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 8 AUGUST 2007

Quick Links

25    Substitutes
26    Declaration of Interests
27    Minutes
28    Petitions
29    Questions from Members
30    Site Inspections
31    Planning Applications for Determination by the Committee
32    Request for Minor Amendments to Application Reference B/06/01811/Ful
33    Planning Performance

             PRESENT:            Mr A J Hinton – Chairman

Mr D C Rose was unable to be present.

Mr N A Bennett, Ward Member for Sudbury (South) was present at the meeting for Items 8 and 9 of Paper G68 and spoke on the items with the consent of the Chairman. 

Dr M R Miller, Ward Member for Dodnash, was present at the meeting for Item 11 of Paper G68 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman. 

Mr B D Hurren, Ward Member for Boxford, was present at the meeting for Item 15 of Paper G68 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.       

25    SUBSTITUTES

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

Mrs S M Wigglesworth (substituting for Mr D C Rose). 

Back to top

26    DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr R W Thake declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/07/00783 (Paper G68 – Item 10) by virtue of being a friend of the Applicant, and was not present during its discussion. 

Mr C W Arthey declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application Nos. B/07/01097 and B/07/01098 (Paper G68 – Item 15) by virtue of being a friend of the Applicant and was not present during its discussion.

Back to top

27    MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2007 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Back to top

28    PETITIONS

None received

Back to top

29    QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received

Back to top

30    SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)    That site inspections be held on Wednesday 15 August 2007 in respect of the under-mentioned sites prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-

SUDBURY

Mr D M Walton, Ward Member for Sudbury (East) had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the application on neighbouring property and on residential amenity.

LONG MELFORD

Mr R E Kemp, Ward Member for Long Melford had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the application on the adjoining properties and to view the existing structure.

LONG MELFORD

Mr J C Brand, Ward Member for Long Melford had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the visual impact of the application on the surrounding area and the relationship to the existing house/site layout.

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

Back to top

31    PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Members had before them an Addendum to Paper G68 (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 and revised site plans for items 7 and 10.  Details of further objections and representations received in respect of item numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 16 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 delegated powers under Council Minute No. 48(a) dated 19 October 2004, decisions on the items referred to in Paper G68 be made as follows:-

(a)    BENTLEY

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to grant planning permission subject to a Planning Obligation being secured under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a motion of refusal was moved as Members considered that there would be a loss of residential amenity contrary to policy.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:-

(b)    SUDBURY

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to grant planning permission subject to a Planning Obligation being secured under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a motion of refusal was moved for reasons relating to the overdevelopment of the site and the effect on residential amenity and on the character of the area.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

• Overdevelopment of the site contrary to policy HS28.
• Insufficient open space contrary to Policy HS32
• Adverse effect on residential amenity and on the character of the area contrary to policy CNO1. 

(c)    SUDBURY

Mr R C Smith Ward Member for Sudbury (North) had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact on residential amenity of the application. 

RESOLVED

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

(2)     That a site inspection be held on Wednesday 15 August 2007, that the Panel of Members appointed under Minute No. 30 above inspect the site and that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee if appropriate.

(d)    SUDBURY

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

• Contrary to policies HS28 and CNO8 by virtue of an inappropriate scale of development contrary to the existing pattern of development
• Inadequate level of parking provision leading to an increase in demand for on-street parking in New Street.
• Overdevelopment leading to a poor standard of usable amenity area.
• Lack of public open space (contrary to policy HS32).

 Note:  A request for a site inspection on this item was withdrawn.

(e)    MILDEN

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to refuse planning permission a motion to approve was moved as Members did not accept the reasons given for refusal, which were that the proposal would have the effect of disrupting the street scene in this location and eroding the open and undeveloped frontage to the detriment of the character of the locality.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and reasons to be determined by the Chief Planning Control Officer (both applications).

(f)    LAVENHAM

RESOLVED

(1)    That subject to (a) the receipt of amended plans showing stronger landscaping and improved dwelling designs (b) no new adverse views being received on the re-consultation and (c) the satisfactory resolution of all outstanding matters in the Assessment section of Item 16 of Paper G68 the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for the dwellings to be managed in such a way as to meet identified housing needs in perpetuity.

(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:-

• Samples and details of Materials to be submitted
• Landscaping
• Boundary treatment
• As recommended by CHA
• Any as required following submission of further plans / details
• Levels
• PD restrictions – no garages, outbuildings fences walls or other means of enclosure, no alterations to the external appearance of the dwellings as approved
• Ecological condition to address bat and reptile issues
• Any as required in respect of flood risk or drainage issues
• Surface treatment of access and communal parking areas
• Provision of footpath to link to existing footpath

(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:-

• Residential development in the countryside contrary to Structure and Local Plan settlement planning policies
• Failure of scheme to accord with housing needs which would be contrary to adopted policies listed in Item 16 of Paper G68.

