to the woodland would also soften the boundary and reduce the impact. Although concern was expressed regarding the two accesses on Norton Road and the number of right hand turns this produced on balance this was felt acceptable.
A motion for approval, subject to the same additions as for the previous applications together with an additional condition that Reserved Matters accord with the housing mix proposed in this application, was proposed and seconded
By a unanimous vote
Decision – That the Authority would be minded to delegate to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to grant outline planning permission as recommended subject to:
a) Highways matters and solutions
b) Railway station safety issues
c) Material considerations requiring further information and proposed conditions
and additional condition:
· Reserved Matters to accord with housing mix proposed at outline stage
Item 3
Application Number: 4386/16
Proposal: Erection of 138 dwellings including the construction of a new vehicular access and provision of cycle/pedestrian link to Barton Road together with the provision of road and drainage infrastructure, landscaping and open space
Site Location: THURSTON – Land on the west side of Barton Road IP31 3NT
Applicant: Bovis Homes Ltd
Members generally felt that the design and layout proposed were not suitable for a rural village development, particularly the three storey element. It did not enhance or improve the area and was therefore against the NPPF. The density was considered too high and the plots small and did not fit with neighbouring properties. The site was also Grade 3 agricultural land.
Others felt that the site boundary was contiguous with the settlement boundary and concerns regarding residential amenity had been resolved and that without a five year land supply the presumption was in favour of development.
A motion that the Authority was minded to refuse the application was proposed and seconded.
By 11 votes to 4
Decision – That the Authority would be minded to refuse the application as not representing good design which would not conserve and enhance the character of the locality and would moreover develop best and most versatile agricultural land contrary to the principles of NPPF paragraphs 56, 60 and 112 and contrary to Policy FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review
and that Officers report back on infrastructure issues and matters arising from the potential refusal of the application
Item 4
Application Number: 4942/16
Proposal: Residential development consisting of 64 dwellings and associated highway, car parking and public open space
Site Location: THURSTON – Land at Meadow Lane IP31 3QG
Applicant: Laurence Homes (Eastern) Ltd
Members found this application acceptable as it was smaller and more spacious with a good mix of properties. The site was already surrounded on three sides by development and it was not high quality agricultural land.
A motion to approve the recommendation, subject to the previous amendments together with an additional condition that parking and garage spaces to be used for parking only, was proposed and seconded
By 14 votes to 1
Decision – That the Authority would be minded to delegate to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to grant outline planning permission as recommended subject to:
a) Highways matters and solutions
b) Railway station safety issues
c) Material considerations requiring further information and proposed conditions
and additional condition:
· Parking and garage spaces to be used for parking only
Item 5
Application Number: 2797/16
Proposal: Outline Planning Application (with all matters other than means of access reserved) for residential development of up to 175 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping, public open space areas, allotments and vehicular access from Sandpit Lane
Site Location: THURSTON – Land to the south of Norton Road IP31 3QH
Applicant: Hopkins Homes
It was felt that this site although outside the settlement boundary was contiguous with existing development on the southern and western sides and previous comments stood regarding a presumption in favour of development. The site was also grade 3 agricultural land and therefore a much less severe loss.
Some concern was expressed regarding the single access and it was felt that further consideration should be given to a second and also to the emergency access. A motion to approve the recommendation subject to the previous amendments and subject to an additional conditions requiring further investigation of a second access point and emergency access was proposed and seconded.
By a unanimous vote
Decision – That the Authority would be minded to delegate to the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning to grant outline planning permission as recommended subject to:
a) Highways matters and solutions
b) Railway station safety issues
c) Material considerations requiring further information and proposed conditions
d) And subject to the further investigation and reporting back of issues associated with a second access point and the emergency access point
Item 6
Application Number: 5010/16
Proposal: Appeal for non-determination of a major planning application within the 13 week statutory timescale for Outline Planning Permission (with all matters other than means of access reserved) for residential development of up to 175 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping public open space areas, allotments and vehicular access from Sandpit Lane (Application 2797/16 is a duplicate proposal to this one)
Site Location: THURSTON – Land to the south of Norton Road IP31 3QH
Applicant: Hopkins Homes
Members agreed that comments relating to application 2797/16 were relevant and that the application was generally acceptable with the additional condition requiring further investigation of a second access point and emergency access. Further investigation of rail safety issues was also required.
