BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, CORKS LANE, HADLEIGH ON WEDNESDAY 16 AUGUST 2006

Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

Miss J J Chapman and Mr J J Quinlan were unable to attend.

Mr B D Hurren, Ward Member for Boxford, was present at the meeting for Item No. 1 of Paper F65 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

Mr R E Kemp, Ward Member for Long Melford, was present at the meeting for Item No. 9 of Paper F65 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

Mrs S M Wigglesworth, Ward Member for Lower Brett, was present at the meeting for Item No. 17 of Paper F65 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

33     DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr A J Hinton declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/00878 (Paper F65 – Item 13) by virtue of being the Chairman of East Bergholt Parish Council. Mr Hinton stated that the application had been discussed at a meeting of the Parish Council but he had taken no part in the discussion or vote and his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr P J Holbrook declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/00629 (Paper F65 – Item 17) as the applicant lives in the same village and is known to him, but indicated that his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr B L Lazenby stated that he had made public comments on Application No. B/04/00882 (Paper F65 – Item 16) which could be construed as his having predetermined this application and he would therefore leave the room for the item.

34     MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

35     PETITIONS

The Head of Corporate Services reported that in accordance with the Council Procedure Rule No. 13, a petition had been submitted to the Chief Executive relating to:-

Application No. B/06/01127/FUL – erection of 8 no. flats; erection of 10 no. garages; 8 no. car parking spaces and alteration to access road, Homefield, Boxford (signed by approximately 55 residents). Members noted that this petition would be considered in conjunction with the relevant planning application (Paper F65 – Item 1) and that in accordance with the procedure rules, the Chief Executive had reported the receipt of the petition to the Council meeting held on 1 August 2006.

36    QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

37     SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)    That site inspections be held on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 in respect of the under-mentioned sites, prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-

NAYLAND WITH WISSINGTON

Mr C J Hunt, Ward Member for Nayland, had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the design and build of the extension in relation to existing properties and the landscape in the area of natural beauty.

LITTLE WALDINGFIELD

Mrs E F Bates, Ward Member for Waldingfield, requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on the landscape.

(2) That a Panel comprising the following Members be appointed to inspect the sites:-

38    PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Details of further objections and representations received in respect of Item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 18 were reported to the meeting and were considered and taken into account before a decision was reached in each case. In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:-

RESOLVED

That subject to the imposition of conditions or reasons for refusal (whether additional or otherwise), in accordance with the delegated powers under Council Minute No. 48(a) dated 19 October 2004, decisions on the items referred to in Paper F65 be made as follows:-

(a) BOXFORD

Members noted that comments had been received from County Highway Authority and as a result the recommendation had been amended. Members also noted a correction to recommendation A where the words “local housing” should read “affordable housing”.

RESOLVED

(1)    That the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure:-

(i)     that three of the dwellings proposed are managed in such a way as to meet identified affordable housing needs in perpetuity.

(ii)    the payment of contributions towards public open space provision.

(2)    That subject to the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above being secured, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

• materials
• levels
• as recommended by County Highway Authority
• landscaping

(3)    That in the event of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above not being secured, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:-

• inadequate provision of public open space and play equipment (off site)

(b)     LONG MELFORD

Mr R E Kemp, Ward Member for Long Melford, had requested a site inspection to enable Members to familiarise themselves with the confined curtilage of the site and the parking problems in the area. Also, to assess the impact on neighbourhood amenity.

RESOLVED

(1) That consideration of the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) contained in (b) above be deferred.

(2) That a site inspection be held on Wednesday, 23 August 2006, that the Panel of Members appointed under Minute 37 above inspect the site, and that a report thereon be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee, if appropriate.

(c) GLEMSFORD

Members noted that amended plans had now been received as requested and were subject to a 14 day consultation period.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to approve planning permission, a motion of refusal was moved because Members considered the application to be contrary to policy HS33 in that it was out of character and an over-development that would have an adverse impact on the street scene and the amenity of the neighbour. On being put to the vote this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

That subject to no new issues arising in the 14 day consultation period, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

• PD Rights removed for the insertion of new windows at first floor level
• window in bathroom to be obscure glass
• finished floor level

(d)     GREAT WALDINGFIELD

RESOLVED

(1)     That the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of public open space contributions and the provision of a commuted sum towards affordable housing or the provision of one unit on site.

