Agenda item

To include up to 1,250 dwellings (Use Class C3), local centre comprising retail floor space (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5), a community hall (D2), land for primary school (D1) and car parking, a relief road, vehicular access and associated works including bridge over the River Lark, sustainable transport links, open space (including children’s play areas), sustainable drainage (SuDS), sports playing fields, allotments and associated ancillary works at Land South of Rougham Hill, Rougham Hill, Bury St. Edmunds  for Hopkins Homes Ltd. and Pigeon (Bury East) Ltd.

Report    DEV/SE/17/01

To include up to 1,250 dwellings (Use Class C3), local centre comprising retail floor space (A1,A2,A3,A4 and A5), a community hall (D2), land for primary school (D1) and car parking, a relief road, vehicular access and associated works including bridge over the River Lark, sustainable transport links, open space (including children’s play areas), sustainable drainage (SuDS), sports playing fields, allotments and associated ancillary works at Land south of Rougham Hill, Rougham Hill, Bury St. Edmunds/Nowton (application site also abuts the parish boundary of Rushbrooke with Rougham)

The Committee had visited the application site on 3 January 2017.

Officers in presenting the written report advised that the applicants in carrying out a flood risk assessment had received two sets of data from the Environment Agency over a passage of time which provided conflicting information about where the flood zones actually were. The original data had indicated that the area within the application site identified for the proposed primary school and playing field was in Flood Zone 1 and not liable to flooding. However, the most recent dataset, sent by the Environment Agency to the Local Education Authority, had indicated that  the school playing field  would be situated in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and potentially at risk from flooding. Officers informed the Committee that from a planning viewpoint recreational and school playing field uses were, in principle, appropriate in a flood risk area. The education authority had, however, raised a concern that this might pose increased build and management costs for the new school facility and an ongoing operational difficulty for the school during periods of inclement weather. The situation remained that the County Council could raise a formal objection to the application on these grounds and if this was the case the application would be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. However, Officers were confident that a solution would be found to obviate this potential problem.

Officers corrected an error on A 3) of the recommendation on page 70 of the report. The first recommended condition on Time limit should have afterwards:

  ‘ ( 3 years for submission of first Reserved Matters and 2 years following formal approval of first Reserved Matters for commencement of development). ’

The following persons spoke on the application :

(a)   Objectors                                -  John Corrie and Simon Harding

(b)   Rushbrooke with Rougham       -  Councillor Ian Steel, Chairman

       Parish Council

(c)   Ward Member (Rougham Ward) - Councillor Sara Mildmay-White

(d)   Applicants                               -  Clive Harridge, agent

The Committee acknowledged that the application was in respect of a site allocated for development in the Development Plan and that it had been informed by the South East Bury St. Edmunds Strategic Development Site Masterplan. Members were informed that the application was in outline form with only details of the proposed means of access to the site being included for approval at this stage. Details of all other aspects of proposed development would be for consideration at the later Approval of Reserved Matters stage.

Members in considering the application raised a series of matters to which Planning Officers and Luke Barber, Suffolk County Council Highways present at the meeting, responded to as follows:

(i)   clarification was sought as to the apparent intention that the main road within the development would serve as a relief road for traffic to and from the A14 since the route of this would be through residential areas with potential adverse effects from pollution and noise from such traffic on the occupiers. The proposed main road would be to a higher specification, yet to be determined, which would take into account projected traffic flows including  usage by agricultural vehicles. There would be a choice for motorists of either Sicklesmere Road or the new highway and the intention was to make the latter a more attractive option and  thus provide some relief for  the existing road;

(ii)   clarification was sought about the proposed stopping up of Rushbrooke Lane and how this would operate. The lane would be stopped up at a point which would form cul-de-sacs. Two way access to the proposed relief road would be provided from both sides of the severed Rushbrooke Lane and thus preserve access and egress to existing residential properties served by it;