A motion to approve the recommendation subject to the above was proposed and seconded.
By a unanimous vote
Decision – That Mid Suffolk District Council is minded to advise the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the non-determination appeal that [a] subject to the further investigation of a second vehicular access point and the emergency access point it would have recommended the grant of planning permission subject to [b] the completion of a Section 106 (as recommendation)
Add head of terms to Section 106:
· Subject to appropriate further investigation of railway station safety issues
Note: The meeting was adjourned for short breaks as follows:
7:04pm – 7:16pm
7:19pm – 7:27pm
Decision Maker: Joint Audit and Standards Committee
Made at meeting: 17/07/2017 - Joint Audit and Standards Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 17/07/2017
Decision:
The Corporate Manager – Financial Services introduced report JAC/17/2 and responded to Members’ questions including:
· Risk ratings
· Capital Programme – reasons for the slippages
· CCLA – Reason for the difference in interest received by BDC and MSDC
· Capital Receipts – reason for the difference between the estimated and actual figures
· Maturity Structure of Borrowing – plans put in place to manage the BDC peak maturity period
The recommendation at 2.1 was then moved and seconded.
By a unanimous vote
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
That the Treasury Management activity for the year 2016/17 be noted. Further, that it be noted that performance was in line with the Prudential Indicators set for 2016/17
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 20/07/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 20/07/2017
Decision:
The Chairman advised that she had met with the Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairman and the following items had been raised for potential inclusion on the Forward Plan:
· Crime Prevention Strategy
· Investment Strategy
· Shared Legal Service
· Business Rates Retention.
The following items to be added to the Forward Plan:
Homelessness Reduction Act and associated issues – November
Process for Performance Management - October
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 20/07/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 20/07/2017
Decision:
The Assistant Director – Governance and Law advised that the draft training programme previously circulated to Members had now been given more detail by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and a full programme was now being drawn up. A ‘toolkit’ was also being developed. It was noted that the estimated cost was less than expected and so well within the planned budget.
RESOLUTION
That the training programme be agreed
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 20/07/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 20/07/2017
Decision:
The Corporate Manager – Homeless Prevention and Older Persons gave a detailed presentation on the work undertaken by the Team dealing with the homeless issue. She clarified the legal statutes that the Council had to work within and the timescale for dealing with an application for homelessness.
She advised the Committee that the major concern was the proposed introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act in April 2018 which was likely to increase the workload significantly. Although the Council would not have to provide accommodation for all those claiming homelessness it would have to draw up a meaningful action plan to mitigate the situation. Following a set period of time if the situation was not resolved then the person(s) would be deemed homeless and the Council would be expected to find them accommodation. The benefit cap and introduction of Universal Credit, which was to be rolled out to single person claimants in Mid Suffolk next year, was expected to result in a major increase in those unable to pay their rent and it was expected that other services, eg police, probation, GPs, would refer people who were expecting top become homeless. There would be further adverse impact from the local housing allowance rates being frozen and the effect on people accessing the private rented sector.
The team was actively working to minimise the effects of the introduction of the Act in various ways including looking at ways to increase the private sector rental offer; trying to increase the temporary accommodation offer; and introduction of a scheme where a single person could rent a room in a house, with the tenant matched to the landlord, and with the rent assessed to ensure it was tax free.
A joint bid with SCC had resulted in funding that was being used to employ an Officer who worked with rough sleepers to try and help and also to prevent the situation occurring. The Council had an obligation to provide shelter to those sleeping rough in bad weather.
A joint funding bid for monies to help those suffering from domestic abuse had allowed three dwellings to be purchased which would provide a safe place and also intensive support.
She tabled homeless statistics for the years 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 together with details of the numbers of families placed in bed and breakfast accommodation and the costs, and cases where homelessness was prevented by appropriate intervention. In respect of the use of bed and breakfast accommodation it was noted that overall the figures for the last three years had gone down and that the Mid Suffolk figures were much lower than the national average. It was noted that bed and breakfast accommodation was only used as a last resort.
