Draft until signed

MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF PARISH COUNCIL HELD ON 13 FEBRUARY 2019

Present: Mr L Brome (Committee), Mr S Denton (Chairman), Ms Drummond (Committee), Mr J Forbes (Committee), Mr Irwin (ex officio), Mr Kelso (Committee), Mr E Thompson (Committee).

There were 2 members of the public.

In attendance: Mrs S Robertson (Clerk) and Mrs D Linsley (Deputy Clerk).

1. Apologies: Miss J Bear, Mr C Blundell, Mr Calver, Mr W Welch.

2. Interests 2.1 Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI): None declared.

2.2 Local non-Pecuniary Interest (LNPI): Mr Kelso – agenda item 7.1 Coastal Final Draft Local Plan. Mr Kelso is the District Council ward member for Martlesham.

3. Actions from last Meeting Ongoing or on agenda

4. PUBLIC FORUM: To allow members of the public to address business on the agenda; to note any issues raised by the public Both members of the public objected to the planning application for Springfield Lodge. They had already submitted their objections to the District Council. They objected to the application on the grounds that the proposed development is overdeveloped and access to the site is dangerously close to the junction with School Lane. The development is also near the Red Lion cottages which are Grade II listed buildings. They were seeking clarification on the ownership of the right of way across the land. A previous application to develop the site more than 20 years ago had been refused by the District Council. The owner of the site had cleared the site of trees, moved earth towards Main Road and had recently put in drainage. It appeared that work on developing the site had started before the outcome of the application had been determined.

The Chairman closed the Public Forum for the Committee to consider item 5.1

5. Planning applications outside the scope of the delegated authority to the Clerk 5.1 DC/19/0150/FUL – Springfield Lodge, School Lane, Martlesham – Proposed dwelling and new vehicular access at Land Adjacent Springfield Lodge, School Lane, Martlesham (see CR1, the Council’s previous objections e-mailed for information) The Committee felt that previous objections made regarding the plot were still valid. The Committee considered issues of overlooking and the loss of amenity. Concern was raised at the possible increase in air pollution due to the location of the entrance on to a steep hill and its close proximity to the Red Lion crossroads. If granted permission strong planning conditions would be needed concerning the management of the site. Also of concern was the amount of paving included in the design which would significantly increase surface water runoff.

DECISION D2019/2a: The Parish Council strongly objects to the planning application DC/19/0150/FUL –Springfield Lodge, School Lane, Martlesham – Proposed dwelling and new vehicular access at Land Adjacent Springfield Lodge, School Lane, Martlesham. The PC believes this site was refused planning permission in the past as follows: C/97/0492 | Erection of one single storey dwelling with garage and alterations to existing vehicular access | Site Adjacent To Red Lion Cottages Main Road Martlesham. Reasons for refusal:- REASONS 1 The erection of this bungalow crammed between important trees and immediately adjacent to, and at a higher level than, properties to the north would result in a significant loss of

February 2019 2019/3 Draft until signed amenity, to these residents by a Ioss of privacy, increased sense of enclosure and the loss of a garden and its trees which makes an important contribution in its undeveloped form to the character of the area contrary to Policy LP36 and LP28(ii) of the Local Plan. DATE: 10th July 1997 J G Schofield Director of Planning & Leisure

Planning policies have been updated since then but we consider that the reasons expressed are still valid. The Council considers the development of this site as unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. Overdevelopment. The Springfield Lodge site has already seen significant development and this new proposal would create an increased feeling of cramped development in the area. Therefore the application is contrary to Local Plan DM7 – Infilling and Backland Development within Physical Limits Boundaries 2. The positioning of the property on the site is poor. The location of the garage means that a lot of the land will be paved or built on resulting in no proper garden for the amenity of the residents. This is contrary to Policy DM21 – Design: Aesthetics. 3. Loss of residential amenity, contrary to policies MAR4: Residential Design and Amenity and DM23: Residential Amenity. The neighbouring property Kernava will be particularly affected. Below is a photo of the site taken from the garage block of Deben Lodge which sits at a higher level than the proposed site. The garage block is one and a half storeys high with an upper storey room above the garages which looks down on the site. The house in the picture is Kernava.

Here is the view from Kernava’s small back garden looking towards Deben Lodge’s garage block, with the site in between.

Kernava’s back garden is only this deep (the site is beyond the fence on the left)

February 2019 2019/4 Draft until signed

The application would mean that the occupants of Kernava would be disturbed by cars manoeuvring in the turning area on the other side of the fence. 4. Access to the site. We are aware that Suffolk Highways has no major issues but the Council does consider the access to be dangerous, close to the Red Lion PH junction. The Suffolk Highways’ response says the drive should be no more than 1 in 20 for at least the first 5 metres nearest the road. If the plans are to scale it is estimated that the overall angle of the whole drive shown is about 1 in 6 so it would be difficult to achieve this specification without the rest of the drive being even steeper than 1 in 6. The Council is concerned about increased air pollution in this area. 5. Increased risk of run off to houses below the site; no surface water drainage scheme has been provided. 6. Lack of landscaping details.

