21 June 2006 - Minutes

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 JUNE 2006

PRESENT: Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

Mr P J Holbrook and Mr N MacMaster were unable to attend.

Mr B D Hurren, Ward Member for Boxford was present at the meeting for Item Nos. 2 and 7 of Paper F37 and spoke on the items with the consent of the Chairman.

17     SUBSTITUTES

It was noted that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 5, a substitute was in attendance as follows:-

Ms J A Jenkins (substituting for Mr P J Holbrook)

18     DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr P K Beer declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/05/01330 (Paper F37 – Item 1) by virtue of being a member of the Suffolk County Council’s Chilton Woods Development Committee, and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.

Mr R W Thake declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/00815 (Paper F37 – Item 5) by virtue of being a member of Glemsford Parish Council where the application had been considered, but indicated that he took no part in the discussion and therefore his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr A J Hinton declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/00810 (Paper F37 – Item 14) by virtue of being a member of East Bergholt Parish Council where the application had been considered, but indicated that he took no part in the discussion and therefore his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr P Jones declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/00677 (Paper F37 – Item 15) by virtue of being a member of Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council where the application had been considered, but indicated that he took no part in the discussion and therefore his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr B L Lazenby subsequently declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/06/00834 (Paper F37 – Item 13) because his grandchildren attend Holbrook High School and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.

19     MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 May 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record, subject to the following wording being added under Minute No. 11 – Declaration of Interests. “Mr R W Thake declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/00632 (Paper F27 – Item 12) as he is an occasional user of the shop, but indicated that his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned”.

20     PETITIONS

None received.

21     QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

22     SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)     That site inspections be held on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 in respect of the under-mentioned sites prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-

Mr B D Hurren, Ward Member for Boxford had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the possible impact of the development on the neighbouring listed building.

Miss J J Chapman, Ward Member for Hadleigh (South) requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the relationship and possible impact on the neighbouring properties, particularly No. 15 Station Road, and the need for possible felling of trees.

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

23     PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Details of further objections and representations received in respect of Item Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 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:-

Planning Application No.         Representations From

B/05/01330                                 Mrs Firth (On behalf of an Objector)

B/06/00647                                 Mrs Van den Berg (Applicant)

B/06/00646                                 Mr Morley (Objector)

B/06/00820                                 Mrs Bevan (One of the Applicants)

B/06/00572                                 Mr Waterson (Applicant)

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 F37 be made as follows:-

Members were provided with a copy of a letter from Mills & Reeve dated 16 June 2006 that had been e-mailed to them on 20 June 2006, along with a letter from Cushman and Wakefield dated 19 June 2006 and a fax from Berwin Leighton Paisner, Solicitors dated 19 June 2006.

Whilst Members accepted the reasons why pedestrian/cycle friendly linkages to the Chilton Development had not been proposed as part of the Application, they agreed that provision should be made to require Tesco to provide such a link in the future as a policy requirement.

RESOLVED

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

• The provision of an access to the Tesco service yard from the Chilton Distributor road.

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

Those recommended by County Highway Authority

• Mitigation measures regarding any lizards on site
• Landscaping
• Range of goods (% split for convenience and comparison goods)
• Green travel plan
• No subdivision of the extended store

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered that the additional accommodation could not be provided by an extension to the existing dwelling. On being put to the vote this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

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

Members agreed that as there could possibly be more similar applications in the future a site inspection should take place to assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Mr D C Rose, Ward Member for Holbrook requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the visual impact on the street scene and the impact on highway safety and the trees that are subject to TPO’s.

RESOLVED

(1)     That consideration of the recommendations of the Head of Planning (Control) contained in (c) (d) and (e) above be deferred.

(2)     That site inspections be held on Wednesday 28 June 2006, that the Panel of Members appointed under Minute 22 above inspect the sites and that reports thereon be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee, if appropriate.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members did not consider that the siting of the garage would have significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, and agreed that the proposal would improve parking facilities in a very congested area.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.

• Boundary treatment
• Removal of PD rights
• Materials
• Landscaping

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members did not consider the proposal would have an adverse impact on the landscape quality or intrude into the countryside.

RESOLVED

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

• Boundary treatment
• Removal of PD Rights
• Landscaping

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), to enable outstanding legal issues to be resolved.

It was noted that the accuracy of the street scene had now been verified and revised plans, that would be subject to re-consultation, had been submitted by the Applicant to address the massing issue.

RESOLVED

That subject to no new issues arising from the re-consultation period, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to approve the reserved matters, subject to the following conditions:-

• As recommended by County Highway Authority
• Samples of materials

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to approve planning permission, a motion of refusal was moved because Members considered that the increased ridge height visually dominated the east elevation of the host dwelling and therefore did not respect its setting and proportions.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:-

RESOLVED

That it be noted that this item had been withdrawn by the Applicant.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to approve the siting and design of the proposed development, a motion of refusal was moved because Members considered that the proposed 15m high column mast would be unduly detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area. They were also of the opinion that the Applicant had not satisfactorily demonstrated that other alternative sites for the mast were not available in the area.

RESOLVED

That the Applicant be advised that the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is required for the siting and design of the development and that approval is not given.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.20 p.m. and resumed at 1.50 p.m. when the following Members were present:-

Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

Members noted that the Applicant had agreed to submit revised plans to address the concerns of the owner of the neighbouring property and the Parish Council, and to clarify the landscaping details.

RESOLVED

That subject to the submission of satisfactory revised plans and landscaping details the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to approve these reserved matters, subject to the following conditions:-

RESOLVED

That Suffolk County Council be advised that the Babergh District Council objects and recommends refusal on the grounds of the mast being unduly prominent to the detriment of visual amenity and the character of the area and that alternative means of service provision be sought.

RESOLVED

That Suffolk County Council be advised that the Babergh District Council objects and recommends refusal on the grounds of the mast being unduly prominent to the detriment of visual amenity and the character of the area and that alternative means of service provision be sought.

RESOLVED

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

• Details of materials to be used and colours (if any) to be applied
• No alterations to shed or jetty without planning permission

Note:

The meeting was adjourned between 10.55 am and 11.10 am for refreshments.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 2.15 pm.

                                                                                                                        Chairman