Agenda item

Planning Application DC/21/2328/FUL - Sentinel Works, Northgate Avenue, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/22/017)

Report No: DEV/WS/22/017


Planning application - nine dwellings


Planning application - nine dwellings


This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel, having been called-in by the Ward Members (Tollgate).


Bury St Edmunds Town Council objected to the scheme which was contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as set out in Paragraph 91 of Report No DEV/WS/22/017, inclusive of an amendment to No 18 and four additional conditions as outlined in the Officer presentation.


A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.


(On conclusion of the Principal Planning Officer’s presentation the Chair permitted a very short adjournment to allow a Member of the Committee to briefly step outside the meeting room. On their return the meeting was continued.)


The Committee undertook considerable discussion on the application, with a number of Members referencing the existing planning permission, which was granted for the site in 2019, for 8 dwellings and 2 cartlodges.


Concern was also raised in respect of the parking provision offered by the scheme, however, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that Suffolk County Council Highways had not objected on this basis.


Comments were also made in relation to waste collection, the contrived nature of the layout and impact on amenity.


Councillor Mike Chester moved that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to overdevelopment, impact on amenity, the contrived nature of the layout including the waste collection arrangements (Policies DM2 and DM22). This was duly seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.


Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion and 2 against, it was resolved that




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

Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy and policy DM2 and DM22 of the Joint Development Management Policies Policy together seek to produce designs that respect the character, scale, density and massing of the locality, to create coherent and legible places. DM22 states that residential development should be laid out to optimise amenity, with streets and parking facilitating this primary objective. Policy DM46 further requires all proposals for redevelopment, including changes of use, to provide appropriately designed and sited car and cycle parking, plus make provision for emergency, delivery and service vehicles.

The NPPF at para 135 advises that Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme.

The proposed redevelopment of nine new dwellings, on a site that is within the defined settlement boundary for Bury St Edmunds which benefits from permission for 8 dwellings, would result in overdevelopment which is demonstrated by the contrived and cramped layout of the site with excessive bin dragging distances and contrived tandem parking serving the rear plots, making manoeuvring difficult.

The dwellings positioning in proximity to the site boundaries would cause overbearing impacts on neighbouring properties to the detriment of residential amenity contrary to policy DM2g, which seeks to prevent all new developments from adversely affecting residential amenity.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would overall not represent good design, and would fail to create a coherent and legible place contrary to policies CS3 of the St Edmundsbury Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2010) and DM2 and DM22 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015). The development would also be contrary to DM46 and guidance contained with the NPPF, which highlights the importance of good design as a key aspect of sustainable development and states that developments should add to the overall quality of an area and achieve high standard of amenity for existing and future users.


Supporting documents: