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, 21 DECEMBER 2011

Quick Links

67 - Declaration of Interests,
68 - Minutes,
69 - Petitions,
70 - Questions from Members,
71 - Site Inspections,
72 - Planning Applications for Determination by the Committee,

PRESENT:    Mr P K Beer – Chairman

67    DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Dr M F M Bamford and Mr P J Holbrook each declared a personal interest in Item No. 4 of Paper L120 (Application No B/11/01277/FHA) by virtue of being the Council’s representatives on the Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley JAC, but stated that their interests were such that they were able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr P K Beer declared a personal interest in Item No. 6 of Paper L120 (Application No B/11/01420/CDP) by virtue of being a member of Suffolk County Council’s Development Control Committee, but stated that his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

• Top of page

68    MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2011 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

• Top of page

69    PETITIONS

The Strategic Director (Corporate) reported, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 13, the receipt of the following petitions submitted to the Chief Executive.

Application Nos. B/11/01349/ADV, B/11/01350/FUL and B/11/1351/CAC – Application for Advertisement Consent – Fascia sign to the top of the shop front to Unit No. 2. Pole/gantry sign to front of the site.  Full Application – Erection of single-storey building to accommodate 2 retail units with ancillary uses of A3 and A5 (existing workshops/office and bungalow to be demolished).  Application for Conservation Area Consent – Demolition of existing workshop/office and bungalow, Glemsford Motor Services, Bells Lane, Glemsford.

(a)    Petition signed by approximately 369 persons (organised and submitted by Boadway Stores and Post Office Glemsford) asking for the above applications to be refused consent.

(b)    Petition signed by approximately 322 persons (organised and submitted by Hunts Hill Stores Glemsford) asking for the above applications to be refused consent.

Each of the petitions contains at least 20 signatories from Babergh residents.  The total number of signatories may be fewer than the combined total of 691 if any persons have signed both petitions.  The petitions will be taken into account when the applications are considered.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules, the Chief Executive will report the receipt of the petitions to the next Council Meeting.

• Top of page

70    QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

• Top of page

71    SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)    That a site inspection be held on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 in respect of the undermentioned site, prior to consideration of the application by the Committee:-

Mr B D Hurren requested a site inspection to enable Members to view the proposed means of access, the access road leading to the site, the relationship of the development to neighbouring properties, existing amenity land and woodland.

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

72    PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Members had before them an Addendum to Paper L120 (circulated to Members prior to the commencement of the meeting) summarising additional correspondence received since the publication of the Agenda, but before 12 noon on the working day before the meeting, together with errata.

Details of further representations received in respect of Item Nos. 1, 3 and 5 of Paper L120 were reported to the meeting and considered and taken into account before a decision was made on each item.

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications, representations were made as detailed below:-

Planning Application No.                       Representations From

B/11/00738/FUL and                               Mr R Coleman (Objector)

B/11/00739/LBC                                       Mr T Rowan-Robinson (Applicant)

B/11/01027/FUL                                       Mr J Ramsay (Parish Meeting Chairman)
                                                                     Mr K Bird (Objector)
                                                                     Mr D Sugden (Applicant)

B/11/01277/FHA                                       Mr R Shiel (Agent)

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 L120 be made as follows:-

RESOLVED

(1)    That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including:-

Details of plant and equipment to be submitted and approved

• A construction management plan to be submitted and approved
• Any external lighting to be approved
• 9 spaces to be allocated for staff prior to the first use of the spa and thereafter retained
• Cycle parking to be approved
• Landscaping to be submitted and approved (and safeguarded for 5 years)
• Materials and detailing to be submitted and approved
• Hours of operation to be controlled to those applied for (7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday to Sundays and Bank Holidays)
• Archaeological Investigation

(2)    That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to conditions including the following:- 

• Materials and detailing to be submitted and approved 

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused reasons including the following:-

