Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/17/015

Planning Application - (i) Conversion of existing offices on first and second floors to 3 no. apartments (ii) Three storey extension, with link building, to comprise of 2 no. apartments

Listed Building Consent - (i) Repairs and alterations to enable conversion of first and second floors to 3 no. apartments (ii) Three storey extension, with link building, to Northern elevation to form 2no. apartments

Planning Application - (i) Conversion of existing offices on first and second floors to 3 no. apartments (ii) Three storey extension, with link building, to comprise of 2 no. apartments; and

Listed Building Consent - (i) Repairs and alterations to enable conversion of first and second floors to 3 no. apartments (ii) Three storey extension, with link building, to Northern elevation to form 2no. apartments.

The applications were referred to the Development Control Committee due to the presence of two Member call-ins and in light of the level of public interest which raised balanced matters that Officers believed warranted consideration by the Committee.

The property concerned was a Grade II Listed building, hence, the proposed development was comprised of two applications to be jointly considered; a planning application and a listed building consent application.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the applications be approved subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 60 of Report No: DEV/SE/17/015, which was contrary to the views of Bury St Edmunds Town Council who had objected to the proposal.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Officer recommendation for approval was also subject to no objections being received from the National Amenities Societies and Historic England.  Since publication of the agenda Historic England had confirmed that they had no comments to make in respect of the listed building application and stated that the Planning Authority should reply on the advice of the Council’s Conservation Officer.

As part of her presentation the Officer drew attention to the following updates:

·         A further letter of objection had been received from a resident who had previously made representation in respect of the application, and who reiterated their earlier comments; and

·         Councillor Joanna Rayner, Ward Member for Abbeygate, had submitted comments via email which had also been copied to all Members of the Committee.  Councillor Rayner echoed many of the concerns raised by the neighbours who had made representations, she also made reference to the issues with resident parking in the historic core of the town which had become increasingly saturated.  Councillor Rayner had also stated that she would support a smaller development at the application site.

The Committee were advised that the scheme before them had been subject to a significant number of amendments in order to address some initial Officer concerns with the development.

Specific reference was made to the parking and manoeuvring arrangements for residents’ motor vehicles, which was supported by the Highways Authority.

Attention was also drawn to the detailed shadow projection drawings which demonstrated the effect the development would have on the surrounding properties.

Speakers:    Lisa Siftar (neighbour) spoke against the application

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

David Barker (agent) spoke in support of the application

Members opened the debate by thanking the neighbouring residents for allowing Committee Members into their homes during the site visit.

Whilst some of the Committee praised the design of the scheme a number raised concern at the impact of the development on the natural light and amenity of neighbouring properties.  Reservations were also voiced with regard to the parking and manoeuvring arrangements. 

Comments were also made with reference to ensuring that the design of any development within the historic core of the town was entirely appropriate and not compromised in any way.

The Council’s Conservation Officer was invited to address the meeting and commented upon the scale, elevations and setting of the development.  Following the amendments to the scheme (as made reference to by the Case Officer) she was now satisfied that it would not cause harm to the conservation area or neighbouring properties.

Bin storage was also raised as an issue by some Members.  Whilst the Case Officer assured the Committee that this could be managed by way of conditions some Members still had reservations in this respect, not having the details set out in the scheme before them.

Councillor Peter Stevens spoke in support of the scheme, which he felt deserved merit, and moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

Upon being put to the vote and with 7 voting for the motion, 7 against and with 1 abstention, the Chairman exercised his casting vote against the motion and it was lost.

Councillor Susan Glossop then 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 John Burns.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 2 abstentions, 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.