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 13 SEPTEMBER 2006

PRESENT: Mr C W Arthey – Chairman

Mr P Jones, Mr C D Kerr and Mr J J Quinlan were unable to attend.

Mr J C Brand, Ward Member for Long Melford, was present at the meeting for Item No. 1 of Paper F84 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

Ms J A Jenkins, Ward Member for Leavenheath, was present at the meeting for Item No. 6 of Paper F84 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

Mr C J Hunt, Ward Member for Nayland, was present at the meeting for Item Nos. 9 and 12 of Paper F84 and spoke on the items with the consent of the Chairman.

Mr B D Hurren, Ward Member for Boxford was present at the meeting for Item No. 14 of Paper F84 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

39     DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr C W Arthey declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/01264 (Paper F84 – Item 7) as the applicant is known to him, but indicated that his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

40     MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

41     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/06/0159 – erection of a 9m high wind turbine at White Horse Inn, Mill Green, Edwardstone (signed by approximately 29 residents). Members noted that this petition would be considered in conjunction with the relevant planning application (Paper F84 – Item 14) and that in accordance with the Procedure Rules, the Chief Executive would report the receipt of the petition to the Council meeting held on 19 September 2006.

42     QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

43     SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)     That site inspections be held on Wednesday 20 September 2006 in respect of the under-mentioned sites, prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-

BENTLEY

Mr A J Hinton, Ward Member for Dodnash, requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the site and the impact of the development on the surrounding landscape.

GLEMSFORD

Mr R W Thake, Ward Member for Glemsford and Stanstead, requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on neighbouring properties and the possible loss of employment.

GREAT CORNARD

Mr N MacMaster, Ward Member for Great Cornard (North), requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the massing of the development and the impact on residential amenity.

STANSTEAD

Mr R W Thake, Ward Member for Glemsford and Stanstead, requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on the Listed Building and the surrounding countryside.

SUDBURY

Mr A E Pearce, Ward Member for Sudbury (East), requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the highway access and the impact on residential amenity.

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

44     PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Details of further objections and representations received in respect of Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 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:-

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 F84 be made as follows:-

(a)     LONG MELFORD

Members were updated on the possible impact of the application on residential amenity.

RESOLVED

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

§ Area within the site designated for parking shall be provided within 3 months of decision and retained for the parking of vehicles calling at the Black Lion Hotel.

(b)     LITTLE WALDINGFIELD

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered the proposal to be in accordance with Policy CN01 by reason of its scale, form and the nature of the adjacent development and the environment surrounding the site.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(c)     HOLBROOK

Members noted that the second sentence of the final paragraph of Section 24 on page 23 should read as follows:

“If there were fundamental planning policy objections to the development a supporting reason for refusal relating to the deficiencies of the access could be made, but in my opinion a refusal based on the highway issues alone is not sustainable and would not stand the test of an appeal”.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to grant planning permission, a motion of deferral was moved for re-consultation with the Highway Consultant as Members did not consider that the Highway Assessment Report provided an accurate account of the traffic movements in The Street. On being put to the vote this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

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

·     Materials;

·     As recommended by County Highway Authority;

·     Landscaping;

·     Boundary treatments;

·     Development in accordance with the recommendation of the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Report;

·     Removal of permitted development rights – extensions, outbuildings and hard surface areas.

At this point Mr C W Arthey left the meeting and Mr A J Hinton took the Chair.

(d)     LEAVENHEATH

Members noted that the location address for this application was incorrectly shown on page 1 of Paper F84.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions as per B/05/00475/FUL:-

·     As recommended by County Highway Authority;

·     Landscaping Scheme;

·     Removal of permitted development rights for extensions, alterations and outbuildings etc;

·     Boundary treatment (including details of hedge management).

(e)     HINTLESHAM

Members noted that the location address was incorrectly shown on page 1 of Paper F84.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval, subject to a contamination investigation and risk assessment being submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Environment Agency, was moved because Members considered that the proposal, for the residential development of land, partly within the built-up area boundary, did not conflict significantly with policies HS02, HS04, HS28 and HS30 and would not be detrimental to the character of the rural area.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(f)     POLSTEAD

RESOLVED

That the reserved matters be approved.

(g)     NAYLAND WITH WISSINGTON

RESOLVED

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

·     Materials;

·     Landscaping;

·     Brick course detailing to match that at No. 8 Wiston Road;

·     Restrict first-floor windows in east and west elevations;

·     Boundary treatment;

·     As recommended by County Highway Authority

·     Site levels.

Note to be added to planning permission:-

·     Any new or additional vehicular access required for No. 8 Wiston Road will require planning permission in its own right as it is on a classified road.

(h)     HADLEIGH

Members noted that although the report stated that the application had been referred to the Development Committee at the request of the Local Member, he had in fact asked to discuss the application with the Head of Planning (Control), but had been unable to do so due to illness.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered the proposal to be in accordance with Policies CN01 and HS33.

On being put to the vote this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused.

(i) NAYLAND WITH WISSINGTON

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Head of Planning (Control) to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because Members considered the application to be in accordance with Policies HS33, CN01 and ENV3 design standards. They also agreed that the link to the existing cottage, where there was no particular architectural merit for it being a Listed Building, meant that the development would not be disproportionate and out of scale with the host building.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.20 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m. when the following Members were present:-

Mr A J Hinton – Chairman

(j) STUTTON

RESOLVED

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

·     As recommended by the County Highway Authority;

·     Restricted to 3 residents;

·     Submission of surface details of the car park.

(k) EDWARDSTONE

RESOLVED

That subject to no new material issues being received prior to the expiry of the publicity period for the amendments (15/09/06), the Head of Planning (Control) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following condition:-

· Colour to be grey.

(l) GREAT CORNARD

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(m) LONG MELFORD

Members noted that comments had now been received from Suffolk County Council Archaeology Department, who had requested a monitoring condition be added to any approval of planning permission.

RESOLVED

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

·     PD rights removed for the insertion of new windows at first floor level;

·     Archaeology Monitoring.

(n)     POLSTEAD

RESOLVED

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

·     Existing hedging on the external boundaries of the site to be maintained at a minimum height of 1.8m;

·     Removal of GPDO rights – outbuildings and fences.

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

The business of the meeting was concluded at 2.45 p.m.

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

Chairman