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, 6 DECEMBER 2006

PRESENT: Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

Mr J J Quinlan was unable to attend.

Mr C J Hunt, Ward Member for Nayland, was present at the meeting for Item No. 10 of Paper F135 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

58     SUBSTITUTES

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

Mr J M Owen (substituting for Mr J J Quinlan).

59     DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr N MacMaster declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/06/01577 (Paper F135 – Item 3) by virtue of the applicant being a close personal friend and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the item.

Mr R W Thake declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/06/01770 (Paper F135 – Item 4) by virtue of the fact that the applicant used to be his Solicitor, and he withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.

Mr P J Holbrook declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/01628 (Paper F135 – Item 6) by virtue of the applicant being known to him, but indicated that 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/06/01740 (Paper F135 – Item 15) by virtue of the applicant being known to him, but indicated that 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/06/0112 (Paper F135 – Item 19) 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 C D Kerr subsequently declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/06/01102 (Paper F135 – Item 13) as the application related to a private hire car control business and he is also a private hire driver, and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the item.

Mrs E F Bates, Mr P J Holbrook, Mr P Jones, Mr B L Lazenby, Mr N MacMaster and Mr J M Owen subsequently all declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/01102 (Paper F135 – Item 13) by virtue of being Members of the Licensing and Appeals Committee, a Sub-Committee of which considered licensing applications for private hire vehicles. Their interest was such that they were able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr J M Owen subsequently declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/01102 and B/06/01651 (Paper F135 – Items 13 and 14) by virtue of being a Member of the Sudbury Town Council Planning Committee where the applications had been considered. He indicated that, following advice from the Solicitor to the Council, his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matters concerned.

Mr P Jones declared that a petition had been submitted relating to Application No. B/06/01419 (Paper F135 – Item 11) and although his name appeared on the petition, he had not added it or asked for it to be added and had no prior knowledge of it being there.

60     MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

61     PETITIONS

The Head of Corporate Services reported that in accordance with the Council Procedure Rule No. 13 petitions had been submitted to the Chief Executive as follows:-

Application No. B/06/01611/CEU – application for Certificate of Lawfulness of an existing use – to allow continued use of a holiday site and caravan and motor home storage, Clockhouse Farm, Cavendish Lane, Glemsford (signed by approximately 34 residents).

This application will be dealt with under delegated authority.

The felling of a beech tree in connection with Application No. B/06/01046 – erection of a two-storey detached dwelling, part rear garden of 112 Melford Road, Sudbury (signed by approximately 32 residents).

The planning application had been dealt with under delegated authority and the tree had subsequently been inspected by an Arboricultural Consultant.

In accordance with procedure rules, the Chief Executive would report the receipt of the petitions to the Council meeting to be held on 19 December 2006.

62     QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

63     SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)     That site inspections be held on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 in respect of the undermentioned sites prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-

Mrs S M Wigglesworth, Ward Member for Lower Brett, had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the quality and condition of the existing buildings on site and the access to the site.

Mr C J Hunt, Ward Member for Nayland, requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on the nearby Listed Building and the Area Of Natural Beauty.

Mr C J Hunt, Ward Member for Nayland, requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on the listed building and the surrounding Conservation Area.

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

64     PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Details of further objections and representations received in respect of Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19 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/06/01770                         Mrs Wallis (Objector)
                                            Mr Claibourne (Architect for the applicant)

B/06/01613                         Mr Harbord (Agent for the applicant)

B/06/01322                         Mr Davis (Applicant)

B/06/01419                         Mr Sheppard (Agent for an objector)
                                            Mr Storey (Agent for the applicant)

B/06/01102                         Mr Dove (Applicant)

B/06/01651                         Miss Heap (Agent for the applicant)

B/06/01729                         Mr Shiel (Applicant)

B/06/01306                         Mr Terry (Agent for the applicant)

The Chief Planning Control Officer reported that, although the references in Paper F135 to PPG3 were correct at the time the report was written, these were now out-of-date as PPG3 had been superseded by PPS3.

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 F135 be made as follows:-

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

• inappropriate development harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and wider locality, contrary to the provisions of Policy CN08
• the extension would overlook the garden of No. 1 and would be intrusive

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members did not consider the application to be contrary to Policy HS28.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

Members noted that satisfactorily amended plans had been received.

RESOLVED

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

• archaeology condition

Mr J A B Long, Ward Member for Chadacre, had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the application on the character of the surrounding development and to assess the access to the site.

RESOLVED

(1) That consideration of the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer contained in (d) above be deferred.

(2) That a site inspection be held on Wednesday, 13 December 2006, that the Panel of Members appointed under Minute No. 63 above inspect the site, and that a report thereon be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee, if appropriate.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to approve planning permission, a motion of refusal was moved because Members considered the application to be contrary to Policy HS33 in that it would be overbearing and have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity. On being put the vote, this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

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

• materials, detailing and finishes to match existing dwelling
• removal of permitted development rights for insertion of first floor windows on north west elevation

RESOLVED

That subject to the receipt of revised plans addressing concerns over storage stacking areas and roof lights and subject to no new material issues being raised from consultees in respect of these amendments, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

• hard and soft landscaping
• materials
• drainage
• site levels
• floodlighting/external lighting
• stacking heights
• operating hours
• screen walls and fences
• no additional mezzanine floors
• no extension, improvement or alteration without planning permission
• restrict retail sales
• timetable of works for demolition of existing buildings
• no additional hard surfacing
• no public announcement system or other form of external audio communication system without prior consent
• pedestrian access details

