Minutes - 1 July 2009

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, 1 JULY 2009

PRESENT:   Mr P K Beer - Vice Chairman in the Chair

The following Members were unable to be present:-

Mr J R B Cave, Mr D C Rose and Mr R W Thake.

Mrs S P Clark, Ward Member for Berners was present at the meeting and spoke on Item 1 of Paper J47 with the consent of the Chairman.

17 - Substitutes
18 - Declaration of Interests
19 - Minutes
20 - Petitions
21 - Questions from Members
22 - Site Inspections
23 - Planning Applications for Determination by the Committe
24 - Public Speaking Arrangements for HMS Ganges - Reserved Matters

17        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 J R B Cave)

Mrs S M Wigglesworth (substituting for Mr D C Rose)

Mr B D Hurren (substituting for Mr R W Thake).

• Top of page

18        DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

None declared.

• Top of page

19        MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2009 be confirmed and signed as a correct record subject to the inclusion of an additional paragraph under Minute No. 10 – Declaration of Interests –  to read as follows:-

Mr G S White declared a personal interest in Application Number B/09/00191 (Paper J30 – Item 1) as a member of the Capel St Mary Parish Council.  He stated that he was able to speak and vote on the matter in question. 

• Top of page

20        PETITIONS

The Director of Corporate Services reported in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No.13 the receipt of the following petitions which had been submitted to the Chief Executive:-

(a)       Application No. B/09/000510 – 3 Shepherds Drive – Development of Garden Land at Lawshall

Petition dated 23 June 2009 signed by approximately 157 residents of the District requesting Babergh to stop giving permission for building other dwellings in gardens and small plots adjacent to existing properties.  The petition states that this practice has led to massive overcrowding in certain areas in Lawshall. 

The petition will be taken into account specifically in relation to the determination of Application No B/09/00510 – construction of single storey dwelling, 3 Shepherds Drive, which is likely to be dealt with at the Development Committee meeting on 29 July.

The organiser of the petition has also raised issues in connection with the need for national planning policy guidelines and has written separately to Tim Yeo MP about this matter.

(b)       Application No.B/09/00649 – Construction of a new preschool building – Proposed Children’s Centre East Bergholt Primary School

Petition dated 23 June 2009 signed by approximately 149 residents of the District in support of Application No B/09/00649 submitted by Suffolk County Council for the construction of a new pre-school building.

The petition will be taken into account in relation to the Committee’s consideration as a consultee.  The application is expected to be presented to the meeting of the Committee on 29 July.

In accordance with Procedure Rules, the Chief Executive will report the receipt of both petitions to the next Council meeting.

• Top of page

21        QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

• Top of page

22        SITE INSPECTIONS

(1)       That site inspections be held on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 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:-                 

23        PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE

Members had before them an Addendum to Paper J47 (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 representations received in respect of Item Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 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/09/00095                                           Mr J Nicholson (Objector)
                                                               Mrs F Clark (Applicant)

B/09/00533                                          Mr R Gates (Boxford Parish Council)
                                                              Mrs M Haythornthwaite (Applicant)

B/09/00548                                          Mr P McGregor (Applicant)

B/09/00028                                          Mr J Norton (Applicant)

B/08/01067 and                                   Mr R Keeble (Applicant)
B/08/01068/LBC

B/09/00516                                          Mr S Gurney (Objector)

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 J47 be made as follows:-

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to grant planning permission, a motion to refuse permission for reasons relating to policies CR02 and CN22 was moved but lost on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED

(1)       That subject to there being no additional material planning objections received within the notification period the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following condition:-

·    Hours of use of the floodlights shall be restricted to between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.

(2)       That an advisory note be attached to the decision notice relating to the personal nature of the development.

• Top of page

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer to refuse planning permission for reasons relating to policies CN01, CN08 and HS33 and in relation to highway safety, a motion to grant planning permission was proposed and seconded, and carried on being put to the vote.  A majority of Committee Members voted for approval because they did not accept that the proposal represented an inappropriate form of development detrimental to the amenity, character and appearance of the host property’s setting within the Conservation Area.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

• Top of page

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The erection of 2 three storey dwellings as proposed would be contrary to Policies CN01, HS28, HS30 and HS01 of the Babergh District Local Plan Alt 2 (2006). Policy HS01 states that housing development should have no adverse impact on the environment, Policy HS30 states that all new development shall be of a high standard of layout and design, Policy CN01 states that all new development will be required to be of an appropriate scale, form, and detailed design for the location paying particular attention to the scale, form and nature of the development and environment surrounding the site and Policy HS28 which states that planning applications for infill development will be refused where the proposal represents an over development of the site to the detriment of the environment, residential amenity and character of the area or be out of keeping with adjacent and nearby dwellings. The proposal is also contrary to Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan which requires new development to be of high quality which complements the distinctive character and best qualities of the local area with new buildings of an appropriate scale, founded on clear site analysis and urban design principles.

The proposal by virtue of its height, visual scale and design (in particular the fenestration, rear projection and dormer windows) in isolation and when viewed against surrounding development would result in a harmful, visually dominant addition to the street scene.  The development would be incongruous in a very prominent location within Girling Street jarring with the scale, appearance and character of adjacent properties.  The development as proposed would not be of a high standard of design representing an over development of the site to the detriment of the character of the locality and residential amenity (by way of loss of light and overbearing to the occupants of 38 Girling Street).  The proposal is therefore contrary to the aforementioned policies. 

