Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/17/013

Reserved Matters Application – Submission of details under Planning Permission DC/13/0932/HYB – the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, parking, and scale for Development Zones G and H

Reserved Matters Application – Submission of details under Planning Permission DC/13/0932/HYB – the means of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, parking, and scale for Development Zones G and H.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because it was an application for a major development and because both Bury St Edmunds Town Council and Fornham All Saints Parish Council raised objections to the scheme.

The Committee was advised that as a result of Parish boundary changes that came into effect on 1 April 2017 the application site now fell within Bury St Edmunds, when previously it came under Fornham All Saints.  Accordingly, as both Parish Councils had been consulted on the application the Chairman had permitted both to address the meeting.

The development proposal was considered to comply with the relevant policies of the development plan and Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 53 of Report No: DEV/SE/17/013.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that planning permission was sought for the approval of details submitted in pursuance of outline planning permission DC/13/0932/HYB and reference was made to the significant number of conditions that were agreed in connection with that approval.

As part of his presentation the Officer drew attention to amended plans that had been submitted by the applicant which demonstrated the cycle lanes to be included as part of the scheme.  Members were informed that an additional condition was to be added to the report’s recommendation to require further plans which set out how the cycle lanes would connect to the existing cycle-ways within the green corridor.

The Committee was also advised that the Council’s Strategy and Enabling Officer had raised concerns with the size of the two-bed properties within the original scheme, accordingly amended plans had been submitted which increased the size of these properties and the Officer no longer had any concerns in that respect.

Speakers:    Councillor Diane Hind (Bury St Edmunds Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Howard Quayle (Fornham All Saints Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Nicky Parsons (agent) spoke in support of the application

A number of reservations with the development were voiced by Members of the Committee, these primarily related to; the size of the properties, the density, the degree of open space, the level of parking provision and concern with regard to the width of the roads within the scheme.

The Case Officer reminded the Committee that the public open space for the development was approved as part of the outline planning permission, and that the Highways Authority was satisfied that sufficient parking was provided within the scheme.

The Acting Head of Planning also responded to the concerns raised and outlined the ‘golden thread’ that related to the planning application before Members, this being; Vision 2031 – the agreed Masterplan – the approved outline planning application.

Councillor Peter Stevens stated that he did not consider the issues voiced by some Members of the Committee to be sufficiently robust enough to warrant a refusal.  Accordingly, he proposed that the application be granted, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

However, following further debate by Members and considerable discussion with regard to potentially deferring the application, Councillor Stevens withdrew his motion.

Councillor Terry Clements moved that the application be deferred, in light of Members’ concerns, to enable Officers to work with the applicant to seek improvements to the scheme where possible.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Robert Everitt.

Prior to the motion being put to the vote and further to the issues raised during the debate, some Members of the Committee asked that Officers give specific consideration to the following:

·         The emergency services be re-consulted with regard to the width/access of roads within the development;

·         A response be sought from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer (no comments were received on the amended plans); and

·         The sizes of the garages be confirmed to establish if they were fit for purpose and if disabled access was considered.

Upon the Chairman putting the motion to the vote and with 14 voting for and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

The application be DEFERRED in light of Members’ concerns, to enable Officers to work with the applicant to seek improvements to the scheme where possible.

On conclusion of this item at 11.30am the Chairman adjourned the meeting for a short comfort break.