Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/24/008

Hybrid planning application - (A) (i) Full application on 27.56 ha of the site for the storage, distribution and processing of accident damaged and non-damaged motor vehicles, together with the construction of ancillary buildings (B8 Use Class), perimeter fencing and landscaping works (ii) Full application for a new roundabout/road and additional landscaping on circa 5.37 ha of the application site - (B) (i) Outline application for the construction of buildings for commercial/roadside uses (Use Classes B2, B8, C1, E (excluding E(a)), and a hot food takeaway and pub/restaurant) on circa 2.7 ha of the application site (Plots A, B and C) with all matters reserved except for access (ii) Outline application for the construction of building(s) for general employment uses (Use Classes B2, B8 and E(g)) on circa 1.37ha of the application site (Plot D) with all matters reserved except for access

(Councillor Andrew Smith declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that he had attended Bardwell Parish Council's meeting when the Parish Council considered the application. However, he stressed that he did not take part in the discussion or voting on the item at the Parish Council and therefore had an open mind.

Similarly, Councillor Jim Thorndyke also declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that he had attended Stanton Parish Council’s meetings when the Parish Council considered the application. However, he stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Hybrid planning application - (A) (i) Full application on 27.56 ha of the site for the storage, distribution and processing of accident damaged and non-damaged motor vehicles, together with the construction of ancillary buildings (B8 Use Class), perimeter fencing and landscaping works (ii) Full application for a new roundabout/road and additional landscaping on circa 5.37 ha of the application site - (B) (i) Outline application for the construction of buildings for commercial/roadside uses (Use Classes B2, B8, C1, E (excluding E(a)), and a hot food takeaway and pub/restaurant) on circa 2.7 ha of the application site (Plots A, B and C) with all matters reserved except for access (ii) Outline application for the construction of building(s) for general employment uses (Use Classes B2, B8 and E(g)) on circa 1.37ha of the application site (Plot D) with all matters reserved except for access

The application was referred to Development Control Committee as the proposed development was of a substantial scale and formed part of a strategic employment allocation.

Whilst Stanton Parish Council supported the application Hepworth, Barningham, Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe, Coney Weston, Bardwell, and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Councils all objected.

A significant number of residents and Parish Councils outside of the West Suffolk District also raised objections to the application.

Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in full in the supplementary ‘late papers’ which were issued after publication of the agenda.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that he had received one late representation that morning from a resident of Walsham le Willows which raised concerns in relation to the application, principally in respect of the impact on the highway network.

The Committee was also advised of two typographical errors within Report No DEV/WS/24/008:

Paragraph 189 - For the PM peak time, 271 vehicles are predicted to arrive depart, and 56 vehicles depart arrive; and

Paragraph 263 - the proposal and its benefits (set out at par. 47 Paragraph 153 of this report).

(Councillor Roger Dicker joined the meeting at 10.32am during the Case Officer’s presentation to the meeting, following his arrival the Lawyer advising the meeting informed all present that due to his late arrival Councillor Dicker would not take part in the voting on the application.)

Speakers:    Nigel Burrows (resident of Hepworth) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Richard Winch (Mid Suffolk Ward Member for Walsham le Willows) spoke against the application

                   Andy Garden (resident of Hepworth) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Joanna Spicer (Suffolk County Councillor for Blackbourn) spoke in support of the application, by way of a submitted statement read out by the Democratic Services Officer in Councillor Spicer’s absence

                   Councillor Garry Bloomfield (Hepworth Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Ben Lord (Ixworth & Ixworth Thorpe Parish Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Carol Bull (Ward Member: Barningham) spoke on the application

                   Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward Member: Stanton) spoke on the application

                   Paul Sutton (Jaynic – Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Roger Spiller (on behalf of Green Ixworth) had registered to speak at the meeting against the application, but had not attended. Councillor Ben Lord had a copy of Mr Spiller’s statement and with the Chair’s consent read this out to the meeting on his behalf.

(On conclusion of the registered speakers the Chair permitted a short comfort break before reconvening and commencing the debate on the application.)

During the debate a number of detailed questions were raised by the Committee which the Principal Planning Officer responded to as follows:

Copart – Members were assured that for applications such as the one seeking determination, it was far more common not to have an end user identified for a scheme. If an end user came forward that didn’t fit the defined use for the site then a new planning application would be required to be submitted;

Jobs – the exact number of jobs to be generated from the proposal was currently unknown, but was likely to be significant;

Vehicle processing/dismantling – the Committee was advised that vehicle dismantling would require a separate use class for the site, which was not being sought as part of the application, the scheme purely included a vehicle processing element (Class B8);

Vehicle fluids/surface water drainage – attention was drawn to conditions 22 and 23 which addressed this matter;

Ecology – an Environmental Management Plan was required by condition and the reference to toads within that could be strengthened if so wished (as specifically raised by Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones);

Lighting – management of lighting was required by condition, with an external lighting plan having been submitted that demonstrated that the majority of light spill would be contained within the site;

Residential development – it was confirmed that there was no residential element to the proposals, unlike the previous Master Plan which included residential development;

Avanti Gas site – further to comments on this site made by Councillor Jim Thorndyke, the Officer confirmed that the Avanti Gas storage area was still classified as a major hazard site and as such the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) were consulted on the application but raised no objection;

Environment Agency – a separate permit would be required from the Environment Agency for vehicle storage and processing; and

Description of planning application – Members were informed that the description was amended some months ago and the planning application had then subsequently been reconsulted on in line with that change.

Significant discussion then took place on the potential highways impacts of the scheme. A number of Members recognised the benefits the application would bring about to the village of Stanton but sought reassurance that the other neighbouring villages would not be adversely impacted and that the mitigation proposed was sufficient.

Specific questions were posed in relation to the ability to set weight restrictions on roads to restrict usage of heavy goods vehicles. The Principal Planning Officer explained that weight restrictions had to be introduced by way of Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO), which require a period of public consultation to be undertaken by the Highways Authority. As such, it was not possible to condition weight restrictions as part of the planning application.

Concerns continued to be raised by a large proportion of the Committee who felt they could not be satisfied on highways matters without a representative from Suffolk County Council Highways being present to respond to them.

Councillor Carol Bull proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to the cumulative impact on the highways network and the impact this would have on residential amenity. This was duly seconded by Councillor David Taylor.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting on the motion for refusal. She explained that the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked in order to allow a risk assessment to be produced, for consideration by the Committee, in light of there being no evidence submitted by Suffolk County Council Highways to support a refusal on highways grounds.

Officers would also make contact with Suffolk County Council Highways to request that an Officer be present at the meeting when the application returned to Committee.

Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting for the motion, 3 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Members were MINDED TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION due to the cumulative impact on the highways network and the impact this would have on residential amenity. A Risk Assessment would therefore be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting, at which Suffolk County Council Highways would also be asked to attend.

(On conclusion of this item and Part A of the meeting, the Chair permitted a short interval before commencing Part B of the meeting.

On commencement of Part B the apologies, substitute and declarations of interest made at the start of Part A were reiterated for the benefit of the public attendees who had joined the meeting for Part B.)