DEBENHAM PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes
of the Extraordinary Planning Meeting held on Monday 21st August
2006 at 7.30 p.m. at Dove Cottage
Present: Councillors Mr M
Morley (in the chair), Mrs H Huish, Mrs L Cockerton, Mr B Fisher, Mr R Walters,
Mrs C Hellier, Mrs I Bull, the Clerk Miss N Rush and thirteen members of the
public.
|
1.
|
Apologies for absence. Apologies
received from Cllr’s Evans, Moreton, Skelton and Lorenzo. It was noted that
no apologies received from Cllr Grover.
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
To receive declarations of
interest relating to this agenda. Cllr Bull declared a
personal interest in item 5.1.
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
To approve Minutes of the
Planning Meeting held 10th July 06. Members were requested to
check the minutes for accuracy. Cllr
Walters proposed, seconded by Cllr Huish seven agreed, one abstention that
the minutes be signed as a true and correct record.
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Suspension of standing
orders: for ten minutes: to allow members of the public to speak. All agreed
that standing orders be suspended at 7.34pm. Mr Bill Stowe
addressed Council regarding his concerns over the loss of natural light and
personal view from his rear windows if the application for the proposed
garden room extension to No 34 Gracechurch Street was approved. Cllr Morley
stated that loss of private view was not a material planning consideration
although loss of light was. Mr Rutherford informed members that he was a
retired Structural Engineer and that in his experience the application
regarding the proposed four bedroom detached house
on the land at the rear of Stone Cottage in Priory Lane required very
careful consideration. Historically any small blockage in the river at that
point had resulted in water backing up into the village causing houses to
become flooded. Standing orders
resumed 7.42pm
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Planning applications
|
Cllr Bull left the
room having declared an interest under item 2
|
5.1
|
1585/06 Land to rear of
Stone Cottage, Priory Lane.
Erection of detached
four bedroom house and cartlodge garage. Members of the Council and Public
gallery were invited to inspect the plans. The Clerk informed the meeting
that thirteen letters of objection had been received; the summary of which
was read to those present. A letter from the Environment Agency dated the 17th
August 06 stated that they objected to the proposal due to there being no
evidence of the sequential test in PPG25 being applied. The meeting was
informed that the PPG25 states that the government expects developers and
local authorities to apply a risk based approach and that they should be able
to demonstrate that no other reasonable locations are available to the
developer in a lower flood risk zone consistent with other sustainable
development objectives within the district.
The letter also stated that the site is subject to fluvial flooding
and falls into the flood zone 3 category of the Environment Agency maps. Chairman asked
members to note that the only hard evidence of potential extra flooding
available is the hydrological survey carried out on behalf of the applicant.
Many had voiced concerns but Council’s decision should be based, as much as
possible, on available evidence.
One member stated that
historically the council opposed building in flood zones and that the only
other application in the area had been passed approximately 10 years ago
before the 2004 alteration to the regulations A more recent application in
another part of the village had included significant engineering measures to
prevent flood damage to the property and surrounding area. The Councillor
concluded that the plans for the proposed build at the rear of Stone Cottage
incorporated insufficient measures to mitigate risk to the property or
surrounding area. The applicant requested to speak and informed Council that
Suffolk County Council had offered to install extra drainage to the road
adjacent to the proposed build if the application was passed. One member
questioned who would pay for the extra drainage, for which the answer was
unclear. It was also noted that there would be considerable visual impact on
the Hoggs Kiss woodland and wild flower area which would be in contravention
of Local Plan guideline CL4. Cllr Huish proposed seconded by Cllr Fisher that
the Council does not support the application on the grounds of contravening
PPG25 and CL4 of the local plan and insufficient evidence that flood risk was
mitigated by the development submitted. Amended
proposal received from Cllr Morley, seconded by Cllr Hellier stating that
this Council objects to development of this property on the grounds outlined by the Environment Agency in the
letter dated the 17th August 06 in that the sequential test had
not been satisfied. Furthermore Council does not support the application on
the grounds that it contravenes PPG25 and CL4 of the Local Plan, plus the
impact of additional traffic and car parking in the narrow lane. Four
in favour two against, amendment
carried. One member questioned whether the planning rules had been
contravened with regard to the hedge bordering the site at the rear of Stone
Cottage being cut out to allow for a driveway. It was agreed that this would
be an agenda item for a future meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Cllr Bull
rejoined the meeting
|
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
1771/06 34 Gracechurch
Street. Rear single storey extension to form
garden room. 8.14pm members examined the application and rejoined the
table at 8.16pm. The Chair informed the meeting that, although
omitted from the specification, confirmation had been received from MSDC
Planning department that the materials which would be used for the proposed
garden room would match the existing building. Council noted the comments
made by Mr Stowe under standing orders and concluded that the proposed would
not have windows overlooking Mr Stowe’s property therefore there would be no
loss of privacy. Members agreed that there might be a loss of natural light
and amenity. One Councillor recollected to member the flooding problems
caused by considerable water run off which affected Henniker Road when the adjacent Knights Close was
built. Concern was raised over whether the large additional footprint would
cause further run off unless significant drainage is installed to prevent a
reoccurrence of flooding. Cllr Huish
proposed, seconded by Cllr Cockerton all
in favour that the Council recommends refusal for this application on the
grounds that the increased footprint is likely to exacerbate the historical
flooding in Henniker Road properties unless significant
engineering work is undertaken. It was also felt that the changed
relationship with adjacent buildings could result in reduced amenity to No 1
Knights Close. Motion
Carried
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Applications received since publication of
agenda. No other
applications received
|
|
Meeting adjourned for one
minute. Reconvened at 8.31pm
|
|
7.
|
Suspension of standing orders: for ten minutes:
to allow members of the public to speak. All agreed that standing orders be
suspended at 8.31pm. Mr Cork the
applicant for item 5.1 informed the meeting that Suffolk County Council would
install the road drainage in relation to the development. Mr Cork further
thanked the Chair for the even handed way in which the application had been
handled and stated that the letter from the Environment Agency dated the 17th
August 06 referred to ‘our’ plans where the letter from them dated 28th
November 05 clearly stated that there was no data available to formulate a
plan. Mr Rutherford informed the meeting that the drainage already installed
in the area by Suffolk County Council was inadequate and the offer of further
drainage in the road adjacent to the proposed development gave no confidence.
Mr Saddler-Bridge stated that there needed to be an agreed standard for river
maintenance and that the Environment Agency was not aware of the flow rates
of the River Deben as is passes through Debenham. However now that they have
the consultation report supplied by Mr Cork they now have additional
information of what is happening in the valley. Standing orders resumed 8.39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
To agree on final recommendations for submission
to MSDC Planning
Department. Cllr Hellier proposed, seconded by
Cllr Fisher, three in favour two against that the recommendation made under item 5.1 is
submitted to MSDC Planning Department. Motion
Carried
Cllr Walters proposed, seconded by Cllr Huish all
in favour that the
recommendation made under item 5.2 is submitted to MSDC Planning
Department. Motion Carried
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
MSDC notifications received: The Clerk informed members of
the following notifications:
1304/06 40
Gracechurch Street, Debenham. Proposed single storey side extension. Planning Permission Granted
1258/06 26
Raewald Way, Debenham. Conservatory to rear
elevation. Planning Permission Granted
|
|
10.
|
Date
of next planning meeting Monday 11th September 06
|
Meeting closed 8.49pm