STOWMARKET TOWN COUNCIL

Transcription

1 STOWMARKET TOWN COUNCIL Minutes of the Meeting of the PLANNING, CONSULTATION & STRATEGY COMMITTEE held in the John Milton Room, Milton Road South, Stowmarket on Wednesday, 16 th July, 2014 at 7.00pm. Present: Councillor Mrs L M Mayes (Chair) Councillors: In attendance: G M Brewster N G K Gowrley G Green Mrs P J E Robinson N J Rozier Mrs V I Waspe D S Whybrow (Vice-Chair) Ms M L Marshall (Deputy Town Clerk) Present: Mr D G Blackburn (Town Clerk) Miss S T Goonan (Accounting & Finance Manager) 85. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTIONS Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Humphries, D J MacPherson and B J Salmon. Councillor N G K Gowrley attended the meeting in the absence of Councillor D J MacPherson. Councillor Mrs P J E Robinson attended the meeting in the absence of Councillor B Humphreys. 86. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS Councillor G M Brewster declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 89, items for planning permission, as a Member of Mid Suffolk District Council s Development Control Committee B. Councillors G M Brewster and D J Whybrow declared non-pecuniary interests in item 89, planning application 1892/14 as the applicant is known to them. Councillor Mrs L M Mayes declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 89, items for planning permission, as a Member of Mid Suffolk District Council s Development Control Committee A. Councillor Mrs L M Mayes declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 89, planning application 2033/14 as the applicant is known to her. Councillor G M Brewster declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 91, The Edgecomb Park Development Brief as an employee of the Combs Ford Surgery. 42

2 87. DISPENSATIONS IN RESPECT OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were none. 88. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 2 ND JULY, 2014 RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning, Consultation & Strategy Committee held on Wednesday, 2 nd July, 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record. 89. PLANNING APPLICATIONS i) New Applications Councillors G M Brewster and Mrs L M Mayes requested that it be noted that any views that they expressed regarding the planning applications were their views in their capacity as Town Councillors. Ref. No. Details Site & Applicant Comments 0958/14 New fascia signage, repairs and repainting to front of listed building. 5-7 Ipswich Street for Card Factory. recommended that the planning application be refused due to the fact that the proposed internally illuminated signage would not be in keeping with the conservation area contrary to planning policies HB8 and HB /14 Installation of 2 no. new windows to side elevation of dwelling and erection of single storey rear extension (following demolition of existing conservatory). 101b Lime Tree Place for Miss E Wetherill. application subject to there being no relevant objection from neighbouring residents regarding loss of amenity. 1650/14 Erection of extension to building 86a for compressor housing. Premier White Paints, Akzonobel, Needham Road for Premier White Paints, Akzonobel, Ne. RESOLVED: That, with regard to planning policy ECON01, the Town Council 1690/14 Erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing. 9 Shimpling Close for Mr R Gooding. 43

3 1709/14 Replacement of existing manual hinged timber/glazed doors between booking hall and platform lobby with single aluminium/glazed sliding door (Retrospective Application). 1728/14 Erection of single storey rear extension. 1870/14 Proposed single storey rear extension and associated works. 1892/14 Erection of two storey side extension. 2033/14 Erection of new single storey private residential dwelling with separate double garage with creation of new vehicular access. National Express East Anglia, Stowmarket Railway Station, Station Road East for Abellio Greater Anglia. 20 Finborough Road for Mr and Mrs Redhead. 47 Campion Crescent for Mr P Gregory. 1 The Crescent for Mr and Mrs Snow. 72 Finborough Road for Mr D Hopgood. wished to record its disappointment of the fact that the planning application had been submitted retrospectively and recommended refusal of the application on the following grounds: i) That, contrary to planning policy HB1, the installation of the new automatic doors did not protect the historical listed building; ii) That contrary to planning policy HB3, the installation of the new automatic doors had detrimentally affected the architectural and historical character of the building; and iii) That the Town Council is of the opinion that with careful thought and planning there would have been a satisfactory way to automate the wooden doors without the need for removal. recommended refusal of the planning application on the following grounds: i) That the proposed extension would represent overdevelopment of the site contrary to planning policy H18; ii) That the proposed extension would not respect the scale and density of the surrounding development contrary to planning policy GP1; and iii) That the proposed extension would bring forward the building line which would differ significantly from the building line of the adjacent properties. recommended refusal of the planning The Town Council acknowledges the change from the previous proposal of a 1½ storey dwelling to this application of a 1 storey dwelling, however, it considers that the proposed ridge height is too high. 44

