Minutes - 7 September 2011

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, 7 SEPTEMBER 2011

PRESENT:       Mr P K Beer – Chairman 

Mr P J Holbrook, Mr D H Keane and Mr A J Ward were unable to be present.

Mr A J Hinton, Ward Member for Dodnash, was present at the meeting and spoke on Item Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of Paper L61 with the consent of the Chairman.

38 - Substitutes
39 - Declaration of Interests
40 - Minutes
41 - Petitions
42 - Questions from Members
43 - Site Inspections
44 - Planning Applications for Determination by the Committee
45 - Proposes Non-material Amendment - Omission of Footpath Adjacent to Blackfriars (Estate Road) in Conjunction with the Catesby Meadow Development Sudbury

38        SUBSTITUTES

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

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

Mr N A Ridley (substituting for Mr D H Keane)

Mr D G Grutchfield (substituting for Mr A J Ward) 

• Top of page

39        DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

None declared.

• Top of page

40        MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 August 2011 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

• Top of page

41        PETITIONS

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

B/11/00825/FUL – Construction of 35 two, three and four bedroom apartments, bungalows and houses with associated roads, paths, driveways, car parking, garages and landscaping, new access from Friends Field and Tawneys Ride, plus public open space (including an equipped play area), land south of Friends Field, Bures St Mary

Petition signed by approximately 27 residents of Babergh expressing concerns about traffic/access/parking at Friends Field/Cuckoo Hill, Bures St Mary.

The petition will be taken into account when the planning application is determined at a future meeting of the Development Committee. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules, the Chief Executive reported the receipt of the petition to the Council meeting on 5 September 2011.

• Top of page

42        QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

• Top of page

43        SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)       That site inspections be held on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 in respect of the undermentioned sites, prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-

The Chief Planning Control Officer requested a site inspection to assess the proximity of the proposed development to nearby residential properties, designated heritage assets (St Mary’s Church, Chilton Hall and the Registered Park and Garden to Chilton Hall), the existing landscaping belt that is protected by a Tree Preservation Order will also be highlighted together with the relationship of the site to existing highways, public rights of way and nearby pedestrian/cycling routes.

SUDBURY Application No. B/11/00383/FUL

Full Application – Erection of 3 3/4 storey detached dwellings (demolition of existing bungalow), Dunedin, Queens Close.

Mr A F D W Osborne requested a site inspection to assess the viability of the application and the impact upon car parking and access.

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

• Top of page

44        PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Members had before them an Addendum to Paper L61 (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 No. 2 of Paper L61 were reported to the meeting and considered and taken into account before a decision was made on the 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/11/00761/FHA                                                       Mrs Rees (Applicant)

B/11/00638/FUL                                                       Mr C Poole (Parish Council)

                                                                                 Mr J Robertson (Objector)

                                                                                 Mr D Pearce (Agent for Applicant)

B/11/00601/FHA                                                       Mr Sharman (Objector)

                                                                                 Mr I O’Hanlon (Agent for Applicant)

B/11/00932/FHA                                                       Mr Hunter (Objector)

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 L61 be made as follows:-

RESOLVED

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

·      Details of materials.

RESOLVED

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

·        Standard time limit;

·        Tree and hedge protection during construction;

·         Landscaping to be submitted and approved;

·         Hedge to front of Plot 1 to be protected;

·         Control over boundary treatment;

·         As recommended by the LHA;

·         Materials as per schedule submitted;

·         Hard and soft landscaping to be approved - hard surfaces to be permeable;

·         Levels to be approved

·         Archaeology

 

(c)              EAST BERGHOLT Application No. B/11/00601/FHA Paper L61 – Item 4

Full Application – erection of side extension, replacement of hip roof and flat roof areas with new gable roof to form living accommodation at first floor, Chadacre, Whites Field.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer that planning permission be granted subject to conditions, a motion was moved to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposed development would be an over-development of the site, create loss of amenity to neighbours and have an adverse impact on the street scene.  The motion was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

·         Loss of light

·         Overbearing impact

·         Adverse effect on street scene

·         Overlooking

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

·          Inappropriate design, resulting in an adverse impact upon the existing streetscene character (contrary to policies CN01 and HS33);

·          Loss of residential amenity (contrary to policy HS33).

(e)          GLEMSFORD Application No. B/11/00841/VOT Paper L61 – Item 3

Variation of Time – erection of two semi-detached dwellings, construction of new vehicular access, 48 Fourth Avenue.

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 public open space provision. 

(2)       That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation in Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Solicitor to the Council, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions including:

·          Standard time limit (3 years)

·          Samples of external materials to be approved

·          No occupation of the dwellings until vehicular access to both properties have been set out and thereafter retained

·           Retention of parking once it is set out prior to occupation

·           Details of existing and proposed levels to be approved

·           Details of all hard and soft landscaping to be approved prior to the commencement of development. Hard surfaces to be permeable. Soft landscaping to be safeguarded.

·            Boundary treatment to be approved - hedge to be provided or retained on western boundary

·            Removal of PD rights for extensions and outbuildings.

(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 reason(s) including:

·        Inadequate provision of public open space and play equipment contrary to Local Plan Policy HS32.   

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including:-

·         Standard time limit.

• Top of page

45        PROPOSED NON-MATERIAL AMENDMENT – OMISSION OF FOOTPATH ADJACENT TO BLACKFRIARS (ESTATE ROAD) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CATESBY MEADOW DEVELOPMENT  SUDBURY

The Chief Planning Control Officer submitted a report (Paper L62) requesting approval to a non-material amendment to the approved residential development at Catesby Meadow in Sudbury by the omission of the construction of a footpath on the Blackfriars estate road leading to Catesby Meadow (Reserved Matters application approved in December 2005).

The Local Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no observations to make on the proposed non-material amendment.

RESOLVED

That the proposed non-material amendment to the Reserved Matters B/01/02018/RES in respect of the Catesby Meadow development at Sudbury as detailed in Paper L62 be approved.

• Top of page

Note:   The meeting adjourned between 11.15 a.m. and 11.35 a.m. for refreshments.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 12.20 p.m.

                                                                                     ...............................................................

                                                                                                                          Chairman