(2)     That upon completion of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

• materials to be submitted (including reuse/recycling of materials arising from the demolition works)
• landscaping (hard and soft including surface finish of access road and parking areas) and landscape maintenance
• proposed boundary treatments
• finished ground floor levels relative to existing and proposed finished ground levels
• as recommended by the County Highway Authority
• removal of GPDO rights classes A to E
• control of openings to plots 1 and 4

(3)     That in the event of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above not being completed, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

• no provision of affordable housing contrary to Policy HS09
• inadequate provision for public open space being contrary to policy HS32
  

(e) LONG MELFORD

Members noted that the wording in paragraph 3 should read “the areas of the building specifically referred to are detailed on the accompanying drawing with the application and include one of the existing display rooms at the front of the shop”.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

• use restricted to that applied for
• tearooms restricted to the areas detailed on submitted drawing
• hours of opening (as applied for)

(f) SUDBURY

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered this particular business to be an exceptional case.

RESOLVED

That the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions, to include the following:-

• hours of operation as applied for
• sale of goods limited to those made or finished on site
• limit to display area
• materials
• levels
• as recommended by County Highway Authority
• drainage
• landscaping
• pollution control
• a note to be added regarding boundary details

(g)     EAST BERGHOLT

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

• materials
• levels

(h) POLSTEAD

RESOLVED

That it be noted that this item had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Chairman, in consultation with the Head of Planning (Control), as amended plans had been received and had not yet been considered.

(i)     POLSTEAD

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

• contrary to policies PPS7, ENV4, ENV6, CR01 and CR12

(j)     ACTON

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

• as recommended by County Highway Authority
• no additional windows at first floor level
• screen walls and fences
• levels
• landscaping
• materials

(k)     LONG MELFORD

RESOLVED

That subject to the receipt of a satisfactory flood risk assessment, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

• materials
• removal of GPDO rights for alterations to the roof (including the insertion of windows)
• any as recommended by County Highway Authority
• any as a result of the flood risk assessment

(l)     LONG MELFORD

Members noted that comments had now been received from the Head of Contract and Asset Management, who had requested that the access be amended to ensure the protection of the trees on site. Members requested that the Head of Planning (Control) negotiate with him to satisfactorily resolve the matter.

RESOLVED

That the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following condition:-

• as recommended by County Highway Authority

(m)     WENHAM MAGNA

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:-

• as recommended by County Highway Authority

(n)     GREAT CORNARD

Members noted that the proposal was to refurbish the buildings to provide 11 B1 office units and not 10 as quoted in paragraph 6.

RESOLVED

That the reserved matters be approved.

(o)     POLSTEAD

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 1.25 p.m. when the following Members were present:-

Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

(p)     PINEWOOD

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:-

• contrary to policy EN26

(q)     HADLEIGH

RESOLVED

(1)     That the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the provision of four rented units of affordable housing to be provided by the developer, and transferred to or managed by a registered social housing landlord in perpetuity and for one unit to be of shared ownership, the payment of education contributions and the payment of contributions towards public open space.

(2)     That subject to the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above being secured, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate, but including:-

• materials
• as recommended by County Highway Authority
• as recommended by Head of Natural and Built Environment
• levels
• landscaping (including boundary treatments)
• security lighting
• archaeological watching brief
• removal of GPDO rights – extensions and outbuildings

(r)     HITCHAM

Members noted that comments had now been received from County Highway Authority who had requested that parking bays be constructed along the single track access road, this had been agreed with the applicants.

RESOLVED

(1) That the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

• as recommended by County Highway Authority – improvement to the access, provision and visibility splay.
• use Class restriction B1 (light industrial)
• development in accordance with recommendations with bat survey
• removal of PD – means of enclosure
• hours of operation (as applied for)
• details of passing bays to be submitted
• scheme of archaeological work to be submitted

Otherwise

(2) That planning permission be refused for the following reasons (as may be appropriate):-

• as may be recommended by the County Highway Authority

The business of the meeting was concluded at 1.55 p.m.

Chairman