Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/22/005

Planning Application - a. ground floor retail unit; b. four flats on first and second floor. (Revised submission to DC/18/0068/FUL to allow for amended window details, including for bedroom windows on the rear elevation to be fixed shut, provision of external ventilation grilles, and retention of first floor external maintenance door on the rear elevation). As amended by details received on 22 and 29 November 2021

(Councillor Diane Hind declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that she had taken part in Bury St Edmunds Town Council’s consideration of the application. However, Councillor Hind stressed that she would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Planning Application - a. ground floor retail unit; b. four flats on first and second floor. (Revised submission to DC/18/0068/FUL to allow for amended window details, including for bedroom windows on the rear elevation to be fixed shut, provision of external ventilation grilles, and retention of first floor external maintenance door on the rear elevation). As amended by details received on 22 and 29 November 2021

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel. The application was referred to the Delegation Panel following a request from Councillor Jo Rayner as Ward Member (Abbeygate). Bury St Edmunds Town Council raised no objection.

The Committee was advised that planning permission was originally granted in 2019 for a ground floor retail unit and 4 no. first and second floor flats above following the demolition of an existing shop on the site that was destroyed in a fire. Both the shop and the residential units had been completed and are understood to be occupied. Openable windows had been installed to the bedrooms of the flats, contrary to a condition on the original permission requiring them to be fixed shut for noise mitigation purposes. A first-floor external door had also been installed without planning permission.

Permission was previously sought for the retention of the door under application DC/19/2189/VAR, which was refused on 8 April 2020. No appeal was lodged against that refusal. 

Attention was drawn to the list of conditions set out in Paragraph 60 of Report No DEV/WS/22/005 and Members were advised that Conditions 3 (a duplicate of Condition 5) and 8 (referenced in Paragraph 52) were not necessary and were to be disregarded and replaced with the following conditions which had been omitted from the report:

·         Replacement Condition 3 - There shall be no access to the first-floor flat roof area, apart from for the purposes of essential building maintenance.

·         Replacement Condition 8 - The first floor bin storage area shown on drawing number F982/15 Revision M, as installed shall thereafter be retained and used for no other purpose.

Subject to these changes to the conditions listed, Officers were recommending that the application be approved.

As part of her presentation the Principal Planning Officer showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speakers:    David Marjoram (neighbouring objector – owner of The One Bull) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Jo Rayner (Ward Member: Abbeygate) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Julia Wakelam (Ward Member: Abbeygate) spoke against the application

A number of the Committee raised questions in respect of any related enforcement process, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) stressed to Members that any potential subsequent enforcement action was a separate matter and was not a material planning consideration for the determination of the application before them.

Further questions were also posed in respect of access via windows and alternative methods of maintenance access, however, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that they were required to determine the application before them.

Councillor David Nettleton spoke against the application and moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to the impact it would have on neighbouring residential amenity and referenced Policies DM2 and DM24.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that she would not recommend the inclusion of Policy DM24 in the reason proposed for refusal because Policy DM24 related to extensions to dwellings and was therefore not relevant to this application. If this was removed (leaving just Policy DM2) then the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked as a Risk Assessment would not be considered necessary.

Accordingly, Councillors Nettleton and Houlder (as proposer and seconder of the motion) agreed to remove reference to DM24.

Upon being put to the vote and with 13 voting for the motion and with 3 against, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION for the following reason:

The proposed revisions to the approved scheme (ref. DC/18/0068/FUL) include the introduction of an external door at first floor level that would provide access to a large expanse of flat roof to the immediate rear of 4 no. residential flats. The door adjoins a communal area within the flats and the roof to which it would provide access is at a higher level relative to the neighbouring garden to the east. The introduction of an access to this flat roofed area would foreseeably lead to residents utilising this space, to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the frequency, duration and reason for the use of the access door furthermore cannot be adequately controlled via planning conditions in order to make the development acceptable. The harm arising to the amenities of the neighbouring property as a result of the addition is considered to outweigh any weight that could reasonably be attached to the convenience of the door for building maintenance purposes. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy DM2 of the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Local Plan Joint Development Management Policies Document (February 2015).