If this application goes to the Planning Committee, the Parish Council strongly recommends a site visit to understand how this planning application sits in relation to the current over developed site of Springfield Lodge. If the planning authority is minded to approve the application, the Council requests strong conditions concerning the management of the site being mindful of its history. Agreed.

6. Pre-Planning Application Consultations 6.1 Potential sale of the Martlesham Police Headquarters site for housing: any update? All reference to the sale of the Police Headquarters site for housing on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s website had been removed. The Clerk to enquire why all reference to the sale the Police Headquarters has been removed from the Police and Crime Commissioner’s website. Agreed.

6.2 Grainger plc referred to MPC by SCDC re development of its land Note that we have not received any approach to date.

7. Consultations/Infrastructure Projects 7.1 Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan: deadline -1700 on 25.02.19 CR2 & DP/5 Previous comments circulated & CP circulated and filed in the office together with the minutes. The Chairman addressed some of the issues raised in his discussion paper ‘Heads of Draft Response to the Final Draft Local Plan’. Mr Kelso had previously sent his comments to the Clerk. It was agreed to go through the Chairman’s table of suggested comments which was copied and circulated to councillors at the meeting. Aspects of legal compliance and tests of soundness were discussed. DECISION D2019/2b: To combine the comments contributed on the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan to form a PC response to Suffolk Coastal District Council by 25.02.19. Agreed.

February 2019 2019/5 Draft until signed

Mr Irwin to combine comments made by councillors and circulate to the DPC members and also, with help from Mr Brome, explore the best way to enter the PC’s response online. Agreed. The Clerk to submit the response. Agreed.

Due to a lack of time and the need to prioritise topics the Chairman and Committee addressed the agenda items in the following order;

9. Neighbourhood Plan (NP) Plus 9.1 Neighbourhood Plan Plus: Input from the DPC CR5 & CP filed in the office together with the minutes. There was a discussion. Messrs Denton, Irwin, Thompson and Ms Drummond to form a working group to consider the NP Plus and report back to the DPC. Mr Irwin to raise the subject of developing a business group with Ben Woolnough, SCDC.

9.2 Monitoring of the Made Neighbourhood Plan Messrs Denton, Irwin & the Clerk to meet.

9.3 Neighbourhood Plan Review CR6 Seek SALC’s view & assistance Mr Brome to raise the issue of reviewing Neighbourhood Plans and support from the district council at the next SALC Area meeting. Agreed.

9.4 Travel Plan – any update? There was no update.

7. Consultations/Infrastructure Projects 7.3 SCC (Parishes of Martlesham, Brightwell, Foxhall and Kesgrave)(Various Roads) (40mph and 50mph speed limits and revocation) Order 201: deadline 15.02.19 DP/7 & CPs DECISION D2019/2c: The Parish Council objects to the proposed SCC (Parishes of Martlesham, Brightwell, Foxhall and Kesgrave)(Various Roads) (40mph and 50mph speed limits and revocation) Order 20 as follows: It is very disappointing to see a confusing mix of 50mph and 40mph limits along the A12 from the A1214 junction to the Foxhall Road junction. The Council considers that the limit should be consistently 40mph in both directions.

Our objection to these proposals is based on: 1) Quality of life and wellbeing Higher speeds = more noise and more pollution (exhausts, plus particulates from brakes and tyres). For example, it is only 700m from the T junction to the BT roundabout and 560m from the BT roundabout to the Tesco roundabout, so there is very little journey time to be saved letting traffic accelerate to 50mph, only to have to slow down at the roundabout ahead. Looking at this another way, north bound traffic leaving the T junction will be accelerating as it passes the rear gardens of the houses in Lancaster Drive which back onto the A12, and by the time it gets to a point level with the middle of Coopers Road it should be starting to slow down for the BT junction, which is a distance of only about 400m.

2) Confusion Different speed limits on the north vs south bound carriageways will be confusing. It is likely that users who see 50mph on one carriageway will tend to assume out of habit that it is 50mph in the other direction also.

3) Safety at the BT and Tesco roundabouts The current proposed arrangement at these two roundabouts will be full time traffic lights on the A12 northbound and southbound approaches only - there will no traffic lights controlling access from the side roads at these two junctions. This means that, when trying to leave Martlesham Heath for

February 2019 2019/6 Draft until signed example, motorists will be have to try to pull out when a gap appears in the traffic without knowing what phase the lights controlling the approaching A12 traffic are in. This coupled with the possibility that drivers coming along the A12 may take a chance and jump the lights, makes for the prospect of nasty accidents if they hit a car pulling out from the side road. A12 traffic needs to be slowed down as it approaches these roundabouts, not travelling at 50mph. A slower speed will facilitate egress from the side roads for the residents of Martlesham Heath.

4) Fuel economy It will be more economical on fuel if needless acceleration and deceleration is discouraged on the A12 by having a constant speed limit.

The reality is that this stretch of the A12 is now a very busy urban road which will have 5 sets of full time traffic lights in the 2.5km from Foxhall Road to the A1214, and it should have consistent 40mph speed limits along the whole of this length which reflect that fact.

