Agenda and minutes

The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Fairley (with Councillor Nicholls substituting).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on 4 October 2016.

The minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Tuesday 4 October 2016, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or other interest, and nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor White declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in relation to Planning Applications 16/00656/FUL and 16/00671/FUL by virtue of the fact he was a local Ward Member for St Osyth and Point Clear, a St Osyth Parish Councillor, a resident of St Osyth and by virtue of the fact that he was pre-determined. Councillor White informed the Committee that in line with the Council’s Constitution he would be handing over Chairmanship to the Vice-Chairman (Councillor Heaney) for item 4 on the Agenda.

Councillor Talbot, present in the public gallery declared in relation to Planning Applications 16/00656/FUL and 16/00671/FUL he was a local Ward Member for St Osyth and Point Clear.

16/00656/FUL (West Field): Demolition of existing property at 7 Mill Street and the creation of 72 no. two, three and four bedroom houses, plus associated roads, car parking, garages and landscaping.      

16/00671/FUL (Parkland): Erection of 17 dwellings for use as residential and holiday accommodation (C3 use), restoration of park landscape, bunding, re-grading of 9 hectares of land, construction and alterations to access driveway, landscaping and all ancillary works.

Councillor White had earlier declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in relation to Planning Applications 16/00656/FUL and 16/00671/FUL by virtue of the fact he was a local Ward Member for St Osyth and Point Clear, a St Osyth Parish Councillor, a resident of St Osyth and by virtue of the fact that he was pre-determined. Councillor White therefore withdrew from the Committee and sat in the public gallery, whilst the Committee heard the Officer’s presentation.

Councillor Talbot, present in the public gallery had earlier declared in relation to Planning Applications 16/00656/FUL and 16/00671/FUL he was a local Ward Member for St Osyth and Point Clear.

Councillor Heaney (acting as Chairman), informed the Committee that Councillor McWilliams would sit next to her so that she could note down those who wanted to speak, but that she would not be acting as Vice-Chairman.

It was reported that Planning Applications 16/00656/FUL and 16/00671/FUL were for ‘enabling development’ within and adjoining the grounds of St. Osyth Priory. One application comprised an estate of 72 dwellings on agricultural land to the west of the Priory (the ‘West Field’ development) and the other comprised 17 dwellings for either residential or holiday use located either individually or in groups, in different parts of the Priory’s parkland, each of bespoke design (the ‘Parkland’ development).

It was reported that the purpose of enabling development was to generate funds to be utilised for the repair of a heritage asset (typically a Listed Building(s)). Enabling development, in planning terms, was development which contravened normal planning policies. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) can make an allowance for such developments where the public benefits of securing the future conservation of a heritage asset outweighs the ‘disbenefits’.

Members were informed that both applications were submitted on 27 April 2016 and were due for determination on 7 September 2016. The applicant had appealed to the Secretary of State against non-determination and both applications were now the subject of determination by the Planning Inspectorate. A Public Inquiry was scheduled for November 2016 for consideration of both applications and previous applications for enabling development for which the Inspectors decision to dismiss those applications was quashed.

Members were reminded that because the applications were now for determination by the Planning Inspectorate rather than the Council, the Planning Committee was asked to decide whether or not it would have granted planning permission.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of refusal.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Manager (GG) in respect of both applications.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1) Fifteen additional letters of objection in relation to Planning Application 16/00656/FUL, which had raised objections that had already been outlined in the Officer’s report and two further points raised;

(2) Sixteen additional letters of objection in relation to Planning Application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.