Concern was expressed regarding the team’s ability to cope with the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act. The Officer advised that a business case was being prepared to increase the team by 4.5 full time equivalent posts. The team was also currently undertaking additional work which could actually be done elsewhere in the organisation which would free up more time to work on homelessness prevention.
Members discussed the information provided and questioned Officers on various aspects including:
· How more short term accommodation could be procured eg hostel – A number of temporary accommodations were available. A balance had to be achieved between providing sufficient accommodation and costs eg hostel accommodation might not be filled permanently against bed and breakfast which was only paid for when necessary
· Location of bed and breakfast accommodation – None was available in Mid Suffolk. Ipswich accommodation was used when necessary.
· Number of beds available in temporary accommodation – Sufficient to accommodate thirteen households
· Duration of stay in temporary accommodation – Time varied but there was an impact on VOID performance if empty council properties were used
· Expected increase in homeless cases following introduction of the Bill – Currently all those contacting the Council for assistance were not recorded, the only data was for those found homeless. From April when a case would have to be opened for all contacts it was expected to be approximately 300 per year.
The Committee discussed the information provided and agreed that it was confident that the work being undertaken to reduce the use of bed and breakfast accommodation was good and no review was necessary and this would be reported to the Cabinet.
It was felt that a more worthwhile piece of work would be to pre-scrutinise the steps being taken to prepare for the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act. It was proposed a review be undertaken in November and that other organisations who worked with Mid Suffolk residents, eg Citizens’ Advice Bureau, should also be brought in to gain their views.
RESOLUTION
That a review of the work being undertaken in preparation for the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act be brought to the 16 November meeting
Decision Maker: Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 20/07/2017 - Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 20/07/2017
Decision:
The minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2017 be confirmed as a correct record.
Decision Maker: Babergh Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 12/09/2017 - Babergh Planning Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 12/09/2017
Decision:
The Case Officer, Mel Corbishley, gave a brief introduction to the context of this application, following the quashing of the Council’s previous decision.
The Chairman then suggested to Members that because the annexe subject of the application had now been built, a site visit would be helpful to their consideration. He referred to the provisional arrangements which had been put in place in the event that the Committee was minded to carry out a site visit, to take place after the meeting. This was proposed and seconded, and agreed on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED
(1) That a site inspection be held following the conclusion of the meeting in respect of Application No B/16/01254/FUL.
(2) That a Panel comprising the Members present at the meeting be appointed to inspect the site.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 21/11/2017 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 21/11/2017
Decision:
Councillor Jennie Jenkins, Leader of the Council, introduced Paper BC/17/19 seeking member approval to submit the Council’s formal response to the Stage 2 Consultation as set out in the report, together with any further comments arising from the meeting.
During the course of the debate, Members put forward comments as referred to below for inclusion by the Chief Executive as part of the Council’s formal response.
· Councillor Arthey – reiterated the comments made by Cockfield Parish Council to avoid Cockfield being in a horseshoe-shaped ward with Long Melford.
· Councillor Davis and others – made reference to the lack of community or geographical connections between Bentley and Chelmondiston (incorrectly spelt by the LGBCE)
· Councillor Ward – referred to other errors in LGBCE report and to the prosaic nature of the ward names chosen which meant a loss of the sense of history on names such as ‘Berners’ – he will circulate his views
· Councillor Ferguson and others – could we ask LGBCE to look again at suggestions for two / three member wards and possible warding of eg Hadleigh.
· Councillors Bavington and Beer – it would be difficult to come up with an acceptable division into wards for Great Cornard, but the Parish Council will submit a proposed alteration about the Cats Lane boundary –
· Councillor Simon Barrett also referred to Sudbury Town Council’s view on Cats Lane
· Councillor Rose – Holbrook and Shotley in discussions about possibly becoming a single ward
· Councillor McCraw – will submit his comments on various models and suggestions. Other Members also indicated that they were making their own comments direct to LCBCE
In response to a query about the timing of the review, bearing in mind the current discussion about a possible merger of the two Councils, the Chief Executive explained that if any new authority accepted the numbers of Councillors agreed under the present review, there would be a more limited review. Mid Suffolk had a requirement to review prior to the 2019 elections because of the unequal electoral ratios and Babergh Council had agreed that it would be sensible to review at the same time. He also explained that the LGBCE position on growth was that electoral numbers, rather than house numbers, were taken into account, and that planning permissions granted, but not the draft Joint Local Plan projections, could be used in this context.
