Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/22/023

Planning Application - 141 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure including roads, parking, sustainable drainage, pumping station and public open space, as amended

(Councillor Roger Dicker declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he owned and occupied a property within Red Lodge village. However, Councillor Dicker stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Planning Application - 141 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure including roads, parking, sustainable drainage, pumping station and public open space, as amended.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as the proposals were for ‘major’ development and the Parish Council objected to the scheme.

Furthermore, part of the site (the woodland public open space) was situated outside of the limits of the Local Plan allocation and beyond the settlement boundaries of the village.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 274 of Report No DEV/WS/22/023.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that the recommendation before the Committee was subject to Delegated Authority being given to the Director (Planning and Growth) to resolve the items listed as i) – iv) in Paragraph 274.

The Principal Planning Officer also highlighted the following errors in the report:

·         Paragraph 174 referred to Lakenheath Wastewater Treatment Works, and it should have read Tuddenham;

·         Paragraph 217’s reference to Phase A should be entirely disregarded; and

·         The S106 contributions in Paragraph 274 (iv) were listed inaccurately in respect of primary education, secondary education and health care plus a contribution towards libraries had been mistakenly omitted.

Speaker:      Kath Slater (agent) spoke in support of the application

(Red Lodge Parish Council had also registered to speak but had indicated that they would be unable to attend the meeting in person and intended submit a written statement to be read out. The Chair asked the Democratic Services Officer to verbally update the meeting on the current position, the Officer advised that she had her email account open before her and no further communication had been received from the Parish Clerk since their initial request to register.)    

Councillor Andy Drummond opened the debate and addressed the meeting in his capacity as Suffolk County Councillor for Red Lodge. He noted that the applicant’s strategy having changed, meaning they no longer proposed to provide Calor gas as a fuel source to serve their proposed development, thereby meaning the roads in the scheme could be adopted by the Highways Authority if constructed to an adoptable standard. Councillor Drummond therefore posed the question as to why there was no contribution to highways improvements listed (in particular a TRO relating to parking restrictions) in the S106 Agreement and he asked if the Planning Authority could request that Suffolk County Council Highways reconsider this matter, particularly in view of the Parish Council’s objection largely relating to highways concerns.

Councillor Brian Harvey highlighted the emergency access that had been put in place for the Yellow Land South parcel, part of which ran through the application site, and stressed the importance of ensuring that this access was not restricted over the application site during construction.

The Principal Planning Officer suggested that an additional condition could be added to require a Construction Management Strategy which would set out how the existing emergency access route would be maintained throughout construction of the scheme.

Councillor Andy Neal made reference to the libraries contribution within the S106, as referenced earlier in the meeting, and queried why part of this would go to Newmarket library. He argued that children from Red Lodge mainly attended high school in Mildenhall at the hub site and therefore suggested that Mildenhall library would be more appropriate.

The Officer confirmed that the S106 libraries contribution benefited from some flexibility therefore there was nothing to restrict Suffolk County Council from spending this at Mildenhall, as opposed to Newmarket, if they wished.

Councillor Roger Dicker spoke on the application at length and referred to the planning history of some of the historical Red Lodge largescale developments. He supported both Councillor Drummond’s and Councillor Neal’s suggestions in relation to highways and libraries.

Councillor Dicker also voiced some concern at the number of matters that needed to be delegated to the Director to resolve and suggested that the delegation was carried out in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chairs and Ward Members. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this could certainly be done.

Following specific questions in relation to the Stone Curlew the Officer explained the reasons as to why the surveys that were undertaken were considered robust.

Subject to further discussions being undertaken with the Highways Authority in relation to the matter he raised, Councillor Drummond was content to propose that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

Upon being put to the vote and with 6 voting for the motion, 8 against and with 2 abstentions the Chair declared the motion lost.

The debate continued with other Members voicing reservations at the appropriateness of Thistle Way being used for access to the development in light of the extensive on street parking that took place there.

Accordingly, Councillor David Roach proposed that consideration of the application be deferred to enable:

1.       Further progression of the items listed as (i) – (iv) in Paragraph 274 of the report;

2.       A site visit to take place; and

3.       Conversations to be undertaken with the Highways Authority in respect of the Thistle Way access, which was currently heavily parked on by residents, and the methodology (Construction Management Strategy) for ensuring the existing emergency access route is maintained on the application site during construction

This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

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

Decision

Consideration of the application be DEFERRED to enable:

1.       Further progression of the items listed as (i) – (iv) in Paragraph 274 of the report;

2.       A site visit to take place; and

3.       Conversations to be undertaken with the Highways Authority in respect of the Thistle Way access, which was currently heavily parked on by residents, and the methodology (Construction Management Strategy) for ensuring the existing emergency access route is maintained on the application site during construction.