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 11 OCTOBER 2006

PRESENT: Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

Mr P J Holbrook and Mr J J Quinlan were unable to attend.

Mr C J Hunt, Ward Member for Nayland, was present at the meeting for Item Nos. 8 and 12 of Paper F100 and spoke on the items with the consent of the Chairman.

Mr M P Booth, Ward Member for Sudbury (South), was present at the meeting for Item No. 16 of Paper F100 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

45        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)

46        DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr A J Hinton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/06/01285 (Paper F100 – Item 7) by virtue of being related to the applicant and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the item.

Mrs E F Bates declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/06/01318 (Paper F100 – Item 8) by virtue of being related to the applicant and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.

Ms J A Jenkins declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/01501 (Paper F100 – Item 12) as the applicant is known to her, but indicated that her interest was such that she was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

47        MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

48        PETITIONS

The Head of Corporate Services reported that in accordance with the Council Procedure Rule No. 13, a petition had been submitted to the Chief Executive relating to:-

Application No. B/06/01419 – change of use of agricultural building to the sale of equestrian equipment and feed and the construction of passing bays at Town House Fruit Farm, Hadleigh (signed by approximately 62 residents of Babergh).

Members noted that this petition would be considered in conjunction with the relevant planning application that was likely to be reported to the Development Committee on 8 November 2006, and that in accordance with the procedure rules, the Chief Executive would report the receipt of the petition to the Council meeting to be held on 31 October 2006.

49        QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

50        PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Details of further objections and representations received in respect of Item Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18 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:-

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 F100 be made as follows:-

(a) SUDBURY

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to grant planning permission, a motion of refusal was moved because Members expressed concern that the access onto an already busy road was unsafe. On being put to the vote, this motion was lost.

A motion of approval was proposed and seconded. An amendment was then proposed and seconded that approval should be subject to the additional condition that there should be no right turn from the site. The amendment was lost.

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.

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

• Materials to be submitted
• Landscaping
• Boundary treatment (including retention of agreed treatment to west boundary in perpetuity)
• As recommended by Head of Natural and Built Environment
• As recommended by County Highway Authority
• As recommended by Suffolk Wildlife Trust
• Submission of ground floor finished levels
• Details of bin and cycle stores to be submitted
• No openings to be added to west elevation
• Detail of dummy windows to be secured/retained as per the approved drawings
  

(3) That in the event of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above not being secured, the Head of Planning (Control) 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
• Any as may be recommended by County Highway Authority
  

 (b) GLEMSFORD

RESOLVED

(1) That subject to no new issues being raised from the re-consultation and the receipt of a satisfactory bat survey and further consultation being undertaken with Suffolk Wildlife Trust regarding protected species, 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:-

(i) a financial contribution to the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space.

(ii) the buildings for employment shall be completed before the residential units are commenced and the employment units be occupied on a 3 to 5 year lease.

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

• Materials to be submitted
• Landscaping and landscape maintenance
• Boundary treatment (including retention of flint wall)
• As recommended by County Highway Authority
• As may be recommended by Suffolk Wildlife Trust
• Provision of pedestrian footpath link
• Drainage
• Levels
• PD restricted – obscure glazing to specific elevations of plots 1 and 2
• PD restricted – no additional openings to specific elevations of specific plots.
• Removal of PD rights Classes A to E.
  

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

• Absence of a bat survey
• Non payment of financial contribution to the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space
• Any if appropriate relating to employment issues

(c) BENTLEY

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members agreed that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the landscape quality or character of the surrounding area and was of an appropriate scale, form and design that respected the relationship of the site and its setting.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(d) NAYLAND WITH WISSINGTON

RESOLVED

That subject to no new material planning considerations being raised as a result of the public consultation exercise, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

• Maximum of 10 touring caravans to be stored at any one time
• Landscaping
• Details of any external floodlighting
• Hours of operation to be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. only
• An Advisory Note be added reminding the applicant that the permission authorises use of the site for storage of touring caravans only, and not for any business, commercial or residential use or for storage of any other vehicles or materials

(e) GREAT CORNARD

RESOLVED

That the reserved matters be approved subject to the following conditions:-

• GPDO rights removed for new openings, extensions and outbuildings
• Samples of external materials to be used
• As recommended by County Highway Authority

(f) STANSTEAD

Members noted that this application was reported to the Development Committee at the request of the Local Member

Following consultation between the Head of Planning (Control) and the agent for the applicant prior to consideration of this application, it was agreed that incorrect plans had been included in the report, the correct plans to be considered were:-

Site location plan dated 29 August 2006

Plans and elevations dated 29 August 2006

Site Plan dated 28 September 2006

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because, although the site was situated outside the defined built up boundary for Stanstead, Members agreed that it was within the “natural boundary” created by the small wooded area between the application site and the church and was therefore an “exceptional circumstance”. A Section 106 Unilateral Agreement had also been provided by the applicant to protect the future of the wooded area.

