Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/20/017

Outline Planning Application (means of access to be considered) - (i) proposed improvement to Fishwick Corner in West Suffolk Council and (ii) 210no. dwellings means of access, open space and associated infrastructure, including junction improvements with all proposed development located within Mid Suffolk District Council

Outline Planning Application (means of access to be considered) - (i) proposed improvement to Fishwick Corner in West Suffolk Council and (ii) 210no. dwellings means of access, open space and associated infrastructure, including junction improvements with all proposed development located within Mid Suffolk District Council

This application was originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 4 December 2019 as the development related to a cross boundary application with Mid Suffolk Council.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the development within West Suffolk concerned the realignment of the junction known as Fishwick Corner.  The remainder of the development was within Mid Suffolk and related to the delivery of up to 210 dwellings, means of access, open space and associated infrastructure on land at Beyton Road, Thurston.

A Member site visit was held prior to the December meeting at which Members resolved to defer the application in order to allow the scheme to be firstly determined by Mid Suffolk Council and to also ensure that a Highways Officer was able to attend West Suffolk’s Development Control Committee during their determination.

Mid Suffolk District Council’s Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 29 January 2020 and resolved to approve the application subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 Agreement.

Accordingly, the Principal Planning Officer was continuing to recommend that the application before the Committee be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement between the applicants and Mid Suffolk District Council in respect of the planning obligations considered necessary by Mid Suffolk Council and subject to the conditions referenced in Paragraph 97 of Report No DEV/WS/20/017.

Members were advised that since publication of the agenda a ‘late paper’ had been produced which set out the representation received from Thurston Parish Council and a Suffolk County Council Highways Officer was present in the meeting in order to respond to any highways related queries.

Speakers:    Councillor Keith Towers (Thurston Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Sara Mildmay-White (Ward Member for Rougham) spoke against the application

                   Robert Eburne (Bloor Homes - applicant) spoke in support of the application

Considerable debate took place on the application with a number of Members expressing concerns in connection with; the lack of a designated cycle path, the proposed visibility splay, speed restrictions, drainage/flooding in the area, the impact of other pending large scale applications in Thurston and the legal challenge which had been lodged against the Mid Suffolk element of the scheme.

The Council’s Lawyer responded in connection with the Mid Suffolk legal challenge.  She advised the Committee that Mid Suffolk had been served with a ‘pre action’ protocol letter which West Suffolk Council had been given sight of and there was nothing within said letter that prevented the Development Control Committee from determining the application before them.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that all aspects of drainage/flooding had been considered in respect of the application and how the cross-boundary element of the schemes impacted each other.  Members were assured that a surface water scheme would be conditioned.

The Chair invited the Suffolk County Council Highways Officer to respond in respect of the highways related concerns raised by the Committee.

The Highways Officer explained that the scheme proposed in the application before the Committee was considered to be proportionate to the scale of the related housing development and was an improved safety scheme for the area.

Members were advised that neither roundabouts or a mirrored staggered junction were options due to the restrictions caused by the amount of land available and the number of protected trees, however, the scheme proposed was considered acceptable and had passed an independent safety audit.

The Committee was assured that the 40mph speed limit for the area had been approved and was imminent, pending the appointment of contractors.

In response to a question regarding cycle usage of the junction, the Highways Officer responded that she did not have this information to hand.

Further discussion then took place by the Committee; with some Members highlighting the increase in cycling/walking in recent months and the proximity of the application to Thurston Community College, therefore, enhancing the need for a cycle path as part of the scheme.

Councillor Andy Drummond proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to highway safety concerns, the lack of cycling provision and conflicts with policies DM2, DM5 and DM13.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Mike Chester.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that if Members were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then the decision making policy would be invoked and a risk assessment would be produced for further consideration by the Committee.

Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Members were MINDED TO REFUSE PERMISSION, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, due to highway safety concerns, the lack of cycling provision and conflicts with policies DM2, DM5 and DM13.