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 8 NOVEMBER 2006

PRESENT: Mr A J Hinton – Chairman

Mr C W Arthey and Mr J J Quinlan were unable to attend.

Dr M R Miller, Ward Member for Dodnash, was present at the meeting for Item No. 4 of Paper F116 and spoke on the item with the consent of the Chairman.

52     DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr P K Beer subsequently declared a personal interest in Application No. B/06/1413 (Paper F116 – Item 2) 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.

53     MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record, subject to the resolution under Minute No. 50 – Item (f) being amended to read “That, subject to the garaging being satisfactorily repositioned, planning permission be granted subject to conditions, to include the following:-

· Landscaping, including the maintenance of the hedge at a minimum height of 3m.”

54     PETITIONS

None received.

55     QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

56     SITE INSPECTIONS

RESOLVED

(1)     That site inspections be held on Wednesday 15 November 2006 in respect of the under-mentioned sites, prior to consideration of the applications by the Committee:-

BURES ST MARY

Mr P J Holbrook, Ward Member for Bures St Mary, requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact on the Conservation Area, the neighbouring listed building and residential amenity.

GREAT CORNARD

Mr C W Arthey, Ward Member for North Cosford, had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on residential amenity.

HADLEIGH

Miss J J Chapman, Ward Member for Hadleigh (South), requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on the neighbouring property.

LONG MELFORD

Mr R E Kemp, Ward Member for Long Melford, had requested a site inspection to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on the neighbouring area.

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

57     PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Details of further objections and representations received in respect of Item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 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 F116 be made as follows:-

(a)     COCKFIELD

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to refuse planning permission, a motion of approval was moved because, although the policy provision would support only a conversion of the building, taking the proposal as a whole into account, the unique setting of the site and the survival of part of the building enabling it to be converted to one holiday unit, it was expedient to grant planning permission in this case.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(b)     PINEWOOD

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:-

It is the Council’s general intention to provide for wider housing opportunities, choice and a better mix in the size, tenure, type and location of housing. In this case the Council has noted that the character of this area of Pinewood derives in the main from existing two-storey family dwellings and bungalows suitable for elderly and retired people. The use, the subject of this application, involves a house in multiple occupation. The Council has concluded that the use of No. 2 Appleby Close as a house in multiple occupation, being occupied by up to 14 persons, would adversely affect the character of the locality and the amenities that local residents should reasonably be expected to enjoy by way of the activity associated with a property, especially by reason of the noise and general disturbance likely to be generated by the proposed use.

(c)     BENTLEY

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to approve planning permission, a motion of refusal was moved because Members considered that the application would not meet sustainable development objectives. On being put to the vote this motion was lost. Whilst Members accepted that a condition had been included in the recommendation to restrict the work carried out in the building to agricultural and vehicle repairs only, they agreed that a restriction was required on the size of the vehicle to be repaired.

RESOLVED

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

· As recommended by County Highway Authority

· Hours of operation

· Restriction to agricultural and vehicle repairs only

· No external lighting or floodlighting

· As recommended by Environment Agency

· No storage outside the confines of the building and external storage areas

· No retail sales from the building

· No extensions to the building

· Restriction on size of vehicle to be repaired

(d)     HADLEIGH

Members noted that this application had been presented to the Development Committee as one of the applicants is a staff member of the Council.

The Monitoring Officer had discussed the procedures with the Case Officer and reviewed the application file and was satisfied that the application had been processed normally.

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 upgrading of existing areas of public open space in the locality.

(2)     That subject to the planning obligation referred to in resolution (1) above being secured and no new issues being raised as a result of the outstanding public consultation exercise, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

· Material to be agreed

· Landscaping

· Boundary treatment

· As recommended by County Highway Authority

· Levels

· No further opening to side elevations or roof

· Removal of PD rights for extensions, outbuildings etc

(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:

· Contrary to Policy HS32

· Non payment of financial contribution to the provision or upgrade of existing areas of public open space

· As recommended by County Highway Authority

(e)     ELMSETT

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

(f)     STUTTON

RESOLVED

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

· Materials

· As recommended by County Highway Authority

· Prior demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding

· Drainage

· Landscaping (including hard surface details)

· Demolition materials to be removed from the site.

(g)     LITTLE WALDINGFIELD

RESOLVED

(1)     That subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended plans and details the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to secure a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the applicant:-

· Not to use the land until it has been laid out as a tennis court

· To complete the construction of the tennis court to the satisfaction of the LPA within 12 months of the date of permission and thereafter maintain the land as a tennis court

· If not so completed within the specified period and thereafter maintained, to remove the concrete slab and reinstate the land in accordance with the requirements of the LPA.

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

· Details of the construction and finish of the court, surround and fencing

· Landscaping

(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:-

· Proposal contrary to policies ENV3 and ENV4 of the Suffolk Structure Plan 2001, and Planning Policy CR01 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006).

Note: The meeting was adjourned between 11.05 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. for refreshments.

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

Chairman