The Council further considers that the consultation is flawed because it does not describe how the roundabouts will operate under the control of the proposed full time traffic lights - this information is relevant to assessing the risk aspects. Carried.

8. Highway Matters 8.1 Air pollution at Red Lion Cottages CR4 DECISION D2019/2d: To go ahead with monitoring pollution levels at the Red Lion crossroads and fund the project from 9015 EMR Development Plans estimated to be £5.00. Agreed.

10. Issues pertinent to the committee 10.3 Review of DPC Scheme of Delegation CR8 RECOMMENDATION D2019/2a: To amend item 2, section ‘Delegation by the Development Plans Committee’ of Appendix 1 of Standing Orders as follows; Such delegation will not be exercised where 3 members of the DPC request that an application should be reported to a meeting of the DPC or written representation on planning grounds is received from a parishioner or if the Clerk wishes to refer back to the DPC because she has concerns about the application. Agreed.

At 9.34pm the following decision was taken; DECISION 2019/2e: To suspend Standing Order 3w to complete all business on the agenda. Agreed.

7. Consultations/Infrastructure Projects 7.2 Sizewell C Stage 3 Consultation: deadline 29.03.19 CR3 & CPs (previous comments & footpath options filed in the office together with the minutes) & DP/11 Consider whether to accept the offer of a joint meeting with Waldringfield, Brightwell & Newbourne Parish Councils There are many issues to consider. One of the main issues affecting Martlesham will be the increase in traffic during construction of the power station. DECISION 2019/2f: That Mr Forbes leads on formulating a PC response for the Sizewell C Stage 3 Consultation. Agreed. Mr Forbes to meet with Mr Brome to consider the issues. Agreed. Comments to be circulated to Committee members for their feedback. The Clerk to submit the response. Agreed. As Mr Forbes and Ms Drummond had attended the recent JLAG meeting the Committee declined the offer of a joint meeting with Waldringfield, Brightwell & Newbourne Parish Councils to find out more about Sizewell C. Agreed.

7.4 SCC (District of Suffolk Coastal) (Stopping, Waiting and Loading Prohibitions and Restrictions and On-Street Parking Places) (Map-based) Order 201 DP/12, see also DP/1 No response to be submitted. Agreed.

February 2019 2019/7 Draft until signed

8. Highway Matters 8.2 Highways Register (HR) Priority 4: Martlesham Park & Ride roundabout June DPC minutes – topic to stay on the agenda although cannot currently be progressed. Noted.

8.3 Future of the layby on the A12, abutting Lancaster Drive gardens – any update? The Chairman reported that the litter had worsened at the layby and the fence had been further damaged. The matter is to be pursued.

8.4 Felixstowe Road – overgrown vegetation DP/2 This is a NP+ issue.

10. Issues pertinent to the committee 10.1 Complaint to SCDC re the Final Draft Local Plan: escalate to the Ombudsman and/or submit a Freedom of Information Request (FOI)? CR7 & CP filed in the office together with the minutes. Proposal: To write a ‘strong’ letter expressing the PC’s dissatisfaction over the lack of consultation regarding the inclusion of the Police Headquarters site for housing in the Final Draft Local Plan. Proposed by: Mr Brome seconded by: Mr Irwin Not agreed.

DECISION D2019/2g: To submit a Freedom of Information request regarding the inclusion of the Police Headquarters site in the Final Draft Local Plan.Carried.

10.2 DPC Terms of Reference & update for website on planning procedures Ongoing – clarification of our relationship with SCDC Planning Department is needed before this can be progressed. Noted.

10.4 Enforcement Notice, Top Street DP/4 Noted.

10.5 Access to Falcon Residential Park DP/6 Noted.

10.6 Suffolk Design Workshop on 26.02.19 DP/8 Does any member wish to attend? There were no councillors wishing to attend.

10.7 Proposal for The Square, Martlesham Heath DP/10 Noted.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ITEMS 11 – 15 INCLUSIVE ARE FOR NOTING ONLY 11. Brightwell Lakes (formerly called Adastral Park) Development 11.1 Any update? There was no update. Noted.

12. Suffolk Coastal DC decisions E-mailed. Noted. 12.1 Construction of a detached sport/indoor space facility building – Birchwood Primary School DP/9 Permission granted. Noted.

13. Planning Comments issued to SCDC between meetings CP - at meeting and filed in the office together with the minutes. Noted.

14. SCDC Scheme of Delegation 14.1 Table of Clerk’s referrals CP – circulated at the meeting and file in the office together with the minutes. Noted.

14.2 Travis Perkins application – outcome of Referral Panel meeting DP/3 Mr Denton will represent MPC at the Planning Committee meeting. Noted.

15. Appeals 15.1 DC/17/3143/FUL & DC/18/1134/FUL 11 Birch Grove: appeal dismissed. Noted.

February 2019 2019/8 Draft until signed

16. Martlesham Newsletters 16.1 Any items for April 2019? The Local Plan and the PC’s objection to inclusion of Police HQ.

17. Any items for the next agenda There were no items.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 9.57pm.

M.J.Irwin ______Chairman, 06 March 2019

February 2019 2019/9