(iii)   an assurance was sought that traffic impact assessments would be carried out on the effect of the development on minor roads in Rougham  and the wider area in view of the expressed concern that these would become ‘rat runs’ as alternatives to designated routes. These assessments it was suggested should  include consideration of  the use of these lanes by agricultural traffic in connection with a potato storage and distribution business. Whist it was inevitable that motorists would seek alternatives via minor roads to reduce journey times there was often no benefit to be had from this practice. In  the Officers’ view by making the new road an attractive route as a link to the A14 it would reduce the impact on minor roads. There was no method available of assessing at this stage what the impact might be in respect of minor roads  and no means of means of dealing with a perceived adverse situation other than stopping up or severing such roads. If in the longer term problems occurred the County Council would assess these and address them as appropriate;

(iv)  whilst the proposed cycleway link was welcomed it was felt that the provision of this should be made a definite proposal since at present it was dependent on Suffolk County Council having funds available for these works. It was also pointed out that surface of the existing cycleway was in need of cleaning up in the vicinity of the underpass of the A14. A question was raised as to whether there would be separate dedicated routes for cyclists for sections of  highways which intersected the cycleway route. The County Council had funds in place for the cycleway link to the A14 pedestrian underpass and was keen to see other links provided to the town centre, West Suffolk Hospital, the proposed school and existing and proposed employment areas and the developer would make available rights of access to facilitate cycle routes. Provision of the cycleway could, however, be secured  under a Section 106 Agreement if the County Council did not have funding available. There would be  separate routes for cyclists at junctions/roundabouts and push button crossing facilities;

(v)   there were concerns about the effect of traffic from the development upon other main junctions and roundabouts in the town. It was suggested that there should be a comprehensive and enforceable traffic management plan for the whole of Bury St Edmunds as a means of dealing with this. Contributions from developers of each of the Strategic Development sites  would be sought specifically to improve key junctions and corridors leading to the town centre. In the case of this development it was intended to obtain funds for work on the entire corridor via a Section 106 Agreement and the use of powers under Section 278 of the Highways Act rather than waiting for funds to accrue from the other developments;

(vi)  the concerns of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust about the impact of the development upon ‘Priority Species’  and the assessment of these by Officers  set out in the report were noted;

(vii) a question was also raised as to whether the County Council would, within a specified period, adopt the roads within the proposed development. The County Council’s intention was that it would adopt the new highway network with the exception of small cul-de-sac developments served by a private drive;

(viii) clarification was sought as what the situation would be if no bus operator was willing to provide the bus services envisaged as part of the sustainable transport system which would support the development.  It was also noted that the Transport Co-ordinator post proposed would be in being for a period of 35 years and a question was raised as to whether this would be necessary for this length of time. The situation regarding bus services was that there was sufficient capacity within existing operations for these to be provided and incentives could be offered to establish services for the development. The development was large enough to make services viable. Generally developments of 500 to 1,000 dwellings were sufficient to generate enough passengers for a service to be feasible.  In the view of Officers the Travel Plan relating to the development would be effective and whilst it was likely that the development might be completed sooner than the 35 years period referred to it was felt that the co-ordinator post should be available as a resource during the build out of the project; and

(ix) reference was made to the proposed means of access to the site from the junction with the proposed new roundabout onto Sicklesmere Road and an observation was made by a Member that there appeared to be very little offset in the layout of this. The proposed layout of this junction was indicative only at this stage and more detailed work would follow under the Highways Act but Officers would ensure that new and amended junctions would be appropriately designed and safety audited.

Decision

(1)  Outline planning permission be granted subject to :

      (a)  prior agreement being reached with the applicants and Local 

            Education Authority with respect to a strategy for delivering a site

            for a new primary school as part of the development;

      (b)  the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure, unless the

            Head of Planning and Growth subsequently concludes a particular

            clause to be unlawful or considers any individual measure would 

            be better secured by planning condition,  those matters listed in

            recommendation A 2) of Report DEV/SE/17/01; and

      (c)   the conditions listed in recommendation A 3) of Report 

             DEV/SE/17/01, subject to the amendment of the first mentioned

             condition to read ‘ Time limit – ( 3 years for submission of first

             Reserved Matters and 2 years following approval of the Reserved

             Matters for commencement of the development ) ; and

(2)   should agreement not be reached with respect to the provision of a

       site for a new primary school or, for whatever reason, the Borough

       Council cannot secure a Section 106 Agreement with the applicants

       within a reasonable period, the application be referred back to this

       Committee for further consideration.

( At this point the meeting was adjourned to allow Members a short comfort break)