• The proposed development comprising the erection of a detached dwelling, is considered to be contrary to saved policies HS02, HS28 and CN01, of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006).  Saved policy HS02 refers to new housing development within villages and requires, inter alia, that such infill developments do not have an adverse impact on the character of the locality. Moreover, saved Policy HS28 states that planning permission will be refused for infilling of dwellings where, inter alia,  the proposal is of a scale, density or form which would be out of keeping with adjacent nearby dwellings or other buildings. Also that proposed designs and layouts should respect the characteristics of their sites and surroundings.  Saved policy CN01 expects all new development to be of an appropriate scale, form and design for the location.
• The proposed development constitutes the erection of a dwelling in a backland location within the context of an area where the prevailing grain of existing development comprises dwellings fronting the main road in a linear pattern with large rear gardens and only subordinate ancillary buildings to the rear.  In the context of relevant saved local plan policies covering residential development in villages namely HS02, HS28 and CN01 it is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the scale and character of the village contrary to Policy HS02 and be out of keeping with adjacent dwellings and the undeveloped character of the area contrary to saved Policy HS28.  The proposal would also conflict with saved Policy CN01 as being out of character with the pattern of development in the surrounding area.
• Saved policy CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006) requires new building, inter alia, to respect those features, which contribute positively to the setting of a listed building including space, views from and to the building and historic layout.  Saved policy CN08 states, inter alia, that proposals for the erection of new buildings in a conservation area should preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area, retain all elements and components, including spaces, which contribute to the spatial character of the area and be of an appropriate scale and form to harmonise with its setting.  The application site forms part of the curtilage of a listed building and there are other listed buildings in the vicinity including a Grade 2* house immediately to the south of the site (The Old Forge), which together represent a significant grouping of highly significant and important designated heritage assets within an area which is also designated as a conservation area in recognition of the historic, aesthetic and spatial character of the settlement.
• It is considered that the proposed development comprising a substantial, independent dwelling in a backland position would have an adverse impact on the setting of surrounding listed buildings, particularly The Old Forge, for reasons that it would be out of context with the established historical and spatial pattern of the area. The extensive footprint and scale of the proposed dwelling expressed as an ‘L’ shaped range of buildings on two frontages, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, in assessing impact on heritage assets it is not considered that the need for the development justifies the harm to the significance of surrounding heritage assets. The dwelling would also be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the conservation area for the same reasons. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy HE10 of PPS5, Policy ENV6 in the East of England Plan and saved local plan policies CN06 and CN08.
• Saved Local plan policy CR01 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006) seeks to safeguard the countryside from inappropriate development. The proposed dwelling would be sited within the garden of a dwelling whose curtilage marks the edge of the built up area boundary to the village and which has hitherto been fully enclosed by a wall and more recently by a part wall and hedge. The proposed development, notwithstanding the potential for some landscape screening, would present a far more substantial built frontage which would have an adverse impact on the existing soft edge to the village and give rise to views of the building from the countryside notably from the public footpath.
• The proposal would also set an unwelcome precedent for further backland development thus further eroding the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  

RESOLVED

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

• The provision, retention and maintenance of the privacy screen.

RESOLVED

(1)    That Suffolk County Council be advised that Babergh District Council objects to the proposal for the following reason:-

• The proposal, which includes the erection of a detached Annex building to accommodate the reception and nursery class bases, is situated in close proximity to the site boundaries and is considered to be a cramped form of development with a lack of circulation space and is detrimental to the amenities that nearby residents should reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of noise and general disturbance associated with use.  Furthermore, In the absence of a Travel Plan, managed landscape plan and land contamination assessment, Babergh District Council is of the opinion that the proposal will inconvenience other road users, will have a significant detrimental impact on the local highway network and highway safety, result in harm to biodiversity interests and does not address the possibility that the land may be contaminated.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Saved Policies EN04, EN06, EN10, EM01, TP15 and TP16 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006) and the requirements of PPS23.

(2)    That Suffolk County Council be asked to provide information on space requirements for children (including space for exercise) as requested by the Committee.

 RESOLVED

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

• Standard time limit
• Material samples to be approved
• External colour finishes to be approved

 Resolved

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

• Standard outline time limit conditions
• Facing Materials
• Contamination
• Highways
• As requested by Environment Agency
• Archaeology
• Ecology survey

  • Top of page

Note:   The meeting adjourned between 11 a.m. and 11.20 a.m. for refreshments.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 12.40 p.m.

Chairman