(g)    SUDBURY   

RESOLVED

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

• Materials
• Levels
• As recommended by CHA
• Hours of operation
• Landscaping
• No outside storage
• Display/retail area limited to that applied for
• Boundary enclosures
• Number and position of rooflights to be agreed
• As recommended by EA

(2)     That a note be added to the Decision Notice in relation to reptiles, as requested by SWT.                       

The reason for approval which was omitted from the report was displayed at the meeting on the PowerPoint presentation.

(h)    NAYLAND WITH WISSINGTON

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by CHA.

(i)    BRANTHAM              

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 provide a financial contribution towards the provision of off-site public open space.

(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
• As recommended by CHA
• Landscaping
• Obscure glazing of rooflights

• Inadequate provision of public open space contrary to Policy HS32.

(j)    SUDBURY

Members noted that this application should have been identified as a Full Planning Application and not a District Planning Application as shown in Paper G68.

RESOLVED

(1)     That subject to the receipt of amended drawings showing two car parking spaces, the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide a financial contribution towards off-site 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:-

• Contamination
• Obscure glazing to first floor windows (side elevation fronting Elm Road)
• PD rights removed for additional windows
• Levels
• Materials
• Landscaping
• Parking

(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:-

• Inadequate provision of public open space contrary to Policy HS32.
• Insufficient provision for car parking contrary to policy

(k)    WHERSTEAD

RESOLVED

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following reasons:-

• Archaeology condition
• No floodlighting
• Hours of operation
• No outside working
• No retail sales
• Restrict use to that applied for.

(l)    LONG MELFORD

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 provide a financial contribution for the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space.

(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:-

• Levels to be submitted and agreed
• Materials to be submitted
• Boundary Treatment
• As recommended by SCC (Archaeology)
• As recommended by CHA
• PD controlled – Classes A-E

(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:-

• Inadequate provision of public open space contrary to Policy HS32.
  

(m)    BILDESTON

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 CHA
• Provision and retention of vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas
• Landscaping scheme
• Archaeology

(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:

• Inadequate provision of public open space contrary to Policy HS32.

(n)    CHELMONDISTON

RESOLVED

That the Applicants be advised that the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is required for the siting and design of the development and that such approval is hereby given.

(o)    LONG MELFORD

RESOLVED

 That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

• Removal of permitted development rights for additional openings in the east and west (side) elevations.
• Window to new upstairs en-suite to be glazed with obscure glass.

Note:  A request for a site inspection on this item was not accepted.

(p)    SHOTLEY

RESOLVED

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

32     REQUEST FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO  APPLICATION REFERENCE B/06/01811/FUL - ERECTION OF DETACHED PART TWO-STOREY AND PART SINGLE-STOREY GUEST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING - THE CROWN, PARK STREET- STOKE BY NAYLAND

The Chief Planning Control Officer reported a request for minor amendments to planning permission granted 15 February 2007 for the erection of detached part two-storey and part single-storey guest accommodation building.

The Parish Council and neighbour have objected, for a number of reasons, to the amendments which include those listed below:

• Minor changes to fenestration
• Condenser on SW elevation
• Porch to SE elevation
• Change to internal layout
• Extension to boiler room
• Solar panels to roof slope

In relation to the objections, Members noted that the doors to room 8 have been added as a building regulations requirement, but main access to this room will remain via the front entrance.  There are no plans to provide a driveway to these doors for cars.  In any event, hard and soft landscaping has not been submitted to date, and these plans will need to show treatment for this area, presumably a footpath only.  The Officer’s view was that there would be no material impact upon residential amenity and that the request for minor amendments was considered acceptable as it would not lead to a development which would reduce the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring property.  The changes would be compatible with the site’s setting within a Conservation Area and AONB and would not impact upon the setting of listed buildings, and thereby is in accordance with Development Plan policies.

RESOLVED

That the minor amendments to the approved plans B/06/01811/FUL be approved.

33            PLANNING PERFORMANCE

The Chief Planning Control Officer introduced Paper G69 which provided an overview of the number of planning applications being considered, an indication of performance against Government targets, information on income from fees and details relating to Planning Delivery Grant for 2007/08.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted. 

Note:   The meeting was adjourned between 11.20 a.m. and 11.40 a.m. for refreshments.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 1.20 p.m.

Chairman

Back to top