Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/19/044

Planning Application -  Construction of (i) 50no. apartments (ii) communal facilities (iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by plans received 04 November 2019 (increasing number of apartments by 1no.)

(The Chair agreed for this item to be brought forward on the agenda.)

Planning Application - Construction of (i) 50no. apartments (ii) communal facilities (iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by plans received 04 November 2019 (increasing number of apartments by 1no.)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel and at the request of Ward Member (Abbeygate) Councillor Jo Rayner.

Contrary to Report No DEV/WS/19/044’s opening paragraph, Bury St Edmunds Town Council did not support the application.  A considerable number of objections had also been received from third parties.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions as set out in Paragraph 137 of the report.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ which had been circulated following publication of the agenda and which set out an additional condition in respect of solar control glazing and an amendment to condition No 5 (surface water drainage scheme).

As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer highlighted the amendments that had been made to the scheme since original submission.

The Officer also advised the meeting that she was aware that the applicant had submitted information directly to Members of the Committee and the images they had received were included with her presentation.

Speakers:    Celia Lawrence (representing Nelson Road Residents Association) spoke against the application

                   The Case Officer read out a prepared statement, on behalf of Ward Member (Abbeygate) Councillor Jo Rayner, against the application (who had been unable to attend the meeting)

                   Rosie Room (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor David Roach opened the debate by advising the meeting that he and other Committee Members had been contacted directly by the applicant via the telephone prior to the meeting, and he considered this to be inappropriate.

Considerable discussion took place on the application with a number of Members remarking on the level of parking to be provided within the scheme.

Comments were also made on the S106 calculations, particularly with regard to the vacant building credit and NHS contribution.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions/comments as follows:

S106 Contributions – the Committee were assured that all calculations were correct and in line with current legislation.  The Officer also advised that the West Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group had confirmed that they would accept £15,000 from the scheme.

Resident Age Restriction – it was clarified to Members that residents of the proposed scheme were to be aged 60 and over.  In addition, the applicant had advised that the average age of residents within their existing premises was 80.

Parking Provision – Members were advised that the average number of parking spaces provided as part of the scheme was 0.46 which was above the applicant’s average of 0.42, based on all their existing UK premises.  The Committee was also advised that similar premises that already existed within Bury St Edmunds (from other developers) had less parking than the level proposed in the application.

Pedestrian Crossing – attention was drawn to Paragraph 97 of the report and the Officer highlighted that the provision of a pedestrian crossing did not meet the test of the CIL Regulations; the application site was situated very close to the Town Centre with amenities easily accessible to pedestrians without a designated crossing.

Some Members spoke in support of the application; making reference to the bus and taxi services available to residents.  The design of the scheme was also commented upon as being in keeping with surrounding buildings.

Councillor Ian Houlder proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

Further discussion then took place specifically with regard to the overlooking concerns that had been raised by neighbouring residents. 

Councillor Andy Neal asked it if would be possible to increase the height of the brick wall which formed one of the site’s boundaries.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the wall was already fairly imposing and it would be unable to be increased to such a height that would prevent any overlooking.

Councillor Roger Dicker proposed an amendment; that consideration of the application be deferred in order to allow additional time in which for Officers to consult with the applicant, to establish if it would be possible to amend the scheme to reduce the height of the building by way of removing the seven units on the top floor, in order to address the concerns regarding overlooking as raised by neighbouring residents.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Palmer.

Upon being put to the vote and with 9 voting for the amendment, 6 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED in order to allow additional time in which for Officers to consult with the applicant to establish if it would be possible to amend the scheme to reduce the height of the building by way of removing the seven units on the top floor, in order to address the concerns regarding overlooking as raised by neighbouring residents.

(Following this resolution Councillor Peter Stevens sought clarification as to the next steps that would be taken; the Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised that the Planning Authority would, in the first instance, seek to agree a further extension of time with the applicant beyond 6 December 2019.)

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