Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/19/022

Planning Application - Demolition and redevelopment of the Cornhill Walk Shopping Centre to provide mixed use development comprising (i) 1,666sq.m (Use Class A1/D2) at the ground floor (ii) 49 no. residential units (Use Class C3) to three upper floors including parking, bin storage, access and other associated works as amended by plans received 13th December 2018

Planning Application - Demolition and redevelopment of the Cornhill Walk Shopping Centre to provide mixed use development comprising (i) 1,666sq.m (Use Class A1/D2) at the ground floor (ii) 49 no. residential units (Use Class C3) to three upper floors including parking, bin storage, access and other associated works as amended by plans received 13th December 2018

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of one of the Ward Members (Eastgate).

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and conditions.

Bury St Edmunds Town Council had raised objections, together with a number of other third parties.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that a number of changes had been made to the scheme throughout the process of the application in order to address some of the concerns raised.

Since publication of the agenda ‘late papers’ had been circulated which set out the full wording of the proposed conditions; together with amended plans reflecting further changes that had been made to the scheme.

The day before the meeting further amended plans had been submitted which the Officer made reference to her presentation and highlighted the changes to the Committee.

Members were also advised that further late objections had been received from residents who had made prior representations and whom largely reiterated their previous points raised.

Speakers:    Roderick Reese (Bury St Edmunds Society) spoke against the application

                   Bill Goodsall (Chairman, Well Street Association) spoke against the application

                   Phil Cobbold (on behalf of Orchard Street and Short Brackland residents) spoke against the application

                   Graham Ashley (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   Kieran Rushe (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Nettleton spoke against the proposal, citing concerns in relation to:

·         The height/mass/bulk of the building;

·         The impact on the character of the area, including the Conservation Area;

·         The viability of the proposed retail units;

·         Parking and highways impact – including concerns relating to delivery vehicles;

·         Air quality; and

·         The impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

Councillor Nettleton proposed that the application be refused for these reasons and this was duly seconded by Councillor Julia Wakelam who echoed the concerns raised.

In response to the reasons cited for refusal, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that she would not recommend the inclusion of:

·         The viability of the proposed retail units – the site had been identified for retail units and was within the primary shopping area of the town, furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that the retail units would not be viable;

·         Parking and highways impact, including concerns relating to delivery vehicles – the Highways Authority had not objected in this regard and the existing nearby retail units would have regular deliveries, furthermore, there was a specific condition included for a Delivery Management Plan to be provided; and

·         Air quality – Environmental Services had not objected in this regard.

The Service Manager did, however, consider the following reasons to be defensible and advised on the relevant planning policies that could be appended to them:

·         The height/mass/bulk of the building;

·         The impact on the character of the area, including the Conservation Area; and

·         The impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

Furthermore, the Committee was advised that Officers did not consider that the Decision Making Protocol need be invoked, therefore if Members resolved to refuse the application for these reasons a risk assessment would not need to be undertaken for further consideration by the Committee.

Further debate then ensued with additional concerns being raised by Members in relation to the proposed gym, which was to operate 24/7, and the impact this could have on neighbouring residential properties.  In response to which, the Senior Planning Officer advised that a specific condition had been included in respect of the gym.

A number of the Committee referenced the proposed building’s Well Street side elevation and the design of the metal balcony screens in particular.  Some Members considered these to be vastly out of keeping with the surrounding area.

The Chairman invited the Principal Conservation Officer to address the meeting in respect of this matter.  The Committee was advised that it was a difficult site and the Planning Authority had worked closely with the architect on all aspects of design.  A specific condition had been included for details of the screens to be submitted.

On conclusion of the discussion the Chairman put the motion for refusal to the vote.  With 4 voting for the motion, 8 against and with 1 abstention the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Councillor Terry Clements then proposed that the application be deferred, in order to allow Officers additional time in which to work with the applicant, in light of the varied concerns raised by the Committee.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order allow additional time for Officers to work with the applicant, in light of the varied concerns raised by the Committee.

(On conclusion of this item the Chairman permitted a short comfort break.)