Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/22/016

Hybrid Application - i) Outline application (with all matters reserved except for access) - for up to 1375 dwellings, access (including two new roundabouts onto A143 and creation of new foot and cycleway links into the site which would include new cycle/pedestrian crossings of the A143 and cycle/pedestrian link through the existing railway underpass), public open space (including buffer to Cattishall and Great Barton) and landscaping; new local centre (which could include the following uses A1; A2; A3; A4; A5; B1; D1; or D2); primary school; and associated infrastructure and works (including access roads, drainage infrastructure and substations), and ii) Planning Application - Full details for Phase 1 of the outline application for 287 dwellings (which are part of the overall up to 1375 dwelling proposal), garages, access roads, parking, open space, drainage infrastructure and associated infrastructure and works

Hybrid Application - i) Outline application (with all matters reserved except for access) - for up to 1375 dwellings, access (including two new roundabouts onto A143 and creation of new foot and cycleway links into the site which would include new cycle/pedestrian crossings of the A143 and cycle/pedestrian link through the existing railway underpass), public open space (including buffer to Cattishall and Great Barton) and landscaping; new local centre (which could include the following uses A1; A2; A3; A4; A5; B1; D1; or D2); primary school; and associated infrastructure and works (including access roads, drainage infrastructure and substations), and ii) Planning Application - Full details for Phase 1 of the outline application for 287 dwellings (which are part of the overall up to 1375 dwelling proposal), garages, access roads, parking, open space, drainage infrastructure and associated infrastructure and works

The Committee was advised that this application was submitted to West Suffolk Council in December 2019 and was validated in January 2020.  It relates to a major strategic development site within the town of Bury St Edmunds and formed one of the five residential sites identified for growth in the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy 2010 and Bury St Edmunds Vision 2031.

The application had been subject to extensive scrutiny and lengthy discussions between the applicant, the Local Planning Authority and consultees, in particular the Local Highway Authority. The application was accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a number of subsequent detailed technical notes and a comprehensive walking and cycling strategy. The technical notes and walking and cycling strategy were submitted by the applicant during the course of the application as a direct result of discussions with the Local Highway Authority. 

The Local Highway Authority, supported by National Highways, had reached the conclusion that the development would be contrary to Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. The applicant had provisionally agreed a package of highway mitigation measures in order to address the highway impacts of the scheme, however, the local Highway Authority did not consider that the package was sufficient to fully mitigate the impacts of the development and as such both the Local Highway Authority and National Highways object to the application.

The applicant had declined to negotiate further with the local Highway Authority and on 27 April 2022 the applicant formally notified the Local Planning Authority that it had submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the non-determination of the application. Members were verbally informed that the Local Planning Authority had received a formal ‘start letter’ from the Planning Inspectorate for the appeal to start on 13 September 2022.

In the light of the continuing objections from the Local Highway Authority and National Highways, Officers had taken the view that the application could not be supported and had it come before the Committee for determination it would have been with a recommendation of refusal.

This application was now being presented to the Committee to seek endorsement of the reasons for refusal that Officers would have been recommending had the Local Planning Authority been able to determine the application. The reasons for refusal would form the basis of the Local Planning Authority’s defence of the appeal and were set out in Paragraph 23 of Report No DEV/WS/22/016.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that since the agenda was published three further representations had been received in objection to the scheme which were verbally summarised to the meeting, none of which raised any new issues not previously covered by earlier representations.

A Member site visit had been held prior to the meeting. The Committee was informed that Luke Barber, Strategic Transport and Policy Manager, was in attendance in order to respond to any questions on behalf of Suffolk County Council Highways.

Speakers:    Councillor Maggie Dunn (Chair, Great Barton Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Birgitte Mager (Ward Member, Moreton Hall) spoke against the application

                   Steven Sensecall (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Whilst some Members voiced support for the principle of  development on the allocated site and acknowledged the developer’s efforts to reach agreement with the Local Highway Authority, they also endorsed the objection made by the Highways Authority and stressed the need for the highways impact to be thoroughly mitigated.

A number of comments were made in relation to the historical traffic issues in the area, especially at peak times; with particular reference given to the improvements needed at the Orttewell bridge.

Councillor Trevor Beckwith addressed the meeting as Ward Member for Moreton Hall and also raised concerns in relation to existing flooding at Compeigne Way and the need for this to be addressed.

Other Councillors posed questions in relation to the building programme/timetable, heating methods and highways matters. All of which were responded to by the Principal Planning Officer and the Strategic Transport and Policy Manager.

In response to comments made regarding the appeals process the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that the financial implications of an appeal was not a material planning considerations relevant to the determination of an application and they should concentrate their deliberations on the matters outlined in the report including planning policy and comments from statutory consultees.

Councillor Peter Stevens proposed that the Officer’s recommendation at Paragraph 23 be endorsed and, had the Local Planning Authority been able to determine the application, that it should be refused for the reasons set out in the report. This was duly seconded by Councillor Jim Thorndyke.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Had the Local Planning Authority been able to determine the application, planning permission would have been refusED for the following reasons, and the matters raised within them be pursued by the Local Planning Authority through the appeal process:

1.   The proposed development has been assessed as having an unacceptable impact on highway safety and will result in residual cumulative severe impacts on the local and strategic transport network.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021). The proposal is also considered to be contrary to Policies CS3, CS7, CS8, CS11 and CS14 of the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy (December 2010) and Policy DM45 of the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Joint Development Management Policies Document, which seek to ensure that all development fully addresses access and transport considerations and ensures that they deliver an appropriate level of infrastructure to fully mitigate the highway impacts of the proposal; and 

2.   The absence of a signed section 106 Agreement leaves the Local Planning Authority unable to secure the infrastructure improvements and enhancements, as well as the financial contributions necessary to monitor and maintain such that are considered necessary to render this development satisfactory. The result of this would be an unsustainable development contrary to the requirements of Policy CS14 of the St. Edmundsbury Core Strategy (2010) and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.