2nd April 2008 - Minutes

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, 2 APRIL 2008

Quick Links

84 - Substitutes,
85 - Declaration Of Interests,
86 - Minutes,
87 - Petitions,
88 - Questions From Members,
89 - Site Inspections,
90 - Request For Minor Amendment To Application Reference B/07/00674, Construction Of Garage And Retention Of Stables, Westgate Park, Westgate Street, Long Melford,
91 - Planning Applications For Determination By The Committee,
92 - Review Of The Planning Protocol,
93 - Planning Applications - Local Validation Requirements - Response To Consultation,
94 - Request For Minor Amendments To Application Reference B/05/01330/FUL - Exentsion To Tesco, Woodhall Business Park, Long Melford,

PRESENT:                        Mr A J Hinton – Chairman

Mr P G Gibson and Mr R C Smith were unable to be present.

Ms J A Jenkins, Ward Member for Leavenheath was present at the meeting for Item No. 3 of Paper G238 and spoke on this item with the consent of the Chairman.

Dr M R Miller, Ward Member for Dodnash was present at the meeting for Item No. 10 of Paper G238 and spoke on this item with the consent of the Chairman.

Mr R E Kemp, Ward Member for Long Melford was present at the meeting for Item No. 12 of Paper G238 and spoke on this item with the consent of the Chairman.

Mr J C Brand, Ward Member for Long Melford was present at the meeting for Item No. 12 of Paper G238 and spoke on this item, as an objector under the public speaking section.  He left the room whilst the debate on the item was under consideration.

84 SUBSTITUTES

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

Mrs J Antill (substituting for Mr R C Smith)
Mr A F D W Osborne (substituting for Mr P G Gibson)

Back To Top

85 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr G S White declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/08/00118 by virtue of being part of the Capel Project Team and was not present during consideration of this item. 

Mr B L Lazenby declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Application No. B/08/00166 by virtue of the applicant and the objector both being well known to him and was not present during consideration of this item.

Mr P J Holbrook subsequently declared a personal interest in Application No. B/08/00094 by virtue of being a member of the Dedham Vale Joint Advisory Committee but indicated that his interests were such that he would be able to speak and vote on the matter.

Back To Top

86 MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2008 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Back To Top

87 PETITIONS

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

Application No. B/08/00094 – Former Hostel Site, Plough Lane, Leavenheath

Petition signed by approximately 29 residents of the district.  The petition will be taken into account by the Chief Planning Control Officer when determining the application, under Item 3 of Paper G238.

Back To Top

88 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

Back To Top

89 SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1) That site inspections be held on Wednesday 9 April 2008 in respect of the under-mentioned sites prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-      

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

 Back To Top

90 REQUEST FOR MINOR AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION REFERENCE B/07/00674, CONSTRUCTION OF GARAGE AND RETENTION OF STABLES: WESTGATE PARK, WESTGATE STREET, LONG MELFORD

The Chief Planning Control Officer reported that further significant details had become available and now recommended that a site inspection be held to enable Members to assess the impact of the revisions upon the amenities of adjoining residents and the Conservation Area.

RESOLVED

(1) That consideration of this matter be deferred.

(2) That a site inspection be held on Wednesday 9 April 2008, that the Panel of Members appointed under Minute No. 89 above inspect the site and that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee if appropriate.

Back To Top

91 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Members had before them an addendum to Paper G238 (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 numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 14 were reported to the meeting and were considered and taken into account before a decision was reached.

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/08/00166                                         Mrs R Taylor (Objector)

B/08/00094                                         Mrs B Rowe (On behalf of the Parish Council)
                                                              Ms S Rendall (On behalf of the Applicant)

B/07/01772                                         Mr N Fitzgerald (Objector)

B/08/00322                                         Mr Sealey (On behalf of the Applicant)

B/08/00118                                         Mr S Harris (On behalf of the Parish Council)
                                                              Mr N Farr (Objector)
                                                              Mr G Dodds (On behalf of the Applicant)

B/07/01998                                         Mrs M Francis (Objector)

B/08/00248                                         Mr J Brand (Objector)

B/07/02001                                         Mrs D Lewis (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 G238 be made as follows:-

RESOLVED

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

(2) That a site inspection be held on Wednesday 9 April 2008, that the Panel of Members appointed under Minute No. 89 above inspect the site and that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee if appropriate.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to grant planning permission, subject to a Planning Obligation being secured, a motion to refuse was moved as Members considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policies HS28, HS32, CN01 and CN06.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

RESOLVED

(1) That, the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a planning obligation agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to ensure:

• The use of chalets to be used in conjunction with the day-to-day operation of Stoke-by-Nayland Golf Club.
• A peripheral landscape scheme to be implemented within the first available planting season following the grant of permission.

(2) That, subject to the completion of 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:

• Standard Time limit
• Material samples to be submitted.
• Landscaping.
• Lighting details to be submitted.
• Travel Plan for internal and external vehicular movement.
• As recommended by LHA.
• Sustainability details to be provided on energy and water efficiency and renewable energy generation.
• Recommendations of Ecology Report to be implemented.
• Restrictions of amplified music so that music is inaudible from the application site boundaries.
• Surface and foul drainage details to be submitted.
• Construction management.

(3) That, in the event of the planning obligation referred to in Resolution (2) above not being secured, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

RESOLVED 

(1) That subject to the submission of a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a Section 106 Planning Obligation  to:

a) Ensure that the development is managed in such a way as to meet identified local housing needs in perpetuity; and

b) Restrict occupation to qualifying local residents, aged 60 years or over and having an assessed care need with priority given to those requiring 4 or more hours on site support per week.

