Meeting Details

Planning Committee North
14 Jan 2020 - 14:00 to 16:16
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Visitors
  • Declarations of Interests

Documents

Agenda

Meeting Details
Meetingdetails
MeetingDetails

Members are invited to a Meeting of the Planning Committee North

to be held in the Conference Room, Riverside, Lowestoft,

on Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 2.00pm

Part One - Open To The Public
1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
1
There were no apologies for absence.
2 Declarations of Interest

Members and Officers are invited to make any declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary or Local Non-Pecuniary Interests that they may have in relation to items on the Agenda and are also reminded to make any declarations at any stage during the Meeting if it becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.

2

Councillor Bond declared a Local Non-Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 9 - DC/19/3966/FUL - Field End, Rattle Corner, Theberton, as being Ward Member.

 

Councillor Brooks declared a Local Non-Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 5 - DC/19/1462/FUL - Land adjoining 8 The Street, Darsham, Agenda Item 8 - DC/19/3883/FUL - Land at Ash Spring Game Farm, Westleton Road, Darsham, and Agenda Item 10 - DC/19/3313/FUL - Wren Business Centre, Priory Road, Wrentham, as being Ward Member.

 

Councillor Ceresa declared a Local Non-Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Items 6 and 7 - DC/19/2752/RG3 and DC/19/2754/LBC - Lowestoft Outer Harbour, Lowestoft, and Agenda Item 11 - DC/19/3406/FUL - 303 London Road South, Lowestoft, as being County Councillor for the area.

 

Councillor Elliott declared a Local Non-Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 9 - DC/19/3966/FUL - Field End, Rattle Corner, Therberton, as he knew the Agent.  This declaration was made during discussion on the item.

 

Councillor Pitchers declared a Local Non-Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 11 - DC/19/3406/FUL - 303 London Road South, Lowestoft, as being Ward Member.  This declaration was made during discussion on the item.

 

Councillor Rivett declared a Local Non-Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Items 6 and 7 - DC/19/2752/RG3 and DC/19/2754/LBC - Lowestoft Outer Harbour, Lowestoft, as being the County Council representative on the  Lowestoft Flood Risk Management Project.

3 Declarations of Lobbying and Responses to Lobbying
To receive any Declarations of Lobbying in respect of any item on the agenda and also declarations of any response to that lobbying.  
3
All Members of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied by letter in relation to Agenda Item 5 - DC/19/1462/FUL - Land adjoining 8 The street, Darsham.
Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
4

The Committee received report ES/0264 which summarised the outstanding enforcement cases sanctioned under delegated powers or through the Committee up to  27 December 2019.  There were currently 17 such cases.

 

Councillor Elliott referred to Boasts Industrial Park in Worlingham and explained that he had had several meetings with the owner.  The owner believed he was compliant and would be lodging an appeal.  Councillor Elliott was in communication and would be happy to liaise for a site meeting.

 

In response to a request for an update on Dam Lane, Kessingland, the Assistant Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that since the appeal had been lodged, a site visit had taken place and a decision was currently awaited from the Planning Inspectorate.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the East Suffolk Enforcement Action update report be received and noted.

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
5

The Committee considered report ES/0256 which set out details of the application for the erection of 26 residential dwellings together with associated access, car parking and open space.  

 

The Development Management Team Leader explained that, under the current adopted Development Plan for the Suffolk Coastal area of East Suffolk, the site was not allocated for development and was therefore in the countryside for planning purposes.  It was considered that the proposed development represented housing in the countryside and a departure from the adopted Development Plan, hence the reason the application had been brought to Committee for determination.  He further advised that in the new draft local plan the site had been allocated for development.

 

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site including the location of the new village hall and existing Hopkins & Moore development, views along the road in both directions, the site frontage, views across and from within the site, and the proposed block plan.

 

The Development Management Team Leader advised that it was a full application for 26 dwellings which would include eight affordable homes.  The trees were to be retained and the footpath along the frontage would be within the site boundary.  The proposed dwellings and elevations, as shown, were similar to standard Hopkins developments.  In considering the principle of the development and design, it was considered that there would be minimal impact on the character and appearance of the area as the design and landscape features were satisfactory.  The vehicle access was considered to be safe and suitable by the Highway Authority.  Whilst there might be some disruption on residential amenity during the building works, this would be dealt with by a Construction Management Plan by condition.  Although some hedgerow and trees would be removed to facilitate visibility splays from the highway access point, the preservation of the oak trees on the frontage was welcomed.  Local objection to the application had been considered fully but there were public benefits and associated economic benefits as a result of the housing being provided and issues raised could be dealt with by planning condition.  Approval was being recommended.  

 

The Chairman invited questions.

 

Members raised questions relating to:

-  House types.

-  Other developments in the village.

-  Conditions on construction management plans.

-  Single storey dwellings for older people.