RESOLVED
That the Chief Executive be authorised to submit the Council’s formal response to the stage two consultation on warding patterns, including the comments appended to Paper BC/17/19 at Appendix 2, together with the points made by Members at the meeting, as above.
Decision Maker: Babergh Council
Made at meeting: 21/11/2017 - Babergh Council
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 21/11/2017
Decision:
Councillor Lawrenson, Babergh Chair of the Joint Audit and Standards Committee, introduced the Committee’s recommendation to note the Mid Year position.
The Assistant Director – Corporate Resources answered questions from Members as follows:-
Local Context (Page 11)
The table on page 11 shows the total borrowing requirements – it is not a balance sheet as would appear in the accounts.
The main difference between the figures shown for the two Councils as Working Capital relates to the difference in the amounts borrowed.
Combined Balance Sheet (Page 93)
Babergh has more assets and fewer liabilities in a straight comparison.
Other Investment Activity (Page 17)
Performance of Funding Circle – FC hasn’t delivered as hoped, but has still produced a better return than if investments had been made at Basic Rate.
No new investments will be made in FC and as repayments come in from existing investments, that money will instead be invested elsewhere. She confirmed that the position will continue to be reported to Members.
Borehamgate purchase is not shown as it is not a current Treasury Management requirement for this type of transaction but might have to be in future following the current consultation on Treasury Management Strategy.
Pooled Fund Investments
The decline in the value of the amount invested in CCLA relates to fluctuating property values but this is a longer-term investment, the purpose of which was to generate income for the Council.
Recommendation
Reference to Babergh exceeding its daily bank account limit with Lloyds by £120k was due to the timing of income received and related to too much money, not too little.
Note:
It is a requirement of the Code of Practice on Treasury Management that the full Council notes the Mid Year position.
RESOLVED
That it be noted that Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2017/18 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that, except for one occasion when Babergh District Council exceeded its daily ban account limit with Lloyds by £120k for one day, as mentioned in Appendix D, paragraph 1.1 of Paper JAC/17/10, both Councils have complied with all Treasury Management Indicators for this period.
Decision Maker: Babergh Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 22/11/2017 - Babergh Planning Committee
Decision published: 19/12/2019
Effective from: 22/11/2017
Decision:
Ben Elvin, Strategic Projects and Delivery Manager presented Paper PL/17/23 and referred Members to the Addendum to the report which contained a letter from Lambert Smith Hampton on behalf of Liston Residents Association together with a Legal Opinion on the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle in relation to remediation.
Having listened to the presentation and commented on matters relating to the remediation aspects, traffic concerns and construction management arrangements, Members agreed that consideration of the Council’s response to Braintree District Council should be deferred to allow them to visit the site.
RESOLVED
(1) That a site inspection be held on Wednesday 29 November 2017 in respect of cross boundary Application No. B/15/00649, prior to the Committee’s consideration of Paper PL/17/23.
(2) That a Panel comprising the following Members be appointed to inspect the site:
Sue Ayres Simon Barrett Peter Beer David Busby Luke Cresswell Derek Davis Alan Ferguson |
Kathryn Grandon John Hinton Michael Holt Adrian Osborne Stephen Plumb Nick Ridley Ray Smith |
Decision Maker: Chief Executive
Decision published: 12/12/2019
Effective from: 09/12/2019
Decision:
The Implementation of a Regulatory Reform
Order for Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils, allowing for a
greater flexibility in awarding Disabled Facilities
Grants.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Arthur Charvonia
Decision Maker: Chief Executive
Decision published: 12/12/2019
Effective from: 10/12/2019
Decision:
The Implementation of a Regulatory Reform
Order for Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils, allowing a
greater flexibility in awarding Disabled Facilities
Grants.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Arthur Charvonia
Decision Maker: Chief Executive
Decision published: 11/12/2019
Effective from: 10/12/2019
Decision:
Formal Adoption of the Elmsett Neighbourhood
Plan following a majority yes vote at the local referendum held on
7 November 2019
Wards affected: South East Cosford;
Lead officer: Arthur Charvonia