MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF SIBLE HEDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL HELD IN THE MEETING ROOM AT THE PARISH COUNCIL OFFICE, 75 SWAN STREET, SIBLE HEDINGHAM ON FRIDAY, 28th MARCH 2008 AT 4.45 PM .

In the chair: Miss C. Cannell
Present: Cllrs. J. Beavis, G. Massey and J. Skittrall
Mr. A. Corder-Birch (Clerk)
together with 3 (three) members of the public.

Apologies for absence Cllrs. S. Brown, R. Falco and R. Green.

Declarations of interest:
The following interests were declared:
Mrs. J. Beavis, Miss. C. Cannell and Mrs. G. Massey declared personal interests in connection with the application relating to 19 Church Street as they know the applicant.
Mrs. J. Beavis, Miss. C. Cannell and Mrs. G. Massey declared personal interests in connection with the application relating to land at the rear of 132, 134 and 136 Swan Street as they know the objectors.

3. Minutes of previous meeting
The minutes of the previous Planning Committee Meeting held on 22nd February 2008, having been previously circulated, were taken as read, were confirmed and duly signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

4. Matters arising from those minutes
There were no matters arising.

5. Public Comment
Mrs. R. Jenkin and Mr. G. R. & Mrs. T. J. Farthing spoke against the application for erection of two no. residential dwellings on land at rear of 132, 134 and 136 Swan Street. (Please see below for full details of objections).

6. Planning Applications
The following planning applications were considered:

08/00357/FUL – 19 Church Street – Erection of timber framed cart lodge – no objection.

08/00473/ELD – Old Woodyard, Southey Green Road – Application for a certificate of lawfulness for an existing use – Use of land for external storage – It was resolved to oppose this application on the grounds that the original conditions were not complied with and those conditions should have been previously enforced. Whilst it was accepted that the current use has been in existence for over ten years concern was expressed about the state of the premises and it was agreed to ask BDC to request applicant to tidy it up.

08/00493/TPO – Alderford Brook, Alderford Street – Application to fell two trees to help with flood prevention. The Tree Warden had been consulted and had no objection although some replanting would be a benefit. It was resolved that the Committee has no objection subject to a condition that replanting takes place further back within nine months. Arising from this application it was resolved that all future tree related applications are considered by the Planning Committee so that the recommendations of the Tree Warden are recorded in the minutes.

08/00482/FUL – Land rear of 132, 134 and 136 Swan Street – Erection of two no. residential dwellings – opposed on the following grounds:
Restricted access to one vehicle at a time, if vehicles have to reverse out it is potentially very dangerous with zebra crossing so close.
Serious restriction on turning space, so delivery and construction vehicles will block existing properties to detriment of occupiers.
In view of above, concerns about safety of children and access difficulties for emergency services.
Occupiers of 128 Swan Street, not consulted by applicants or agents, contrary to contents of one set of documents. Some of those consulted were interested parties.
Privacy of neighbouring properties will be compromised.
Proposed development is too close to existing mature trees in a neighbouring property namely 128 Swan Street. It was resolved to immediately apply for tree preservation orders on all trees in the vicinity as they are under threat.
The proposed development will result in loss of parking for staff at rear of Chemist’s Shop, who will probably park in front of shop. It was understood that ECC Highways oppose application.
Too many properties will be served by one drive, potentially eight properties including Chemist’s shop which is three properties too many.
Plans are misleading as fence does not go across drive.
Over-development – the proposed dwellings are too large for such a small site.
If BDC is minded to grant permission then it should be for one property only, preferably a small bungalow and it was agreed to request conditions for no parking in front of Chemist’s shop (parking to be in BDC car park only) and that the access road should be made good as the existing loose stones are dangerous.

08/00537/FUL – Hill Brow, Cambridge Avenue – Proposed loft conversion with dormer windows – no objection.

Enforcement action relating to 58 Swan Street
The Clerk reported that upon the expiration of the time allowed to the appellant to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal of his appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the decision of BDC to refuse planning permission for sign on shed at 58 Swan Street, BDC had instructed their Solicitors to commence a prosecution against Framar Developments. As a result the appellant had since removed the sign and although it was out of time and therefore the prosecution could continue, it was agreed with BDC that the object of the exercise was to get the sign removed and not necessarily to continue with the prosecution. In the circumstances no further action will be taken.

Proposed Conservation Area in Sible Hedingham
The Clerk reported upon communications with BDC and ECC upon the request of SHPC for a Conservation Area to include the Rippers Industrial Housing, the Baptist Chapel and the Sugar Loaves Public House. The historic buildings section had sent two officers to assess the Rippers Industrial Housing but concluded that it did not merit CA status based on the levels of external alternations which have already occurred particularly to doors and windows. As a result there is no longer any architectural style or unity to the area, which is also intercepted by modern developments. The Sugar Loaves PH is a Listed Building which affords it extra protection anyway. It was resolved to accept the advice of BDC and ECC that unfortunately there is little remaining architectural merit to warrant a Conservation Area at this location.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 5.35 pm.