-  Security and lighting affecting the clear skies policy.

-  The timing of the application against the draft local plan.

 

The Development Management Team Leader advised that the housing mix and affordable housing was set out in paragraph 7.12 of the report; there were no single storey dwellings proposed for this site.  There were two allocated sites in Darsham, one for 25 homes and a larger strategic development for 120 dwellings near to the railway station.  He confirmed that there was currently a five year housing supply in the former Suffolk Coastal area.  The new Draft Plan was at the examination stage with two representations made on the site allocation policy (SCLP12.49).  One was outstanding and that was from the Parish Council objecting to the allocation which would reduce the amount of weight that could be given to policy SCLP12.49 in the Plan.  However, the site was in a sustainable location and adjacent to existing development.  Officer concerns had been addressed by the site layout and a comprehensive lighting strategy would be in place.   The Planning Development Manager advise Members that they could not refuse the application on prematurity; the draft plan was well advanced and weight could be attached to relevant policies.  At the Regulation 9 consultation, there had been only two objections to the site allocation policy.

 

The Chairman invited the public speakers to address the Committee.

 

On behalf of objectors, Mr Manning explained that the residents of Darsham had huge objections and questioned the suitability of the site and its affect on the environment.  The Suffolk Coastal plan had indicated 145 houses by 2036 and this application would result in the housing allocation for the parish to be exceeded.  A number of planning applications had been approved in the last 20 years even through there was a low population.  The site might have been identified in the draft local plan but it had not been adopted and now was the time to protect small villages.  It was unsuitable, over-development and would cause more disruption in the village.  The Millfield development of 15 dwellings, complete and occupied, included four and five bedroomed houses which did not meet any local housing needs.  Consideration should be given to the environment, use of resources and ecology and local authorities should not exploit green land for a development that did not need to be built.

 

In response to a Member's question, Mr Manning advised that on Cheyney Green 24 were under construction with only one having been sold and there were 15 dwellings proposed on the other site.  Development and disruption had been ongoing for some six years.

 

On behalf of Darsham Parish Council, Mr Leggate explained the view of the Parish Council in that they were not 'nimbies' but they were going against the Planning Department's recommendation.  Darsham was a village, with the best village hall in the area, but there had been too much development recently.  There needed to be sensitivity and respect for the villages' wishes in that the land should not be developed for at least 10 years.  There had already been too many houses in too short a time and new residents needed to be integrated into the village.  Since 2012 there had been a 33% increase in houses, this would put the numbers up to 49% even though only two houses had been built.  It was important that the Committee considered the wishes of the village and postpone this development.  For consultations to have any meaning at all, the strong wishes of Darsham should be recognised and the application should not be approved at this time.

 

A Member asked if the Planning Inspector was aware of the Parish's request to delay the development and Mr Leggate confirmed that was the case.  The Parish Council was objecting to the development proceeding now, but was not objecting to it at some future date.

 

Mr Smith, Applicant, addressed the Committee on behalf of Hopkins & Moore, and advised that since the application had been submitted, they had developed and refined details so the application now being considered kept the character of the area.  The Planning Officer was satisfied that all technical and local requirements could be addressed.  The development included a number of affordable homes, a Section 106 Agreement and relevant financial contributions.  Mr Smith asked Members to concur with the officer's recommendation and support the proposals by granting planning permission. 

 

The Chairman invited questions to Mr Smith.

 

Members sought clarification as to why, considering the views of the Parish Council, there was urgent need for the development, how would the concerns over construction traffic be met and whether the footpath width would be suitable for both pedestrians and cyclists with a shared width of 2.5m.  Mr Smith advised that the purpose of Hopkins & Moore was to build and deliver houses.  This site could be developed quickly in 18-24 months and would include affordable homes.  A Construction Management Plan would set out parking including that for site workers, hours of work, storage of materials and access into the site, the highway network would not be blocked.  At this stage, the proposed  frontage footpath was 1.8m as required by the Highway Authority and in addition there was an informal link through the site and access to the open space. 

 

The Chairman invited questions to officers.

 

A question was raised as to the staggering of development and if the Parish Council would be requested to feed into the Construction Management Plan.  In response, the Planning Development Manager explained that the emerging policy in the Local Plan had not proposed any staged development.  The principle of the development was to be accepted.  Hopkins Homes would be on site and could develop quickly.  Whoever wished to buy the properties was not a planning issue.  Standard conditions were being proposed including the development being started within a period of three years beginning with the date of the permission, which was normal practice.  The Planning Inspector could amend policies in the Local Plan but any such amendments  to the allocation policy were not known at the present time.  It would be possible to consult the Parish Council and take its views into account with regard to the Construction Management Plan.