4 2070/14 Change of use of building to a vehicle repair and service centre (Use Class B2). Former Dairy Depot, Prentice Road for Mr De Silva. The Town Council would wish to submit the following comments: That the proposed dwelling would represent overdevelopment of the site. If the site were to be viewed in isolation, the plot size would be large enough for the proposed dwelling, however, when viewed in context with the existing dwelling the proposed dwelling would be inappropriate to the setting. Finborough Road features substantial dwellings with large gardens and contrary to planning policy H15, the proposed dwelling would not be consistent with the pattern and form of development in the neighbouring area and the character of its setting. It is felt that the proposed dwelling would cause a loss of amenity to the residents of Rydal Close contrary to planning policy H16. The Town Council would also wish to raise concerns of the narrow downhill exit on to Finborough Road, which if the application were to be given, approval would create an incremental increase in highway conflict. If the Planning Authority were to grant approval of the planning application, the Town Council would wish to see the following: i) The inclusion of a condition which prevents any conversion of the loft space to create additional rooms; and ii) The inclusion of a condition to ensure that suitable and sufficient landscaping be installed following removal of the 3.2m high conifer hedge. recommended refusal of the planning The Town Council would wish to see the building brought into use but has concerns regarding car parking arrangements, specifically the parking of those cars which were due to be worked on or had been worked on and were waiting for collection. 45

5 ii) Decisions on applications previously considered Ref. No. MSDC Decision 3647/13 Granted 0358/14 Refused 0592/14 Granted 0864/14 Refused 0933/14 Granted 1059/14 Granted 1200/14 Granted The Committee was disappointed to be informed of the granting of planning permission for planning application 3647/13 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 10 dwellings. Construction of new vehicular access. The Town Council opposed the grant of planning permission in the strongest terms. Gipping Way was created as a distributor road for the town and as such there were no residential properties which had direct access on to Gipping Way. The Town Council had concerns that a precedent would be set leading to other householders applying for access on to Gipping Way. The Town Council also opposed the grant of planning permission due to the loss of an element of the green corridor that runs the length of Gipping Way and requests that Planning Officers take steps to ensure that mitigation measures are taken to address this matter. Finally the Town Council would like to request that it be given a say in how s.106 monies arising from the development are spent in order to reduce some of the negative impacts that the development will place upon the town. iii) New Tree Preservation Orders There were none. iv) Other applications in hand but not listed There were none. 90. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE The Deputy Town Clerk submitted report PCS/01/1415, copy on report file, regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule issued by Mid Suffolk District Council and Babergh District Council. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), was a new planning charge levied on buildings and extensions to buildings based on the floor area of the development. The Community Infrastructure Levy came into force on 6 th April, 2010 through the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended by the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations The CIL enabled local authorities in England and Wales to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area. It ensured that development contributed to 46

6 the infrastructure which was needed to support growth in an area. The money that was raised could be used for a wide range of infrastructure needed to support new development such as schools, health and social care facilities, open space provision, cultural and sporting facilities, new road schemes, road safety scheme improvements and flood defences. Peter Brett Associates LLP was contracted by Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils to produce a viability study on the implementation of CIL and to recommend the CIL charging rates. The committee was invited to respond to the consultation. RESOLVED: That the following be submitted to Mid Suffolk District Council in respect of the consultation: Question 1. Do you feel that the proposed rates are suitably informed by the viability evidence provided in the Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study? The Town Council has every confidence that the District Council will have ensured that the proposed rates set out in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule have been informed by the viability evidence provided in the Community Infrastructure Levy Study. Question 2. Do you believe the evidence on viability is correct? The Town Council has every confidence that the District Council will have ensured that the evidence on viability is correct. On a specific point, the Town Council wishes to raise a query with regard to paragraph 6.7 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan with records that: The Pickerel Project. has provided match funding of 250,000 raised by the Pickerel Project Group. The Town Council is not aware that the Pickerel Project has raised 250,000 and requests that this point be reviewed and clarified in the text. Question 3. Do you think the rates proposed strike an appropriate balance between helping to fund infrastructure through CIL and the potential effects of imposing CIL on the viability of development set out in the Local Plan? The Town Council recognises that the Community Infrastructure Levy should provide an appropriate contribution towards the funding of community infrastructure whilst not deterring potential developers from providing inward investment into Stowmarket. We would suggest that there are some significant deficits that are becoming evident in the town regarding the provision of infrastructure which could become more acute as the town grows further in the future. Hence, we believe that the provision of appropriate amenities and infrastructure are important in helping to make Stowmarket a sustainable community. However, the Town Council understands that a balance must be achieved in the CIL charging schedule or developers will choose other areas in preference to Stowmarket. Therefore, based upon the evidence provided within the draft charging schedule, we believe that the District Council has sought to achieve an appropriate balance with regard to encouraging development and applying an appropriate Community Infrastructure Levy. We also note that Section 106 contributions may still be sought outside the CIL framework to provide additional resources to fund the provision of community infrastructure. Question 4. Do you think the Council should introduce an instalments policy for payment of CIL monies? The Town Council is not entirely clear about what obligations might be imposed upon developers through the introduction of an instalments policy. However, any system that would enable investment in community infrastructure to take place at the outset, or alongside residential or commercial development would be beneficial for the local community. This would seem to support the phased release of CIL monies. 47

