Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/24/014

 

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 originally referred to the Development Control Committee on 6 March 2024 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 had also raised objections to the application.

 

At the March meeting Members were ‘minded to refuse’ the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, for the following reason:

 

‘The additional vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development routing through surrounding villages to avoid peak time congestion on the A143 would have a significant harmful impact on the amenity of residents. This harm outweighs the benefits of the proposal.’

 

Accordingly, the Decision Making Protocol was invoked which required a risk assessment to be produced for further consideration by the Committee and which formed the content of Report No DEV/WS/24/014.

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the March meeting.

 

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that he had received some late representations from residents since publication of the agenda, one of which was received earlier that morning. He summarised the content to the Committee, all of which raised concerns previously covered in other representations, principally in respect of the impact on the highway network.

 

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure a Farmland Bird Mitigation Strategy for a period of 10 years and the conditions set out in the report.

 

Speakers:    Nigel Burrows (resident of Hepworth) spoke against the application on behalf of himself and David Tomlin (fellow Hepworth resident)

                   Councillor Richard Winch (Mid Suffolk Ward Member for Walsham le Willows) spoke against the application by way of a submitted statement read out by the Democratic Services Officer in Councillor Winch’s absence

                   Kate Rees (resident of Ixworth) spoke against the application

                   Roger Spiller (on behalf of ‘Green Ixworth’) 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 Thorope Parish Council) spoke against the application by way of a submitted statement read out by the Democratic Services Officer in Councillor Lord’s absence

                   Councillor Carol Bull (Ward Member: Barningham) spoke on the application by way of a submitted statement read out by the Democratic Services Officer in Councillor Bull’s absence

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

                   Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger (Ward Member: The Fornhams & Great Barton) spoke against the application

                   Paul Sutton (Jaynic – Applicant) spoke in support of the application on behalf of himself, Andrew Anderson (Jaynic), Nic Rumsey (Jaynic) and Mark Geddes (Richard Jackson Engineering Consultants)

 

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

 

On reconvening the Committee the Chair welcomed the two Suffolk County Council Highways Officers in attendance to the meeting.

 

Significant discussion then took place on the potential highways impacts of the scheme. A number of Members continued to recognise the benefits the application would bring about to the village of Stanton but raised concerns that other neighbouring villages would be adversely impacted by increased traffic movements.

 

Councillor Phil Wittam questioned the robustness of a travel plan and the inability to control third parties travelling to the application site, he also considered a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to be necessary for Stanton in order to restrict the vehicles travelling through the village, irrespective of the new road proposed.

 

Councillors Jon London and Jim Thorndyke made reference to the condition in respect of a Liaison Group and asked if this could be amended in order to enable the group to be expanded to accommodate existing businesses and future developments at Shepherds Grove and to prevent the group operating in isolation. The Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that this would be a sensible approach and a form of words could be looked at to ensure wider membership of the group.

 

The Chair invited the Highways Officers present to respond to the relevant questions/comments raised as follows:

Great Barton Air Quality Management Area – the Highways Officer explained that the application was not considered to adversely impact Great Barton in this respect, however, highways improvements for the Bunbury Arms junction in Great Barton were in the County Council’s future programme of works;

TRO Stanton – it was clarified that irrespective of the planning application a Traffic Regulation Order for Stanton could always be pursued separately;

Ixworth – the Committee was assured that Suffolk County Council Highways were monitoring traffic movements/highways impacts in and round Ixworth separately to this planning application;

Public Transport – whilst the provision of public transport was a commercial decision taken by operators, it was envisaged that the public transport provision for Shepherds Grove would grow organically alongside the development of the area; and

‘Severe’ classification – Members were advised that Central Government defined the parameters of a ‘severe’ impact on the highway network by way of the National Planning Policy Framework. This was not able to be set locally and did not differentiate between urban and rural areas. In order to aid understanding, those road networks predicted to exceed capacity by 2040 elsewhere within the West Suffolk District were referenced by the Highways Officer. Accordingly, Suffolk County Council Highways were not recommending that the application before the Committee be refused, subject to the identified highways mitigation.