 

During the ensuing debate, Members raised issues relating to taking the views of the Parish Council into account; however, there was a balance between delaying the works or getting all construction in the village done at the same time resulting in one period of disturbance.  Some Members were not convinced that the development was necessary and could be considered to be very intensive, excessive and over-development.  If proposals such as this continued, all villages would be lost and consumed by building works.  The timing of the application between the old Plan and the new Draft Local Plan was questioned and it was considered that to approve such an application before the Planning Inspectors report would be unwise.

 

The Head of Planning and Coastal Management noted Members' comments and advised that the timing of applications could not be enforced; this one had come forward before the adoption of the Local Plan.  Although the Parish Council was concerned about the scale of development, this was not the only village that was affected.  He pointed out that the site was sustainable and could be developed and it was not appropriate to refuse permission just to delay the development.  An option available to Members was to defer making a decision until the outcome of the Inspectors report was to hand.  The Head of Planning and Coastal Management anticipated initial comments from the Inspector might be received by the end of the month.  The Committee had the option to defer or approve the application in accordance with the officer's recommendation.  It was anticipated that any modifications to the Draft Local Plan would be notified to the Council during April with the plan going to Full Council in May.

 

It was proposed, and duly seconded, that the Committee should wait for the Inspector's report before making a decision on the application and it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

That a decision be deferred until such time as the Planning Inspector's report, following examination, was received detailing his views on proposed policies.

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
9

The Chairman announced that Agenda Items 6 and 7 would be taken together.

 

The Committee considered report ES/0257 which gave details of the planning application for the construction of tidal flood walls in Lowestoft Outer Harbour to provide a 1 in 200 AEP (Annual Exceedence Probability) standard of protection against tidal flooding to residential and commercial areas of Lowestoft. 

 

The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that the project delivered improved tidal flood resilience to Lowestoft by building up sea defences in areas where levels were too low to offer effective defence and provided temporary barriers and flood gates where gaps for access occurred.  The application was before committee as the Applicant was the Council and also there was significant public interest.

 

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site which was in three main areas; south side of the bridge, the yacht club, slipway and environs, and north of the bridge around the trawl basin.  Detailed cross sections were shown, the proposed weld mesh fence was considered to be less intrusive and the limited height of the wall could be increased at a later date.

 

The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer outlined the material planning considerations and key issues including the principle, the listed building setting and Conservation Area, and the fact that it was considered there would be no material change that would cause harm to the landscape.  There might be some affect on the amenity during construction due to piling works; however, a Construction Management Plan was being requested by condition.  Approval was being sought subject to relevant conditions and a further response from the Environment Agency.

 

In response to a question relating to the permanence of the structure, the Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that the demountable barriers were permanent, it was the section above ground level that could be removed.  The in-ground pilings would not be removed and had a 100 year life span.  The access itself was too wide for flood gates and the removal of the relevant section was to allow access.

 

The Chairman reminded Members that the provision of flood defences was a long standing project to safeguard Lowestoft and support major improvements for the regeneration of the town.  The Committee supported the proposal and it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

That authority to determine the application be granted, subject to the following conditions (including any additional conditions and alterations to the drawing schedule as may be required by the expected response from the Environment Agency); or if this response has not been received or further work is requested by the Agency, to return delegated powers to officers on this matter:

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

                                                                                    

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

 

2.   The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in all respects strictly in accordance with drawings with prefix 676284 and the following suffixes:

Location plans: PL300, PL301, PL302, PL303 all revision 0 showing definitive red lined site extents and; Detailed works plans reference PL111 rev 5, PL112 rev 6, PL113 rev 1, PL114 rev 3, PL115 rev 4, PL116 rev 4, PL117 rev 3, PL118 rev 3, PL119 rev 4 and; Details and sections: PL200 rev 4 (details), PL201 rev 5 (sections CC, DD, EE), PL202 rev 5 (details), PL203 rev 4 (club walls), PL204 rev 3 (section FF), PL205 rev 3 (Sections GG, HH), PL206 rev 6 (Sections II, JJ, KK, LL), PL208 rev 3 (demountable barriers), PL209 rev 4 (Sections MM, NN, etc), PL210 rev 4 Sections PP thro' SS) and CH2M 2016 Geotechnical desk study;  WYG (2017) factual report on ground investigations, Geotechnical Interpretative Report (CH2M, 2017), Technical memorandum Lowestoft FRMP - chemical testing (CH2M, 2018),  Jacobs 2019 GW technical note (annex L of Flood Risk Assessment);  Jacobs 2019 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment, Jacobs 2019 Environmental Statement,  Jacobs 2019 Piling Risk Assessment all received 10 July 2019, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

                                                                                    

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

 

3.   Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission no development/No development approved by this planning permission, shall commence until a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site in respect of the development hereby permitted, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. This strategy will include the following components:

  • An options appraisal and remediation strategy for the two copper hotspots identified in BH04 at 0.4m and in WS03 at 1.0m, giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
  • A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy (in 2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
  • Any changes to these components require the written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

                                                                                    

Reason:  To ensure that the development does not contribute to unacceptable levels of water pollution in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.    To prevent deterioration of a water quality element to a lower status class in the permeable superficial deposits, the underlying Crag aquifer, and the coastal sea waters.

