Agenda item

17 no. dwellings, access, parking and landscaping (following demolition of existing building) at Social Services, Camps Road, Haverhill for Emlor Homes

Report  DEV/SE/17/09

17 no. dwellings, access, parking and landscaping (following demolition of existing building) at Social Services/Magistrates’ Court, Camps Road, Haverhill for Emlor Homes.

(Councillor John Burns declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application as a Member of Suffolk County Council who were owners of the

site. He remained within the meeting.)

The applicants had lodged an appeal against the non-determination of the application; the time period for determination having expired on 14 October 2016. The Committee was no longer in a position to decide the application as the proposal would now be considered by an appointed Inspector. The matter had been referred to the Committee to seek its views as to what the decision might have been had it been in a position to determine the application.

The following person spoke on the application :

(a)    Objector  -  Stephen Segasby, East of England Ambulance NHS

                          Trust.

In considering this matter the Committee recalled that it had been asked  at its meeting on  5 January 2017 to indicate its views in respect of an application (reference DC/16/0876/FUL) by Churchill Retirement Living to re-develop an adjoining site, also in the ownership of Suffolk County Council, which was also the subject of a current appeal against non-determination. On that occasion the Committee had indicated that it would  have been mindful of refusing this application for the reasons stated in the written report had it been in a position to decide it. At that time Members had also expressed disappointment that no overall strategic approach had been adopted towards redeveloping both sites.

In the case of Application DC/16/1252/OUT the majority of Members concurred with  the  suggested grounds of refusal put forward in the written report. In particular the view was expressed that the proposed layout did not take account of the obvious constraints associated with the site, i.e. the shared access/egress with the ambulance station, which was used intensively by ambulances and  the vehicles of ambulance service staff, and  for the nearby school, which was also extensively used as a pedestrian thoroughfare by pupils. It was felt that this unsatisfactory situation would adversely effect ambulance response times not only during any construction period but also subsequently when the dwellings became occupied. Reference was also made to the situation that dwellings at the rear of the development would be situated close to the ambulance station site and therefore the residents of these were likely to suffer loss of amenity because of the unavoidable noise associated with ambulance movements at any time during the day or night. Members were  again of the view that an overall strategic approach should have been adopted for the re-development of this and the adjoining site and that arrangements for circulation of traffic  and for parking of vehicles should have been a first priority in formulating a scheme of re-development for the whole area.

Decision

That (1) had the Committee in a position to determine the application it would have been refused on the basis of the reasons set out briefly in paragraph 57 of Report DEV/SE/17/09; and

(2) The Head of Planning and Growth be authorised to :

(i)  defend the decision of this Committee at the forthcoming appeal hearing/ public inquiry;

(ii)  remove/ amend or add to the reasons of refusal in response to new evidence, information or amendment in the lead up to the forthcoming appeal hearing/ public inquiry;

(iii) appoint an advocate and expert witness, as necessary, to present the Council’s case and defend its reasons of refusal;

(iv) agree a Statement of Common Ground with the appellant and any other Rule 6 party; and

(v)  suggest conditions to be imposed on any grant of planning permission should the Inspector be minded to allow the appeal.