2.     Policy HS32 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006) states that proposals ranging from a single dwelling up to the development of a 1.5 hectare site will be required to provide open space and play equipment in proportion to the number of dwellings to be built. Developers will be given the choice to either provide a financial contribution to secure public open space and play equipment on an alternative site or provide 10% of the application site as public open space. The Local Planning Authority has identified a need for the provision of public open space and play equipment across the District, however, no contribution to its delivery is made by this planning application.  The development would, if approved, be prejudicial to the Council's strategy to establish a comprehensive long-term framework for the development of outdoor playing space provision throughout the District

3.      Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) states that in considering individual planning applications, the potential for contamination to be present must be considered in relation to the existing use and circumstances of the land, the proposed new use and the possibility of encountering contamination during development.  PPS23 states that where there is a sensitive use proposed, such as residential, the local authority should require at least a desk study of previous uses and the potential for contamination (A Phase 1 Contaminated Land Survey).  In the absence of this information the applicant has failed to demonstrate that sensitive end users would not be put at an unacceptable risk with regards to contaminated land.

Note: Any future application for development of more than a single dwelling on this site would be referred to the Committee for consideration.     

• Top of page

RESOLVED

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

·     No alterations, additions or further solar roof panels, or modifications to the external walls and roof of the structure without the submission of a formal planning application.

• Top of page

During the course of the discussion on this item Members asked whether there would be any public access to the garden if planning permission and Listed Building Consent were to be granted.  The Chief Planning Control Officer advised that it would be possible with the consent of the applicant to make appropriate provision within the Section 106 Planning Obligation.

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 for:

·       A financial contribution for off-site affordable housing provision
·       A financial contribution for off-site public open space provision
·       Open space provision on the site
·       A phased programme of construction work to secure conservation works at appropriate points during the development
·       The tying of the walled garden and associated structures, and their maintenance, to Plot 11
·       The preclusion of any sub-division of the walled garden 
·       Public access to the walled garden.

(2)     That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation referred to in Resolution (1) above to the satisfaction of the Solicitor to the Council, the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

·    Standard Time Limit for Commencement
·    Materials (including fenestration and finishes)
·    Design details (Plot 11)
·    Landscaping
·    Details of Boundary Treatments/Screen Walls/Fences
·    Hard surface treatments
·    As required by LHA.
·    Contamination
·    Mitigation for bats
·    Monitoring programme for works close to trees, as per Arboricultural Statement
·    Removal of ‘Permitted Development Rights’ for extensions, alterations, roof additions, outbuildings and means of enclosure
·    As requested by EA, in respect of ecology and sustainable construction
·    Archaeology
·    To address on-site energy generation.

(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:

·    The applications fail to secure the identified conservation works in line with an agreed phasing of development
·    The applications fail to make provision for public open space in accordance with policy HS31
·    The applications fail to provide for affordable housing, in accordance with policy HS08
·     The proposals would not represent an acceptable departure from the provisions of the Local Plan (Policy HS02)
·     Lack of provision for public access to the walled garden.

(4)     That Listed Building Consent be granted in respect of the conservation works.

Mr P Jones voted against the decision to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent and asked that his vote be recorded in the Minutes.

• Top of page

Mr R C Smith, Ward Member for Sudbury (North) requested a site inspection to assess the impact on the neighbouring property.  

RESOLVED

(1)     That consideration of the recommendation of the Chief Planning Control Officer contained in Item 8 of Paper J47 be deferred.

(2)     That a site inspection be held on Wednesday 8 July 2009, that the Panel of Members appointed under Minute No.22 above be appointed to inspect the site and that a report thereon be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee, if appropriate.

• Top of page

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 P K Beer – Vice-Chairman in the Chair

(g)       HADLEIGH

           Application No. B/09/00573                Full Application – erection of 2 two-storey
           Paper J47 – Item 2                               side extensions and erection of a single-
                                                                         storey rear sun room extension Friars 
                                                                         Hall Nursing Home, Friars Road.
            
RESOLVED

That subject to there being no objections to the proposal from the local highway authority the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following condition:-

·    Details of materials.

• Top of page

RESOLVED

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

·     Matching materials/finishes.

• Top of page

24       PUBLIC SPEAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR HMS GANGES – RESERVED MATTERS

The Director of Corporate Services reported that under the Council’s policy for public speaking on planning applications there is provision for only one representative from each group to speak save in exceptional circumstances.

Due to the public interest in the Application, (for approval of Reserved Matters for a Retirement Community) and after consultation between Officers and the Chairman, alterations to the normal arrangements for public speaking were recommended to the Committee.  The Chief Planning Control Officer clarified the position regarding Outline and Reserved Matters Applications on the site in response to questions from Members.

RESOLVED

(1)     That the time limit for speeches from the Applicant (or their representative) and the representative of Shotley Parish Council be extended from three minutes to five minutes.

(2)      That up to four speakers be entitled to speak from each of

(a)     the objectors’ group and

(b)    the supporters’ group

 for up to three minutes per speaker.

• Top of page

The business of the meeting was concluded at 2.40 p.m.

                                                                         ...........................................................................                                                                                 Chairman