 

4.   Prior to each phase of development being brought into use, a verification report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met.

 

Reason:  To ensure that the site does not pose any further risk to the water environment by demonstrating that the requirements of the approved verification plan have been met and that remediation of the site is complete. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

5.   If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

                                                                                    

Reason:  To ensure that the development does not contribute to, is not put at unacceptable risk from, or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution from previously unidentified contamination sources at the development site. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  To prevent deterioration of a water quality element to a lower status class in the above-mentioned water bodies.

                                                                                    

 

6.   A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This should contain information on how noise, dust, and light will be controlled so as to not cause nuisance to occupiers of neighbouring properties.  The works shall be conducted in accordance with the plan.

 

Reason:  To limit impact on sensitive receptors arising from construction work.

 

7.   No development shall commence until details of the strategy for the disposal of surface water on the site (including assessment and management of surface water flood volumes) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

                                                                                      

Reason:  To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal, to ensure that the proposed development can be adequately drained

 

8.   No development shall commence until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the strategy for the disposal of surface water on the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

                                                                                      

Reason:  To ensure clear arrangements are in place for ongoing operation and maintenance of the disposal of surface water drainage.

 

9.   The infrastructure hereby permitted shall not be operational until details of all Sustainable Drainage System components and piped networks have been submitted, in an approved form, to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority's Flood Risk Asset Register.

                                                                                      

Reason:  To ensure that the Sustainable Drainage System has been implemented as permitted and that all flood risk assets and their owners are recorded onto the LLFA's statutory flood risk asset register as per s21 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in order to enable the proper management of flood risk with the county of Suffolk

https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/flood-risk-asset-register/ 

 

10.   No development shall commence until details of a Construction Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) detailing how surface water and storm water will be managed on the site during construction (including demolition and site clearance operations) is submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The CSWMP shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan for the duration of construction. The approved CSWMP and shall include:

a. Method statements, scaled and dimensioned plans and drawings detailing surface water management proposals to include :-

    i.   Temporary drainage systems

   ii.    Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and watercourses

   iii.   Measures for managing any on or offsite flood risk associated with construction

                                                                                      

Reason:  To ensure the development does not cause increased flood risk, or pollution of watercourses or groundwater

                                                                                      

11.   Further details on the design and colour of the fencing shall be submitted in written and drawn form and approved by the Local Planning Authority before installation.  Works shall then proceed in conformity to the approved plans and specifications. 

                                                                                    

Reason:  To ensure the fence is designed in a manner appropriate to the Conservation Area.

 

12.   The reconstructed pier to the yacht club landward walls shall incorporate the slight batter found in the existing piers, and use the same brick and bond pattern as the existing and a mortar mix to match the colour of the original. 

(Note that the original panels were lime mortar and this was less successful in the environment where road salt acted to damage this material, a coloured cementitious material might be more practicable).

                                                                                    

Reason:  To ensure exact reproduction of the wall details where the submitted details are not clear with regard to the wall batter)

 

13.   The recommendations in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), CH2M, July 2017; PEA Addendum, Jacobs, August 2018; Kittiwake Survey, CH2M, August 2017; Bat Risk Assessment, CH2M, August 2017 and Japanese Kelp Survey, Abrehart Ecology, July 2018) for mitigation of impact shall be carried out in full and shall be accompanied by an updated survey for nesting kittiwakes to be undertaken (in the appropriate season) prior to construction commencing and any further mitigation suggested as a result of this survey carried out.

 

Reason: To protect the ecology of the harbour area and protected sites for wildlife.

                                                                                    

14.   No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

                                                                                      

a.  The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording.

b.  The programme for post investigation assessment.

c.  Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording.

d.  Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation.

e.  Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation.

f.  Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

g.  The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To ensure the historic interest of the area is properly investigated.

                                                                                    

15.   No works within the highway associated with the permitted development shall be commenced until details of those works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in co-operation with the Highway Authority.

Reason:  To ensure that any works within the highway are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification in the interests of highway safety.

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
10

The Committee considered report ES/0258 which was for Listed Building Consent for the construction of tidal flood walls in Lowestoft Outer Harbour to provide a 1 in 200 (0.5%) AEP standard of protection against direct tidal flooding to residential and commercial areas of Lowestoft, forming part of a project that delivered significant public benefits.  This was required to preserve the special interest of the yacht club, a Grade II star listed building.

 

Having considered and approved the application under Item 6 on the Agenda, it was unanimously 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission/listed building consent be granted, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 18 of the Act (as amended).

