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, 23 JULY 2008

Quick Links

27 - Substitutes
28 - Declaration of Interests
29 - Minutes
30 - Petitions
31 - Questions from Members
32 - Site Inspections
33 - Planning Applications for Determination by the Committee
34 - Planning Performance

PRESENT:    Mr R W Thake – Chairman

Mr C W Arthey Mr P K Beer Mr J R B Cave Mr P G Gibson Mr P J Holbrook Mr L S Johnson Mr D H Keane

Mr R E Kemp Mr B L Lazenby Mr D C Rose Mr R C Smith Mr A J Ward Mr G S White Mr R Whiting

Mr P Jones was unable to be present.

Mrs S P Clarke, Ward Member for Berners, was present at the meeting for Item No. 2 of Paper H70 and spoke on this item with the consent of the Chairman.

Mr A F D W Osborne, Ward Member for Sudbury (East), was present at the meeting for Item Nos. 4 and 10 of Paper H70 and spoke on the items with the consent of the Chairman.

Back to Top

27    SUBSTITUTES

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

Mr R E Kemp (substituting for Mr P Jones)

Back to Top

28    DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr P K Beer declared a personal interest in Application No. B/08/00873/CDP (Paper H70 – Item 3) by virtue of being a Member of Suffolk County Council, but indicated that his interest was such that he was able to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr R E Kemp declared an interest in Application No. B/08/00873/CDP by virtue of being a Member of the Suffolk County Council Development Control Sub-Committee, and stated that he would not be present at the meeting for the consideration of this item.

Back to Top

29    MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2008 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Back to Top

30    PETITIONS

None received.

Back to Top

31    QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

Mr L S Johnson asked a question of the Chairman of the Committee.  The question and answer are reproduced below, together with a supplementary question and response which were given at the meeting.

Question

Please could Members be provided with an update on any progress being made in regarding difficulties being experienced by Members and Staff in contacting case Officers in relation to planning matters? 

Response

It is acknowledged that difficulties are encountered from time to time by elected Members and the public in contacting planning officers by telephone.  Over 500 telephone calls are received by the planning control section per week and wherever possible planning support staff will endeavour to answer the enquiry.  Indeed over 50% of calls are answered without needing to refer the caller to another person. 

In those instances where the caller wishes to speak to a specific case officer every effort will be made to put the caller through.  It must, however, be recognised that case officers may be absent from the office or away from their desk in order to undertake site visits, or in meetings with applicants, agents, or other interested parties.  Should the case officer be absent for any reason a message will be taken and passed electronically to the case officer for a response on his/her return.  Case officers are aware that enquiries from elected Members in particular should be afforded priority and undertake to return telephone calls as soon as practically possible. 

In order to improve access to planning services generally, whether in person, by telephone or in writing consideration is also being given to the following measures, with the view to implementing them in the coming months:

• Introduction of a "Duty Officer" system to ensure a professional planner is regularly on hand to deal with technical enquiries, 
• Formulation of agreed service standards for responses to enquiries, 
• The provision of a single e-mail contact addresses to ensure all enquiries are ‘marshalled’ to the appropriate person, 
• Further training is provided to those taking telephone calls to ensure accurate and relevant information is given to all callers, 
• Planning Support resources are reviewed.  Initial evidence indicates that there has been a substantial growth in telephone 'traffic' and existing staffing arrangements may need to be revised to meet growing demand. 

Supplementary Question

I have heard that there is to be a Members hotline but what other measures are to be put in place to improve access for the public?

Response

The measures referred to in the reply given above will improve access by applicants, agents and other parties involved in the planning process, including Members.  The proposals will be discussed with relevant Members before they are implemented.  It is acknowledged that there is still work to do but things have improved over the last year.

Mr P K Beer asked the Chairman of the Committee a question.  The question and answer are reproduced below, together with a supplementary question and response which were given at the meeting.

Question

ERECTION OF FIVE DWELLINGS ON LAND TO THE NORTH OF STEVENSON APPROACH, BROOM STREET, GREAT CORNARD

The planning permission in respect of the above development included 13 conditions, 7 of which required works to be carried out or details to be agreed with the Council before development commenced.  These conditions included the submission of a scheme for the maintenance of the surface water drainage system (condition 12) and the completion of the surface water drainage scheme before occupation of the dwellings (condition 13).

