Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/19/008

Planning Application - Access road to serve residential development comprising 77 no dwellings - (resubmission of DC/17/0339/FUL)

Planning Application - Access road to serve residential development comprising 77 no dwellings - (resubmission of DC/17/0339/FUL)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it related to a major planning application.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  The Parish Council objected to the proposal which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 66 of Report No DEV/WS/19/008.

The application had been submitted following the refusal of a similar application in January 2019 by St Edmundsbury Borough Council’s Development Control Committee (DC/17/0339/FUL).

The application was refused due to the fact that the proposed access road encroached upon the established tree belt alongside the A143 and insufficient information had been submitted by the applicant to establish the full impact that the proposal could have on the tree belt. 

As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the changes that had been to the scheme since the application that was considered in January 2019.

The Committee was also advised that an application for the construction of 77 dwellings on land to the South of the access road was still pending consideration; with the Local Planning Authority in the process of engaging with the applicant on matters relating to viability, design and layout.

Speaker:      Councillor Ben Lord (Chairman, Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Stuart McAdam (Persimmon Homes, applicant) spoke in support of the application

Considerable detailed discussion took place on the application, in response to which the Principal Planning Officer explained:

Ecology – Condition Nos 6 and 7 had been included at the request of the Landscape and Ecology Officer.  Members were also reminded that the tree belt was not protected.

Flooding – the entire site had been assessed for flood risk, including that of the application and the adjacent residential application site.

Road Route / Cycle Path – the road was intended to largely follow the topography of the site with the cycle path to be on the Western side of the road and not adjacent to the tree belt.

Emergency Access / Bollards – the collapsible bollards specified for use at the emergency access were requested by Suffolk County Council Highways and were used as standard.

Condition No 21 – Members were advised of the justification for this condition and informed that it was not possible to link this in any way to the adjacent residential application.  However, Suffolk County Council Highways were mindful of the linkage and both schemes would need to comply with the Highways Authority’s requirements.

Councillor Peter Stevens raised specific concern that the Crown Lane Masterplan was yet to have been confirmed and questioned the validity of the application in light of this.  He therefore, proposed that the application be refused for this reason and this was duly seconded by Councillor Terry Clements.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) appreciated that it would have been preferable for the related masterplan to have been agreed but advised that the fact that it was not in place was not a valid reason to refuse the application, and Members needed to be mindful of the length of time that a masterplan took to develop and establish.

In response to the Officer’s comments Councillor Peter Stevens withdrew his motion for refusal and instead proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

Upon being put to the vote and with 5 voting for, 10 against and with 1 abstention the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Further debate then ensued with Members continuing to raise concern/seek further detail specifically in connection with:

Ecology – Condition Nos 6 and 7 and the tree belt;

Emergency Access / Bollards – Questions were raised as to whether the collapsible bollards specified for use at the emergency access could be replaced by a gate; and

Condition No 21 – Seeking assurance from Suffolk County Council Highways with regard to the linkage to the adjacent residential application.

In light of these points, Councillor Terry Clements proposed that consideration of the application be deferred in order to allow Officers time in which to pursue these matters.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Gathercole and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order to allow additional time for Officers to seek further information in respect of:

Ecology – Condition Nos 6 and 7 and the tree belt;

Emergency Access / Bollards – Questions were raised as to whether the collapsible bollards specified for use at the emergency access could be replaced by a gate; and

Condition No 21 – Seeking assurance from Suffolk County Council Highways with regard to the linkage to the adjacent residential application.