 

2.   The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in all respects strictly in accordance with drawings with prefix 676284 and the following suffixes:

 

Location plans: PL300, PL301, PL302, PL303 all revision 0 showing definitive red lined site extents and;

Detailed works plans reference PL111 rev 5, PL112 rev 6, and;

Details and sections:  PL203 rev 4 (club walls), PL204 rev 3 (section FF), PL205 rev 3 (Sections GG, HH), and the Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment by ASE (Report No: 2019119v2 of April 2019),

 

all received 10 July 2019, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

 

3.   Before the works are complete, the Heritage Statement for the Royal Norfolk and Suffolk Yacht Club (June 2019), shall be deposited with the Suffolk County Council Historic Environment Record.

 

Reason: To ensure recording of historic assets.

 

4.   The reconstructed pier to the yacht club landward walls shall incorporate the slight batter found in the existing piers and use the same brick and bond pattern as the existing and a mortar mix to match the colour of the original. 

           

Reason:  To ensure exact reproduction of the wall details where the submitted details are not clear with regard to the wall batter).

 

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
6

The Committee considered report ES/0259 which gave details of the application for a change of use of the land for the siting of temporary accommodation to supervise the expansion of a game rearing unit.  The farm had been operating for 18 years rearing a combined total of approximately 20,000 pheasant and partridge poults annually and it now wished to expand to a full time business increasing reared numbers to 60,000 per annum.  

 

Members were shown photographs and location plans of the site, an aerial view, the site access, the area required for rearing the birds and block plan drawing of the proposed mobile home with its floor plan.  The site was in an isolated location where special justification was required for residential dwellings as highlighted in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Council's adopted Spatial Strategy policies.  The Applicant had sought to demonstrate that there was an essential need for a full-time employee to live on-site for the management, welfare, health and security of the birds at the game farm.

 

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer drew attention to the key issues relating to the demonstrated need which had been looked at by consultants, details of which were set out in the report paragraph 7.18 onwards, the need to ensure the business was financially sustainable, lack of alternative accommodation, design and impact on the amenity.  Although objections had been received, the need had been demonstrated and there were no other suitable properties in the area.  The proposed accommodation would be in sight and sound of the pens and the style of log cabin would not be seen off site.  It was considered there would be no significant impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.  The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that the permission requested was for a temporary dwelling for a period of three years which would allow the Applicant to demonstrate the viability of the business and approval was therefore being recommended.  The building could be dismantled and removed from the site at the end of that period if the functional need was not created or ceased to exist.

 

The Chairman invited questions.

 

Members questioned:

-  The amount of birds on the size of the site.

-  Gas heaters.

-  Occupancy of the proposed wooden cabin and number resident.

-  What was different if previous applications had been refused.

 

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that the acreage of the site was suitable for the number of birds being proposed.  With an increase in birds and gas heaters, the independent assessor's view was that someone would need to live on site because of several factors, as set out in paragraph 7.25 in the report,as well as on-site security of both birds and machinery.  The permission, if granted, would allow occupancy all year for three years and it was understood that two people would live on site.  The business plan that had been submitted supported the application.

 

The Chairman invited the public speaker to address the Committee.

 

On behalf of the Parish Council, Mr Manning advised Members that the application had been before the Parish Council on six previous occasions and each of those had been opposed by the former Suffolk Coastal District Council and Suffolk County Council.  Why, after 17 years, was the welfare of the birds suddenly at risk when the operation could continue as now.  Paragraph 55 of the NPPF stated that isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there was need by a rural worker.  There were currently extra houses in the village that could accommodate people and at all stages there had been objections to these applications.  The consultant's study had disregarded planning laws to protect the countryside and it was incomprehensible that anyone would consider granting the application.  Mr Manning urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

Members  welcomed the officer's thorough report and were of the opinion that it was important to support rural businesses.  The need for a full-time worker was noted.  The aspirations in the economic growth plan supported such aims and it was understood that the relative low pay for agricultural workers made it difficult for them to find affordable accommodation.  There being no further debate, it was unanimously 

 

RESOLVED

 

That permission be granted, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The mobile home hereby permitted shall be for a maximum period of three years from the date of this permission, after which time the structure shall be removed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and the land reinstated to its former condition.

 

Reason:  A temporary permission has been granted to allow the opportunity to develop the business.

 

2.   The occupation of the mobile home shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed in the Game Rearing business on the site, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.

           

Reason:  The site is in a location where new dwellings would not normally be permitted. The mobile home has been approved because of the need for on-site supervision of the game rearing business and this condition is imposed to ensure that it remains available for that use.