7 Question 5. Do you think the Council should include discretionary relief from CIL for charitable investment or exceptional circumstances? On the matter of discretionary relief from CIL, the Town Council believes that there must be an opportunity to consider each case upon its individual merits where exceptional circumstances have been claimed. Without such a safety net, it is possible that charges may be applied that are inappropriate. However, we suggest that discretionary relief should only be awarded in a narrowly defined set of circumstances. Such an arrangement could presume that relief is only awarded where they the body concerned can demonstrate that they are pure charities meeting basic human needs. For example, operations with strong trading activities such as housing associations, would, not be eligible for discretionary relief unless they were able to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Question 6. Are the indicative areas of infrastructure to be wholly or partly funded by CIL appropriate? The Town Council understands that that the final detailed Regulation 123 Infrastructure lists will be consulted upon before being finalised. The Town Council anticipates that it will participate in this process and careful consideration will be given at that point to the future infrastructure priorities for Stowmarket. The Town Council has reviewed the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and is concerned that population/provision ratios that are set out within SPDs are being used to justify the provision of a growing number of community facilities which may not be financially sustainable or meet the needs of the local community. For example, we would suggest that the provision of additional pocket play areas with few items of play equipment do not represent a good use of developer contributions, and fewer, more strategically deployed play areas seem to represent a better course of action and use of resources. Similarly, new community centres are being proposed for each new housing development (e.g. Chilton Leys and Ashes Farm) and the Town Council contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the need for new community buildings in all parts of the town. Other uses of CIL should be prioritised to address the deficit in sports amenities as well as meeting the health and education needs of the local community. The funding gap between the forecast costs of new infrastructure ( 106 million) and Community Infrastructure Levy charges ( million) is concerning and it is essential that all CIL funding is used effectively in the future. Therefore, the Town Council would welcome the opportunity to engage with the District Council and other key stakeholders about how to prioritise infrastructure projects and how to bridge the substantial funding gap that exists. Question 7. Do you have any other comments on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule or supporting evidence? The Town Council has indicated its broad support for the contents of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan and has recognised that it would not necessarily be beneficial to the local community, or certainly justifiable in terms of the use of public funds, if it was to seek to develop a separate Neighbourhood Plan for Stowmarket. However, the Town Council reserves its position on this matter. The Town Council had understood from previous discussions with the District Council, that it would be entitled to receive 15% of CIL rather than 25% of CIL. However, the draft charging schedule suggests that this would be constrained significantly by capping the maximum CIL charge to 100 per dwelling. We understand that this provision is in line with government policy in seeking to encourage Parish Councils to develop their own Neighbourhood Plans by granting more CIL monies to those that do so. However, we would suggest that this is unfair and unreasonable in our particular circumstances as the Stowmarket Area Action Plan is, at this point in time, our Neighbourhood Plan. Therefore, we request that the District Council considers what discretion it is able, and prepared, to exercise in these circumstances. We would welcome discussions between the District and Town Councils that might address this anomaly. 48

8 We would also wish to extend a formal invitation to Mid Suffolk District Council Officers to attend a meeting of the Town Council so that our Members can gain a greater appreciation of the Community Infrastructure Levy and how it will meet the infrastructure requirements of the town in the future. 91. EDGECOMB PARK DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF The Deputy Town Clerk submitted report PCS/02/1415, copy on report file, regarding the Edgecomb Park Draft Development Brief. The land off Farriers Hill and Poplar Hill had been allocated as land for residential development and public open spaces as part of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan. The Stowmarket Area Action Plan required the creation of the Development Brief in order to shape planning proposals. The approved Development Brief had the status of a material planning consideration. The proposal comprised up to 185 dwellings, predominantly bungalows, including sheltered/supported housing and affordable housing. The proposal also comprised improved public transport links, footpath and cyclepath improvements and provision of public open space. The committee was invited to respond to the consultation. RESOLVED: i) That with regard to chapter 6 - Highway Services Vehicular Access, the Committee raised a concern about the traffic infrastructure to service the proposed development. The Committee noted that the concern had been raised at previous meetings but had not been taken into account in the preparation of the Draft Development Brief. The concern was thus: That the access to the Edgecomb Park development was proposed to be provided at two points namely via Edgecomb Road and a new access via Poplar Hill. Edgecomb Road was a very well used residential road and the proposal to provide access to 75 new dwellings via the road would further increase the traffic pressure. The Town Council urged the District Council to work with the developers to find a suitable alternative access for the 75 dwellings. ii) That with regard to chapter 6 Highway Services Sewage and Drainage, the Committee raised a concern of the extra strain to be placed on the existing foul sewage system. The Town Council recommended that Anglian Water carried out a full inspection of the foul sewage system to ascertain the effects that the additional dwellings would place on the system. iii) That with regard to the provision of healthcare services, the Committee raised a concern of the additional pressure that would be placed upon the Combs Ford Surgery. The Combs Ford Surgery was serving the maximum number of patients and any increase in people registering with the surgery would have an adverse effect on the services that it provided. 92. ITEMS OF REPORT AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE There were none. The meeting closed at 8.17pm. CHAIRMAN 49