Members also agreed that if the garaging was re-positioned the proposal would not constitute over – development and a landscaping condition would protect the frontage hedgerow.

RESOLVED

That, subject to the garaging being satisfactorily re-positioned, planning permission be granted subject to conditions, to include the following:-

• landscaping

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.10pm and resumed at 1.30pm when the following Members were present:-

Mr C W Arthey - Chairman

(g) NAYLAND WITH WISSINGTON

RESOLVED

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

• Materials including re-use of salvaged bricks of existing boundary wall
• Details of bond of brickwork and mortar mix to garage gable end wall
• Details to be agreed on the re-use of the triangular coping stones of the existing boundary wall
• Colour of garage door
• As recommended by County Highway Authority

(h) SPROUGHTON

RESOLVED

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

• Details of change of fenestration.

(i) SUDBURY

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered the modern metal gate to be in keeping with Ballingdon Bridge and not obtrusive, and that it therefore preserved or enhanced the character of the Conservation Area.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(j) LAVENHAM

Members noted that there had been an amendment to the recommendation.

RESOLVED

(1) That subject to the receipt of a satisfactory noise assessment the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions as may be required;

(2) That in the event of a satisfactory noise assessment not being received, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to refuse planning permission

for the following reason:-

• Insufficient noise assessment carried out in accordance with PPG24 leading to the potential for adverse impact on residential amenity.

(k) SUDBURY

RESOLVED

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

• Materials to be agreed
• Detailing of planting to be agreed
• Maintenance of planting/landscaping
• Detail of boundary treatments
• As recommended by County Highway Authority

(l) STANSTEAD

RESOLVED

That planning permission and listed building consent be granted.

(m) STANSTEAD

RESOLVED

That planning permission and listed building consent be refused for the following reasons:- 

• The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the principal listed barn associated with Stanstead Hall through an unsympathetic extension contrary to Policies CN05 and CN06 of the Babergh Local Plan and PPG15
• Absence of a bat survey, therefore the Council cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not impact on bats contrary to Policy EN03 of the Babergh Local Plan and PBS9
  

 (n) HADLEIGH

RESOLVED

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

• Removal of PD rights for windows in both side elevations
• Bathroom window to be retained in obscure glazing

(o) SUDBURY

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(p) POLSTEAD

RESOLVED

(1) That the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to amend the existing planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of revising the wording to allow The Brambles to be used for tourist accommodation in lieu of a residential annexe.

(2) That subject to the satisfactory amendment of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following condition:-

• Building to be used only as holiday accommodation

(q) BOXFORD

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(r) GREAT CORNARD

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:-

(i) that all of the dwellings proposed are managed in such a way as to meet identified housing needs in perpetuity.

(ii) payment of contributions towards public open space provision

(2) That upon completion of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

• Materials
• Levels
• As recommended by County Highway Authority
• Landscaping

(3) That in the event of the planning obligation referred in resolution (1) above not being completed, the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:-

• Inadequate provision of public open space and play equipment (off site).

(s) SUDBURY

RESOLVED

(1) That subject to no new material issues being raised from any outstanding consultees in respect of the second RSA Geotechnic Limited report, the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of a financial contribution to the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space

(2) That upon completion of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

• Samples and details of materials to be submitted
• Landscaping
• Retention of hedge along northern boundary of the site
• Provision of proposed boundary treatment
• As recommended by Head of Natural and Built Environment As recommended by Head of Contract and Asset Management
• As recommended by County Highway Authority
• Alternative to planning permission granted in 2005
• Submission of ground floor finished levels
• Details of bin and cycle stores to be submitted
• Removal of permitted development rights to prevent any further development occurring within the curtilage of the site (on stability of the escarpment grounds)
• Surface water disposal (so as to prevent use of soakaways)
• No fencing to be erected on north west boundary of the site
  

(3) That in the event of the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above not being completed, the Head of Planning (Control) 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
• Any as may be recommended by any outstanding technical consultees

51        PLANNING PERFORMANCE

The Head of Planning (Control) introduced a report (Paper F101) advising the Committee on the quarterly update figures detailing Babergh’s performance against the targets set by Central Government.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Note: The meeting was adjourned between 11.05 a.m. and 11.25 a.m. for refreshments.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 3.25 p.m.