Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/19/018

Planning Application - Demolition and redevelopment of the Cornhill Walk Shopping Centre to provide mixed use development comprising (i) 1,541sq.m (Use Class A1/D2) at the ground floor (ii) 48 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, 27th March 2019 and 5th July 2019

Planning Application - Demolition and redevelopment of the Cornhill Walk Shopping Centre to provide mixed use development comprising (i) 1,541sq.m (Use Class A1/D2) at the ground floor (ii) 48 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, 27th March 2019 and 5th July 2019

Prior to the Officer undertaking her presentation, Councillor Diane Hind advised the meeting that she had taken part in Bury St Edmunds Town Council’s consideration of the application when they resolved to oppose the scheme.  However, Councillor Hind stressed that she would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.

This application was originally referred to the (now dissolved) St Edmundsbury Borough Council’s Development Control Committee in March 2019 at the request of one of the Ward Members (Eastgate).

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

The Committee resolved at the March meeting to defer consideration of the application in order to enable further consideration of the issues raised by Members in respect of the scale/design/mass of the building, its impact on amenity and the inclusion of the retail units and a 24 hour gym.

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

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the amendments that had been made to the scheme since the deferral of the application.

Members were also advised that since publication of the agenda a further 13 objections had been received in respect of the application together with a petition opposing the development signed by 613 people.

Speakers:    Paul Scarlett (agent representing Wells Street Association, Orchard Street residents and neighbouring objector Mr Ashley) spoke against the application

                   Roderick Rees (on behalf of the Bury St Edmunds Society) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Nicola Iannelli-Popham (Bury St Edmunds Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Trevor Beckwith (on behalf of Ward Member (Eastgate) Councillor Cliff Waterman) spoke against the application

                   Keiran Rushe (agent) spoke in support of the application

(During his address to the meeting Paul Scarlett attempted to display supporting visual aids; the Chair interjected and advised that the use of visual aids was not permitted by the Council within their public speaking policy and asked that they be put down.  Furthermore, following the objectors’ speeches the applicant came forward from the public gallery and interrupted the meeting objecting to some of the earlier statements made.  He was advised by the Chair to take his seat and that any further outbursts of that nature would result in him being asked to leave the Conference Chamber.)

Considerable debate then ensued by the Committee with Members continuing to raise a number of the same concerns as were raised at the meeting in March.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to questions relating to; the commercial units, the electric charging provision, access for disabled users (as covered under Building Regulations) and the noise assessment provided in respect of the gym.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting in respect of questions posed with regard to the ownership of the site.  She confirmed that small areas on the fringe of the development were owned by Suffolk County Council and West Suffolk Council; hence, the application would have always been referred to the Committee for determination.  However, Members were reminded that ownership was not a material planning consideration.

The Principal Conservation Officer was also invited to speak by the Chair in relation to her consultation response and to expand on her reasoning for supporting the application.

Councillor Diane Hind proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to:

1.   The size/massing of the building;

2.   The overbearing/domineering impact the development would have on both the character of the area and on residential amenity;

3.   The lack of enhancement that the development would provide to the Conservation Area; and

4.   The impact the increased vehicle movements would have on the traffic network.

This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that in light of Suffolk County Council Highways Authority not having raised an objection to the scheme she would not recommend the inclusion of reason 4 for refusal in respect of the traffic network.

The Committee was further advised of the policies that could be appended to reasons 1 – 3 and informed that, if reason 4 was removed, Officers would not consider it necessary to invoke the Decision Making Protocol and a Risk Assessment would not be required.

Accordingly, Councillors Hind and Drummond (as proposer and seconder of the motion) agreed to remove reason 4.

Therefore, upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and 2 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, for the following reasons:

1.   The size/massing of the building;

2.   The overbearing/domineering impact the development would have on both the character of the area and on residential amenity; and

3.   The lack of enhancement that the development would provide to the Conservation Area.

(Following the Committee meeting and in consultation with the Chair it was agreed necessary to insert a further reason for refusal in the Decision Notice, given the lack of a completed S106 agreement, as follows:

“In the absence of a signed Section 106 Agreement, the proposed development fails to secure the appropriate infrastructure requirements including education, early years provision, libraries and affordable housing on the site. These developer contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and without which the scheme is considered unsustainable. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS5 and CS14 of the St. Edmundsbury Core Strategy (2010), Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council Joint Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2013) and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) that seek to deliver sustainable development”.)

(On conclusion of this item, and Part A of the agenda, the Chair permitted an interval before proceeding with Part B of the agenda at 2.00pm.)