Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/17/036

Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under DC/13/0932/HYB for details of access, scale, layout, appearance, landscaping and parking for Development Zones I, K and L for 180 dwellings Including Details Reserved by Conditions C19, C20, C21, C22, C23, C30, C31, C35, C36 and C37 of application DC/13/0932/HYB

Reserved Matters Application - Submission of details under DC/13/0932/HYB for details of access, scale, layout, appearance, landscaping and parking for Development Zones I, K and L for 180 dwellings Including Details Reserved by Conditions C19, C20, C21, C22, C23, C30, C31, C35, C36 and C37 of application DC/13/0932/HYB

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was a major application and the Parish Councils concerned raised objections, which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to a condition, as set out in Paragraph 69 of Report No: DEV/SE/17/036.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application before the Committee sought Reserved Matters approval (access, scale, layout, appearance, landscaping and parking) following the Hybrid planning application granted in 2014 subject to a number of detailed conditions.

The Case Officer spoke on other related applications in respect of the Marham Park development and made reference to the overall Masterplan.

As part of his presentation the Officer made reference to:

·         The ‘late papers’ which were circulated after the agenda was published; within which attention was drawn to the representation received from Suffolk County Council’s Flood and Water Engineer who confirmed that their holding objection to the application could be removed;

·         The approved Density Parameter Plan; which demonstrated that the scheme before Members was at the top of the permitted range, but within the specified limits, in light of which Officers considered the density proposed to be acceptable;

·         The Road Hierarchy and Parking Plan which Highways had confirmed was acceptable (including access for emergency vehicles) and the size of the garages proposed was in accordance with the County’s parking guidelines; and

·         The landscape masterplan.

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 related hybrid application the Chairman had permitted both to address the meeting.  

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

Sean Marten (applicant) spoke in support of the application

During discussion, questions were raised with regard to; road widths, space standards and the management of the open space.

In answering these questions the Case Officer clarified that:

·         The width of the proposed roads complied with the Suffolk Design Guide;

·         The Nationally Described spaces Standards could only be applied if they were part of a Local Plan.  As these were currently not part of the St Edmundsbury Development Plan they could not be applied to the application.  The Officer explained that planning colleagues were currently working on this matter and Members of the Committee asked that this be progressed as quickly as possible; and

·         The Committee were advised that the management arrangements for open space varied across the schemes within Marham Park as different developers often chose different management mechanisms.  Members were assured that in all cases Officers worked closely with the developers.

Councillor Robert Everitt asked a specific question with regard to surface treatments within the scheme such as tactile paving.  The Case Officer explained that the development met all county standards in this respect.  In response to which Councillor Everitt encouraged the applicant to consider the inclusion of these elements wherever possible.

Councillor David Nettleton proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Robert Everitt.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following condition:

1.   Plans and documents condition