(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
• External lighting
• Boundary treatment
• As recommended by CHA
• Archaeology
• Drainage
• Levels
• PD restrictions – no extensions, garages, outbuildings, fences walls or other means of enclosure, no alterations to the external appearance of the dwellings as approved.

(3) That in the event of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) not being secured the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to grant planning permission, a motion to defer to enable clarification over certain points to be made was moved.

RESOLVED

That consideration of this application be deferred to enable clarification to be received relating to the proposed bow window to the front elevation and the position of the rear extension relative to the site boundary.

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to grant planning permission a motion to refuse was moved as Members considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policies EM01, EN25 and TP15.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to refuse planning permission a motion to approve was moved as Members felt that this application was in accordance with PPS7.  Upon being put to the vote this motion was lost.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

• Adverse impact upon the character of the countryside - contrary to the objectives of PPS3 and PPS7, Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 – policies HS02, HS04, and CR01,
• Unsustainable development – contrary to PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPG13, HS02 and HS04.
• Unless the S106 Agreement is completed before the expiry of the application on 17^th April 2008, inadequate provision for public open space being contrary to Policy HS32 and PPG17.
• Inadequate design of access which would have a detrimental impact upon highway safety.
  

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to grant planning permission a motion to refuse was moved as Members considered that the proposal was contrary to Policies EN25 and EM01.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

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 public open space.

(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 conditions, including:

• Materials
• Landscaping and boundary treatments (including protection of the hedgerow during construction works)
• Finished ground and ground floor levels
• Withdrawal of GPDO rights for first floor openings within side elevations (north and south elevations of plot 1 and east and west elevations of plot 2).
• Proposed first floor windows in the south elevation of plot 1 and the east and west elevations of plot 2 (all proposed bathroom/en-suite accommodation)
• Provision of the parking/manoeuvring areas.
• 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:

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:

(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
• Boundary treatment/means of enclosure
• Landscaping
• As recommended by LHA

(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:

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

• Scheme of landscaping
• Details of finishes to windows and doors
• Restriction of Mezzanines
• External Lighting to be agreed
• Drainage details to be agreed.
  

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

• Materials
• Hard and soft landscaping scheme
• Hedge/Tree retention
• External lighting
• Access surfacing
• As required by LHA.

At this point the meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2.10 p.m. when the following Members were present.

Mr A J Hinton – Chairman 

RESOLVED

That planning permission and Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the following condition:

Standard Time limit.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:

Back To Top 

92 REVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROTOCOL

The Monitoring Officer and the Chief Planning Control Officer submitted a joint report (Paper G234) requesting the Committee to consider a review of the Planning Protocol to ensure that it secures best practice in the efficient discharge of the Council’s planning function whilst promoting the highest ethical standards.

It was noted that the Standards Committee had approved the revised Protocol shown as Appendix 1 to Paper G234 subject to some minor corrections.

Recommended to COUNCIL

That the revisions to the Planning Protocol shown as Appendix 1 be adopted with immediate effect subject to the following amendments:

Paragraph 13.6 – fourth bullet point – addition of the words “Ward Member(s) and the” before the word “Parish”.

Paragraph 13.7 – to be amended to read “Any other Members who wish to attend site inspections should first seek the permission of the Chairman of the Committee”.

Back To Top

93 PLANNING APPLICATIONS – LOCAL VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS – RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The Chief Planning Control Officer submitted a report (Paper G240) outlining responses to the public consultation undertaken on the District Council’s ‘Planning Applications: Local Validation Requirements’ document published in January 2008.  The report contained details of the proposed modifications and seeks approval to adopt and publish the revised document

It was noted that, with the agreement of the Chairman of Strategy Committee, the Development Committee were to make recommendations on this matter direct to Council.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

That the Planning Applications: Local Validation Requirements document referred to as Appendix B to Paper G240 be adopted and published for use. 

Back To Top

94 REQUEST FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO APPLICATION REFERENCE B/05/01330/FUL – EXTENSION TO TESCO, WOODHALL BUSINESS PARK, LONG MELFORD

The Chief Planning Control Officer reported that planning permission was granted for the above development on 14 August 2007.  The applicants have submitted a request to amend the internal road/parking layout and landscaping details to parts of the west and south boundaries of the site. Other amendments were also requested. These were un-contentious and have been approved.

A letter of objection has been received from Chilton Parish Council, raising the following concerns:

• The Parish Council has no material objections other than we can see no justifiable reason for the reduction in the planting boundary from 8 to 5 metres and would like to see the 8 metres retained.

The Chief Planning Control Officer is of the view that there would be no material impact upon the character or appearance of the countryside from the reduction in the area for landscaping for the following reasons or impact on highway safety:

• The area of landscaping in question is adjacent to the car park, where a lesser degree of planting would normally be required.
• The landscaping proposed at the affected areas (5 metre wide areas of landscaping) is comparable to the width of landscaped areas adjacent to the extension itself.
• The amendments would not significantly reduce the overall amount of planting proposed.
• The amendments would facilitate safer pedestrian movement within the site without reducing parking capacity.

Resolved

That the minor amendments to the approved plans under B/05/01330 in respect of Tesco Stores Limited, Woodhall Business Park, Long Melford be agreed.

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 3.40 p.m.