 

3.   The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the proposed floor plan and elevations received 03 October 2019, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

 

4.   The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

 

Reason:  To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity

 

5.   No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a site investigation consisting of the following components has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:

 

a) A desk study and site reconnaissance, including:

- a detailed appraisal of the history of the site;

- an inspection and assessment of current site conditions;

- an assessment of the potential types, quantities and locations of hazardous materials and contaminants considered to potentially exist on site;

- a conceptual site model indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and

- a preliminary assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed).

 

b) Where deemed necessary following the desk study and site reconnaissance an intrusive investigation(s), including:

- the locations and nature of sampling points (including logs with descriptions of the materials encountered) and justification for the sampling strategy;

- an explanation and justification for the analytical strategy;

- a revised conceptual site model; and

- a revised assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed).

 

All site investigations must be undertaken by a competent person and conform with current guidance and best practice, including: BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11.

 

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

6.   No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The RMS must include, but is not limited to:

- details of all works to be undertaken including proposed methodologies, drawings and plans, materials, specifications and site management procedures;

- an explanation, including justification, for the selection of the proposed remediation methodology(ies);

- proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria; and

- proposals for validating the remediation and, where appropriate, for future maintenance and monitoring.

 

The RMS must be prepared by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including CLR11.

 

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

7.   Prior to any occupation or use of the approved development the RMS approved under condition 6 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

 

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

8.   A validation report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any occupation or use of the approved development. The validation report must include, but is not limited to:

- results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met;

- evidence that any RMS approved in pursuance of conditions appended to this consent has been carried out competently, effectively and in its entirety; and

- evidence that remediation has been effective and that, as a minimum, the site will not qualify as contaminated land as defined by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

9.   In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority.

 

Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.

 

An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

 

Following completion of the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

 

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
8

The Committee considered report ES/0260 which gave details of the application for the erection of an accommodation unit for temporary agricultural workers.  

 

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer advised that the application was before Committee because there was no policy in place in the Local Plan covering accommodation for seasonal agricultural dwellings in the countryside.  Up to 15 seasonal workers were required between March to November due to the intensification of the site with regard to the main crops of onions and potatoes.

 

Members were shown photographs and location plans of the site including the access road leading to the main road.  The application also covered the removal of two trees from the site but they were not considered to be significant.  The block plan gave an indication of the siting of the detached single storey accommodation unit and a further slide showed the proposed floor plan and elevations.

 

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer explained the material planning considerations and key issues which were principle of development, design, amenity, highways and ecology.  There was a need for the accommodation in a location adjacent to the site as it was not possible to accommodate seasonal workers nearby.  The design was acceptable, there were no adverse issues relating to impact on the amenity, parking was to be provided and no flood risk had been identified.  The potential impact could be mitigated by a contribution to the Suffolk Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) and that contribution had already been made.  The proposal was considered acceptable and approval was recommended subject to a Section 106 Agreement controlling occupancy.

 

The Chairman invited the public speaker to address the Committee.

 

The Agent, Mr Hannon, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak.  He wished to make a couple of points, firstly, that the Council might need to think of adopting a relevant policy relating to housing for temporary agricultural workers as there were a significant number in the county now requiring accommodation.  Housing in the towns did not work, particularly as most workers were on site at 5 a.m.  The proposal for this accommodation was a way of finding an appropriate solution for 10 months of the year, that being March to mid December.  It was a sustainable way to accommodate agricultural workers and Mr Hannon hoped Members would support the proposal and approve the application.

 

The Chairman invited questions.

 

In response to Members' questions, Mr Hannon confirmed that short term lettings usually wanted the accommodation to be taken for a whole year whereas agricultural workers required accommodation for a period of five months and the cost to seasonal workers was too high. The unit being proposed comprised six bedrooms and three shower rooms. 

 

Members agreed that, because of the tourism and agriculture in the area, it would be an important step to have a policy on accommodation for seasonal workers.  The Committee appreciated the difficulty in obtaining suitable properties to rent and there being no further discussion, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That permission be granted, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to control occupancy of the new accommodation unit and the following conditions:

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

 

Reason:  In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

 

2.   The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with:

-  Site Location Plan, GA 03, received 09/10/2019,

-  Tree Survey Plan, GA 04, received 09/10/2019,

-  Section Plan, GA 05, received 09/10/2019,

-  Proposed Plan, GA 02, received 09/10/2019,

-  Flood risk assessment, received 09/10/2019,

for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

           

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

 

3.   Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles including secure cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter and used for no other purpose.

           

Reason: To ensure the provision and long term maintenance of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2019) where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety.

           

NOTE: Suffolk Guidance for Parking 2019 outlines a minimum of 3 vehicle parking spaces and 2 secure cycle spaces for a Class C3 dwelling with 4+ bedrooms.

 

4.   The areas to be provided for storage of Refuse/Recycling bins as shown on Drawing No. GA02 shall be provided in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.

