Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/17/018

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 had been originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 April 2017 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 application had been deferred from the April meeting in light of Members’ concerns raised, in order to enable Officers to work with the applicant to seek improvements to the scheme where possible.

Officers had also been tasked with seeking clarity/responses on certain issues.

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the following elements of his report/presentation:

·         Since the last meeting the applicant had submitted further plans setting out ‘character areas’ within the scheme which demonstrated specific design/styles of property;

·         The boundary treatment had been amended on the North side of the development to extend the 1.2m brick and flit wall and to include rail fencing;

·         A vehicle track and plan document had been submitted by the applicant which demonstrated both domestic and emergency vehicle access and movement;

·         The Highways Officer in attendance confirmed that the Highways Authority had no concerns with regard to access to/from or around the development and that the parking provided in some areas actually exceeded the Suffolk guidelines.  The Case Officer clarified that garages were able to be counted as parking spaces as the developers were providing separate storage sheds for the properties; and

·         The Council’s Public Health & Housing and Strategy & Enabling Officers had confirmed that they had no objections to the application.

The Case Officer also advised that, since publication of the agenda, comments had been received from the Police & Architectural Liaison Officer in response to the application, as follows:

·         The conversion of car ports to garages, as per the amended plans, was approved;

·         A request was made to amend the 1.8m fencing in rear gardens to 1.5m with a trellis above to further heighten the boundary;

·         Additional gates were requested at the rear of the terraced properties to improve access, it was suggested that all gates were made lockable too; and

·         Reservations were voiced with regard to the 1.2m high brick and flint wall on the Northern boundary which prevented natural surveillance

The Case Officer explained that the all of the Police & Architectural Liaison Officer’s points had been raised with the applicant who were content to make the amendment to the fencing and additional gates; the plans for which could be managed by conditions.

However, Officers did not share the concerns with regard to the brick and flint wall and did not believe that this would cause undue harm.  Officers also considered the request with regard to ensuring all gates were lockable to be unreasonable.

Accordingly, Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 35 of Report No: DEV/SE/17/018.  The Case Officer also reminded Members of the conditions required to be discharged in respect of the previously granted outline planning permission DC/13/0932/HYB, which secured all other necessary details not submitted with the reserved matters application.

Speakers:    Councillor Tom Murray (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

Prior to opening the debate, the Chairman offered apologies to the agent present and reminded Members to use polite language and avoid any rudeness towards the developer when discussing the application, particularly with regard to the size of the properties within the scheme, as had taken place at the last meeting.

The Chairman also reiterated the Council’s Strategy & Enabling Officer’s comments with regard to the development and reminded the Committee that the Borough Council had no policy in place in respect of the minimum size of domestic properties.

A number of Members stressed the importance, going forward, of ensuring the Planning Authority’s policies were fit for purpose in respect of property size.  Councillor John Burns also made reference to broadband provision and electrical charging points and the need for policies in respect of these elements too.

Both the Acting Head of Planning and the Service Manager (Planning – Strategy) responded in respect of ongoing policy development.

Councillor Susan Glossop raised concern with some of the Police & Architectural Liaison Officer’s requests being dismissed.

Councillor Julia Wakelam apologised for any offence caused by the language she used at the April meeting and asked the Case Officer if it would be necessary to condition the cycle links to ensure that these were in place prior to occupation. 

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to Paragraph 20 of Report No: DEV/SE/17/018 which explained that the network of cycle paths had been secured by way of the hybrid/outline application previously granted by the Committee.

Councillor Peter Stevens moved that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

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

Decision

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.   Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents

2.   Details of flint wall, estate railing and knee rail fence be provided concurrently with details required by condition C30 of DC/13/0932/HYB

3.   Details of amended rear fencing (1.5m with trellis), additional rear gate fore plots 128-130 and staggered gates to cycleway adjacent to Plot 49 to be submitted.