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered that the likely traffic generated by the business in question would not be detrimental to the free flow and safety of all other users of the unclassified road. This motion was then withdrawn and a substantive motion for deferral proposed so that a site inspection could be held and the views of an independent Highways Advisor sought. On being put to the vote this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

That subject to no new material issues being raised from consultees in respect of amendments received, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

• contrary to Policies ENV2 and ENV4 of the Suffolk Structure Plan 2001
• contrary to Policies CR01, CR17 and CR18 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2 (2006) – building not considered to be redundant or under-used and highway safety

Note: Members requested that the site be reviewed after a period of three years, and if the building was still redundant from agricultural use, consideration should be made as to whether it should be demolished in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

Members noted that the address of the application was 49 North Street, Sudbury and not Aldi Store, Girling Street as shown in the report.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to approve planning permission, a motion of refusal was moved because Members considered the application to be contrary to Policies PPS6 and PPG15 in that it would cause a noise disturbance and be a nuisance to people in the surrounding area. On being put to the vote, this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

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

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m. when the following Members were present:-

Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

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 secure a contribution towards the improvement of sustainable modes of transport in the locality.

(2) That subject to the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

• materials to be submitted
• details of lighting to be submitted
• details of cycle storage to be submitted
• submission of a Green Travel Plan
• as recommended by the County Highway Authority
• as recommended by the Environment Agency
• as recommended by Anglian Water
• hours of opening (as existing)

(3) That in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

• non-payment of contribution towards the improvement of sustainable modes of transport
• as recommended by the County Highway Authority

RESOLVED

That it be noted that this item had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Chairman, in consultation with the Chief Planning Control Officer, as there were still outstanding issues to be resolved.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered that the marketing campaign carried out by the applicant had been sufficient and, therefore, the application was not contrary to Policy EM24.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

RESOLVED

That it be noted that this item had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Chairman in consultation with the Chief Planning Control Officer to enable outstanding issues to be resolved.

The Chief Planning Control Officer advised that paragraphs 18 – 21 (containing references to PPG3) were now to be set aside as PPG3 had been cancelled. The relevant points from PPS3 were reported.

RESOLVED

(1) That had the applicant not appealed to the Secretary of State, the Council would have refused planning permission for the following reasons:-

• that the site should be retained as an employment site and the proposal is contrary to PPS1, PPS3, PPG4, RPG6, draft RPG14, Policies HG1, E2, E3, E4, SS1 and SS2 of the draft East of England Plan. Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, ECON2, ECON3, ECON5 and the Suffolk Structure Plan, and Policies EM04 and EM24 of the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No. 2).
• that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable on highway grounds, and that the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the development will not be contrary to PPG13, Policy T14 of the Suffolk Structure Plan and Policies TP05, TP16 and TP17 of the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No. 2).
• the proposal had failed to demonstrate that there would not be an unacceptable noise impact on the proposed primary school building contrary to PPG24.

(2) That the Solicitor to the Council and the Chief Planning Control Officer defend the Council’s position on appeal at the forthcoming Public Inquiry on behalf of the Council on the above grounds.

(3) That the Solicitor to the Council seeks to secure a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to be presented to the Secretary of State, providing that should the appeal be allowed and outline planning permission be granted, seeking the following:-

• affordable housing
• provision of a site for a primary school
• contributions to additional education provision
• highway improvements
• increased pedestrian and cycle provision (including the River Gipping path)
• contributions to enhanced healthcare provision in the locality
• contributions to improved public transport in the locality
• community facilities
• recycling facilities
• the production and implementation of a Green Travel Plan
• the production and implementation of a demolition and construction management plan
• phasing plan and design code
• provision and maintenance of public open space and wildlife habitats (including the island site)
• leisure and recreational facility contributions
• provision of commercial floorspace
• provision of or contribution towards public art
• compensatory provision for loss of employment and commercial land
• such other obligations as the Solicitor to the Council and the Chief Planning Control Officer consider appropriate

RESOLVED

That the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

• materials to be agreed
• landscaping (including boundary treatments)
• levels
• bat access provision details

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 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 Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

• as recommended by County Highway Authority
• materials
• remove permitted development rights in respect of extensions

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

Members noted that the report should read that this application is brought to Committee at the request of the Chairman.

RESOLVED

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

• permitted development rights removed for the insertion of new windows at first floor level
• obscure glazing to first floor bathroom
• alternative scheme to B/06/01001/FHA

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

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 relating to:-

• a financial contribution to the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space
• provision of one unit of affordable housing

(2) That subject to the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

• standard conditions for submission of reserved matters
• materials to be submitted
• boundary treatment
• as recommended by Environmental Services
• as recommended by County Highway Authority
• permitted development rights controlled – Classes B and C of part 1 of Schedule 2

(3) That in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

• non-payment of financial contribution to the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space
• non-provision of affordable housing

RESOLVED

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

RESOLVED

That subject to no new issues being raised as a result of the outstanding public consultation exercise, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to approve details, subject to the following conditions:-

• materials to be agreed
• landscaping (including boundary treatment)
• no external lighting unless otherwise agreed
• as recommended by County Highway Authority

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 relating to:-

(2) That subject to the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above being secured and to the satisfactory receipt of suitably amended plans and no new issues being raised as a result of the outstanding public consultation exercise, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

• materials to be agreed
• landscaping
• boundary treatment
• as recommended by the County Highway Authority
• removal of permitted development rights for extension to outbuildings etc.

(3) That in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above not being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

• contrary to Policies HS02, HS28, HS32 and CN01
• non-payment of financial contributions to the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space
• as maybe recommended by County Highway Authority
• adverse visual impact

Note: The meeting was adjourned between 10.55 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. for refreshments.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 3.45 p.m.

Chairman