 

Reason:  To ensure that refuse recycling bins are not stored on the highway causing obstruction and dangers for other users.

 

5.   In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.

           

An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

           

Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

           

Following completion of the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

           

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
7

The Committee considered report ES/0261 which set out details of a full planning application (part retrospective) for the permanent retention of 10 caravans for seasonal agricultural workers in their existing location and siting of an additional four caravans for seasonal agricultural workers at Wren Business Centre.

 

Members were shown photographs and location plans of the site including views of the surrounding area and from within the site.  The site was well screened by hedging and the proposed block plan gave an indication of the layout of the caravans.  It was considered there was a need to provide accommodation on-site for seasonal workers as the growing of asparagus was labour intensive.

 

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer explained the material planning considerations and key issues which were the principle of the development, design and landscape, impact on the amenity, highways and ecology.  He reminded Members that three previous temporary permissions had been granted since 2006 and there were no highways issues.  There was a good separation from neighbouring properties and the site was well screened.  The workers were transported to work in the fields and the site was within walking distance of Wrentham village.  The purpose of the application was to keep the caravans on site all year; however, if this application was not granted, the caravans could remain but not for all year.  The site was located within 13km of the nearest European Protected Habitat Site but, given the form and level of development, on-site mitigation measures were not required other than a per unit contribution to the Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (RAMS). Whilst the proposal was a departure from the Local Plan, it was considered that the need for accommodation had been satisfactorily provided and approval was being recommended.

 

The Chairman invited questions.

 

Members sought clarification on:

-  Comments from the Parish Council.

-  Removal of caravans at the end of the season.

-  Highways holding objection.

-  Cycle parking.

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer confirmed that no comments had been received from Wrentham Parish Council.  Over the last 14 years, the caravans had not been removed at the end of each season.  Whilst Highways had commented that there was no parking provision, that should not be an issue because the workers accommodated on-site did not usually have cars as bicycles were their usual mode of transport.  The Applicant had not considered sheltered cycle parking was appropriate and such a facility had not been requested on previous temporary consents.

 

The Committee agreed to approve the application but asked that the Applicant be requested to provide a suitable bike shelter   There being no further discussion, it was unanimously 

 

RESOLVED

 

That permission be granted, subject to the RAMS contribution being received and the following conditions:

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the following plans and documents:

  • Location plan, received 22/08/2019
  • Block Plan, received 22/08/2019

for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

 

2.   Within 6 months of the caravans hereby permitted no longer being required in connection with the operation of the farm on which they are sited, the use of the land for caravans shall cease, and the caravans shall be removed and the land shall be returned to its original state.

 

Reason:  Having regard to the non-permanent nature of the caravans and the special circumstances put forward by the applicant.

 

3.   The occupation of the caravans hereby approved shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Reason: the site is in an area where dwellings would not normally be permitted unless special circumstances have been demonstrated which would justify an exception to policy.

 

4.   The caravans hereby permitted shall only be occupied between 1 January until 31 October inclusive, and not at any other time during the year.

 

Reason:  To secure the seasonal nature of the accommodation as put forward by the Applicant and to ensure that the accommodation would not be occupied full time.

 

5.   Prior to the next occupation of the caravans or any further ground works, hereby approved, no development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a site investigation consisting of the following components has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:

 

1) A desk study and site reconnaissance, including:

- a detailed appraisal of the history of the site;

- an inspection and assessment of current site conditions;

- an assessment of the potential types, quantities and locations of hazardous materials and contaminants considered to potentially exist on site;

- a conceptual site model indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and

- a preliminary assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed).

 

2) Where deemed necessary following the desk study and site reconnaissance an intrusive investigation(s), including:

- the locations and nature of sampling points (including logs with descriptions of the materials encountered) and justification for the sampling strategy;

- explanation and justification for the analytical strategy;

- a revised conceptual site model; and

- a revised assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed).

 

3) Where deemed necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS), following the desk study, site reconnaissance and intrusive investigation(s), shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The RMS must include, but is not limited to:

- details of all works to be undertaken including proposed methodologies, drawings and plans, materials, specifications and site management procedures;

- an explanation, including justification, for the selection of the proposed remediation methodology(ies);

- proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria; and

- proposals for validating the remediation and, where appropriate, for future maintenance and monitoring.

 

All site investigations and the RMS must be undertaken by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and CLR11.

 

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

6.   Prior to any occupation or use of the approved development the RMS approved under condition 6 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

           

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

7.   A validation report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any occupation or use of the approved development. The validation report must include, but is not limited to:

- results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met;

- evidence that the RMS approved under condition 6 has been carried out competently, effectively and in its entirety; and

- evidence that remediation has been effective and that, as a minimum, the site will not qualify as contaminated land as defined by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

           

The validation report must be prepared by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, CIRIA C735 and CLR11.

