Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/20/023

 

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.

 

Subsequently, the application was returned to the Development Control Committee on 13 May 2020.  Members at the meeting resolved that they were ‘minded to’ refuse planning permission contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval as they considered the proposals to be detrimental to highway safety, in particular relation to cyclists.  Members also considered that the proposal was contrary to policies DM2, DM5 and DM13. 

 

Accordingly, the Decision Making Policy was invoked and a risk assessment had been produced, as attached, for the Committee’s consideration.

 

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 40 of Report No DEV/WS/20/023.

 

Members were advised that following the last Committee meeting the applicants’ Transport Consultants reviewed the issues raised and provided additional information to supplement the application by way of a Technical Note which had been included within the agenda papers.

 

In summary, the Technical Note covered:

·         Traffic movement on the staggered junction;

·         Highway mitigation of the impact of other significant developments already approved in Thurston; and

·         Cyclist safety.

 

Attention was also drawn to Paragraph 17 of the report which made reference to the 3m wide corridor alongside the new length of carriageway that could form a future cycleway/footway, thereby improving connections towards Bury St Edmunds.

 

Members were advised that the applicant had agreed to offer additional land to Suffolk County Council in order to facilitate the future cycleway/footway in the direction of Thurston and that the sum of £75,000 would be paid to the County Council towards the construction of the cycleway/footway. 

 

In addition, the applicant had also offered to work with Suffolk County Council in order to designate the existing informal path to the north of Mount Road as a formal bridleway.  Both matters would be included within the S106 Agreement.

 

Lastly, the Officer confirmed that the 40mph speed limit was already in place.

 

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

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

                   (Robert Eburne was unable to connect to the meeting at the point in which he could address the Committee, therefore the Chair asked the Democratic Services Officer to read out the statement on his behalf.)

 

Considerable debate then took place with some Members continuing to raise safety concerns with the junction.  In response to which, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the junction would be subject to future safety audits as per the normal process with a scheme such as the one before the Committee.

 

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

 

The Highways Officer reiterated that the scheme proposed in the application before the Committee was an improved safety scheme for the area.

 

Members were advised that neither a toucan crossing or a signalled junction were viable options due the rural location, insufficient land available and lack of visibility.

 

The Principal Planning Officer further reiterated that Members were being asked to make a decision based on the scheme as presented in this application and that advice received from the Highways Authority was that this provided a safer junction than the existing junction arrangements.

 

The Committee were assured that Suffolk County Council would continue to work with the developers on the final design, which would take into consideration matters such as drainage.

 

During further debate reference was made to the proposed bridleway and some concern was voiced by Members of the Committee as to how this would connect to existing bridle/cycleways.

 

In response to which Councillor David Roach proposed that determination of the application be deferred in order to allow additional information to be submitted to the Committee on this particular element.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Neal.

 

Prior to the Chair putting the motion to the vote, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised the Committee that Officers were content that Members had more than sufficient information before them in which to determine the application and that the finer detail of the junction arrangements would be agreed through a S.278 Agreement as is normal with these types of highways works.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 7 voting for and with 9 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

 

Councillor Ian Houlder then proposed that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.

 

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

 

Decision

 

Planning permission be GRANTED 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.

 

Planning conditions are recommended in respect of the planning matters listed below in so far as they relate to the works within West Suffolk.  The final detail of the conditions required in respect of the whole development to be agreed with Mid Suffolk Council, with authority delegated to the Assistant Director (Planning and Regulatory Services) in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee to agree the conditions.

 

Suggested planning conditions in respect of the development within West Suffolk:

·         Approved plans

·         Time limit

·         Reserved matters for the construction of access in the WS administrative area

·         Surface water drainage details

·         Detailed design of road realignment (including section of carriageway to be stopped up)

·         HGV construction management plan

·         Provision of fire hydrants

·         Archaeological investigation and evaluation

·         Landscaping scheme

·         Ecological mitigation and enhancement measures

·         Arboricultural method statement

·         Tree Protection details

·         Scheme for the reinstatement of the stopped up highway

·         All conditions imposed by MSDC for the parts of the development situated in its administrative area