As the surface water drainage conditions have not been fully complied with, what action will now be taken by Babergh District Council to secure compliance?

Response

This planning application was determined in September 2007.  The relevant reference is Paper G89 – Item 11.  The appropriate section of the Minute, subsequently agreed was:       

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

-    Materials
-    Levels
-    As recommended by LHA
-    Landscaping
-    Archaeology
-    Maintenance of soakaways

The subject of “maintenance of soakaways” was addressed in the subsequent planning permission by the imposition of two conditions.

Condition 12 stated that, “Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the maintenance of the surface water drainage system including soakaways shall be submitted to, and agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority”.

Condition 13 stated that, “The surface water drainage scheme shall be constructed and implemented in its entirety prior to the first occupation of the hereby approved dwellings and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 12 above.”

The Developer has addressed Condition 12 by advising the Council he intends to impose a requirement on the property owners to regularly clean and maintain gutters, downpipes and gullies to ensure they remain free flowing.  This has been assessed by Council Officers with reference to the Building Regulation file and it has been concluded that so long as the as soakaways are built as per approved design no problems are foreseen.

In the light of this advice it has not been found appropriate to pursue compliance with this condition further using enforcement powers. 

In relation to Condition 13, none of the approved dwellings has been occupied as yet and the condition has not therefore been breached.  At this stage the Developer has simply been reminded that the Council expects drainage works to be completed at the appropriate time.

Officers are aware that Councillor Beer made a suggestion at the Development Committee that off-site surface water drainage arrangements could have been made on land south-east of Stevenson’s Approach using third party land.  In legal terms, however, there was general concern over the imposition of a condition that required work to be undertaken outside the site of a planning application. 

This matter has been reassessed by the Council’s legal team and the advice has been given that such a condition would not be enforceable.  The Council therefore has no alternative other than to rely upon the Building Regulations to ensure this site is properly drained.  In this connection it is relevant to note that the application submitted for Building Regulation approval also proposes surface water drainage and a soakaway within the area of the playing field. 

Supplementary Question

How can Babergh District Council ensure that the site is properly drained?

Response

Through Building Regulations, as referred to in the answer to the original question (above).

Back to Top

32    SITE INSPECTIONS

Mr R E Kemp requested a site inspection in respect of Application No.B/08/00193, The Dower House, 41 High Street, Long Melford.  A motion to approve was proposed and seconded and on being put to the vote, was carried.

However, Mr Kemp subsequently withdrew his request and Members agreed not to hold a site inspection.

Back to Top

33    PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Members had before them an Addendum to Paper H70 (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 objections and representations received in respect of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 were reported to the meeting and considered and taken into account before a decision was made 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/08/00586                                                      Ms S Horsley (Objector)
                                                                           Mr J Waterson (On behalf of the applicant)

B/08/00644                                                      Mr M Wincer (On behalf of the applicant)

B/08/00873/CDP                                            Ms S Peartree (Parish Council)

                                                                           Mrs K Pollard (Objector)
                                                                           Mr R Snowling (On behalf of the applicant)

B/07/01811                                                      Mrs J Osborne (Town Council)
                                                                           Ms J Riordan  (Objector)
                                                                           Mr A Blackwall (On behalf of the applicant)

B/08/00747                                                      Mr D Pearce (On behalf of the applicant)

B/08/00741                                                      Mr M Maynard (Objector)

B/08/00467 and B/08/00468/LBC                Ms K Clements (Applicant)

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 H70 be made as follows:-

(a)    GREAT CORNARD  Application No. B/08/00586 Paper H70 – Item 1

Full Application – erection of five 2-bedroom dwellings and three 2-bedroom bungalows with associated access and parking – Upper Carsons, 90 Canhams Road.

 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:-

•    Contribution 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 conditions, including:- 

•    Materials
•    Levels (existing and proposed finished ground levels and finished ground floor levels)
•    Landscaping scheme
•    Details of proposed boundary treatments
•    Removal of GPDO rights for the insertion of new extensions and/or openings above ground floor level (including the roof) in any part of the roofs of plots 6-8 (inclusive)
•    Highway conditions (provision of the access, visibility splays, provision of parking/manoeuvring areas gradients etc)
•    As recommended by Head of Contract and Asset Management 

(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:-