           

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

 

8.   In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.

           

An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 and CLR11) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

           

Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works. Following completion of the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

           

Reason:  To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
11

The Committee considered report ES/0262 which was for the change of use from cafe to gallery and treatment room, to remove a dangerous and unsightly concrete facade and install railings to the front at first floor, reinstate former front door, demolish modern C20 single storey rear element, reconfigure layout and increase courtyard.  The application was considered to be a departure from policy and was therefore before the Committee for determination.

 

Members were shown photographs and location plans of the site including views along London Road South. and the property frontage which was to be changed by the proposals.  Members viewed the existing and proposed elevations and the block plan gave an indication of the layout for the art gallery, workshop and treatment room.  The Applicant lived above the premises and would be making changes to the upper floors.  The site was located in the new Heritage Action Zone but that zoning was not yet in place.

 

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer understood that the premises had been empty for eight years, although other advice stated two years.  There was a minor policy conflict regarding the change of use but that was considered acceptable as the proposal would result in the reuse of premises and enhance the area.  No objections had been received in relation to the proposed change of use and associated alterations.  The proposal represented an acceptable use within a commercial area and the application was recommended for approval.

 

The Chairman invited questions.

 

In response to a request for details of the change of use, the Area Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that it was from A3 to partial A1 mixed use.

 

Members welcomed the proposal and agreed that the frontage of the property needed tidying.  Proposals to bring businesses into the town were welcomed and it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

 

That permission be granted, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

1.  The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

 

 

Reason:  In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

 

 

2.  The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with plans numbered AB1 -06.08.2019, AB2 - 06.08.2019, AB3 -06.08.2019 and AB4 - 06.08.2019 received 30 august 2019, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

 

 

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

 

 

3. The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building or as otherwise unless annotated on the application form and/or drawing hereby approved.

 

 

Reason:  To ensure the satisfactory external appearance of the development. 

Report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management
12

The Committee considered report ES/0263 which gave details of the application for the installation of new mechanical plant for the internal coldroom behind a timber fence with new gate, all on a concrete base, with the existing rear door increased in width and the area around raised to form a level threshold.  

 

The application was before Committee as the Council was the landowner.

 

Members were shown photographs and location plans of the site including views of its position which showed that the plant would be hidden at the rear of the building and the proposed floor plans.

 

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that the proposal was considered to have limited impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and on the amenity of neighbouring residents.  The principle and detail of the development was acceptable and in compliance with relevant Development Plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.  As such, approval was being recommended.

 

Members accepted the officer's recommendation and unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

That permission be granted, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

           

Reason:  In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

 

2.   The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with:

- Location, floorplan, and elevations, 3549.01, received 22/10/2019,

- Noise Assessment, 88874 REV 00, received 30/10/2019;

for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

           

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

13 Quality of Place Awards 2019
To receive a short presentation on the 2019 Quality of Place Awards from the Design and Conservation Officer.
13

The Design and Conservation Officer explained the background to the Annual Quality of Place Awards and gave a presentation to the meeting explaining the four categories of Design, Building Conservation, Landscape and Community.  The Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management, Councillor Ritchie, chaired the judging panel and the awards had been presented on 20 November 2019.

 

Design - Joint Winner

71 Kirkley Run, Lowestoft and The Listening Station & Watch Room, Reydon

 

Design - Highly Commended

Lords Terrace & Sole Bay Terrace, Southwold and Prospect Place, Framlingham

 

Building Conservation Winner

Sibton Abbey

 

Landscape Winner

Sutton Hoo

 

Community Winner

Kelsale Signpost Restoration

 

The Design and Conservation Officer advised that the awards would continue to run every year and the scheme would be open up soon for applications to be put forward with judging in November.  It was important to encourage the community to participate.

 

The Chairman thanked the Design and Conservation Officer for a very interesting presentation.

Announcement
The Chairman announced that he would re-order the items on the Agenda to take those items with public speakers first.  He would take Agenda items 5, 8 and 10 and then work through the remaining items.
Part Two - Confidential

There are no Exempt or Confidential items for this Agenda.

Meeting Documents

Attendance

NameReason for Sending ApologySubstituted By
No apology information has been recorded for the meeting.
NameReason for AbsenceSubstituted By
No absentee information has been recorded for the meeting.

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Officers present:
Sarah Carter (Democratic Services Officer), Liz Beighton (Planning Development Manager), Joe Blackmore (Development Management Team Leader), Matthew Gee (Area Planning and Enforcement Officer), Mia Glass (Assistant Planning and Enforcement Officer), Chris Green (Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer), Eloise Limmer (Design and Conservation Officer), Philip Ridley (Head of Planning and Coastal Management), Iain Robertson (Area Planning and Enforcement Officer), Mel Van de Pieterman (Area Planning and Enforcement Officer)