 

The Principal Planning Officer also responded to the Committee on other, non-highways, elements raised as follows:

10 years – Members were advised that the extended time limit proposed for commencement of the application was due to the scale of the development;

Masterplan expiry - whilst the Masterplan adoption period had expired, it was still considered to have some weight as a material consideration in the determination of the application due to the expiry only having taken place in December 2022;

Refusal reason – as explained within the report, the Officer further clarified that the Local Highway Authority had indicated that there were no technical grounds for refusing this application for the refusal reason set out by Members at the last meeting of the Committee. Notwithstanding this, formal wording for a refusal on the grounds of cumulative highways impact on neighbouring amenity had been drafted within the report.

 

Following a question from Councillor Susan Glossop, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that whilst the proposed development did not accord with all the criteria of Policy RV4, the main employment elements of the scheme did accord with the policy.

 

Councillor Phil Wittam proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, on the grounds of the cumulative highway impact on the amenity of neighbouring villages, as per the wording in the risk assessment report. This was duly seconded by Councillor Rachel Hood.

 

Further to the earlier discussion in relation to policy compliance in respect of Policy RV4, the Chair sought clarification from the proposer and seconder if they also wished to include this as a second refusal reason, in relation to the lack of a viability assessment for the additional ‘higher value’ uses proposed within the scheme. Councillors Wittam and Hood confirmed they would support this inclusion.

 

Accordingly, upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting in favour and with 4 against, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

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

 

1.           The proposed development has the potential to create in excess of 1000 additional two-way traffic movements on the local highway network, some of which would use local roads through villages. The additional vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development routing through surrounding villages to avoid peak time congestion on the A143 would have a harmful impact on the amenity of residents. The roads through local villages such as Hepworth, Barningham, and Walsham le Willows, are not suitable as regular commuter routes and should not be used as alternative routes for vans and lorries. The existing impact of traffic avoiding existing congestion on the A143 to access Shepherds Grove Industrial Estate results in an increase in traffic in local villages and a loss of amenity for residents through a reduction of opportunities for safe walking and cycling. The additional traffic on local roads resultant from the development would further harm the amenity of residents in these villages. The additional traffic on the local highway network and unsuitable local roads and the resultant harm caused to the amenity of local residents is considered to be significant. This harm outweighs the benefits of the proposal. The development is considered to be contrary to Joint Development Management Policy DM2 and paragraph 115 of the NPPF in this regard; and

 

2.           If, having regard to prevailing market conditions, it is demonstrated that the development of the available land at the Shepherd's Grove site for B1/B2/B8 uses together with the provision of the required access road could not be viably achieved, the inclusion of a proportion of residential and/or other higher-value development will be considered. Any higher-value development included for this purpose shall be no more than is necessary to achieve a viable B1/B2/B8 development together with the access road, and shall not include any main town centre uses as defined in the Glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework, other than retail development to serve local needs. The amount, location and nature of any higher-value development will be specified in the masterplan for the site and will be subject to regular review, having regard to market conditions and development viability.

A Masterplan for the site was adopted in December 2019 that included a detailed economic viability assessment to help inform the quantum of higher value uses required to deliver the significant highway infrastructure costs of the formation of the new access and link road. Due to the market conditions at the time, the 'higher value' uses proposed included residential (400 dwellings) and roadside uses including restaurant, pub, hotel and petrol filling station. However, this Masterplan was adopted for a period of 3 years and expired in December 2022.

Policy RV4 requires the masterplan to be reviewed having regard to market conditions and development viability. Without a viability appraisal having been undertaken, the amount, location and nature of any higher-value uses has not been proven to be 'no more than is necessary to achieve a viable Planning and Growth, West Suffolk Council, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 3YU B1/B2/B8 development together with the access road', as required by Policy RV4. 

The 'higher value' uses now proposed are hotel (use class C1), pub (sui generis use), restaurant (use class E(b), hot food take away (sui generis use), and other Class E 'Commercial, Business and Service' (excluding class E(a)) uses on plots A, B and C. Some of these uses are defined as 'main town centre uses' in the glossary of the NPPF and are specifically excluded from Policy RV4. The inclusion of town centre uses within the application without viability justification is contrary to Policy RV4, and consequently contrary to Joint Development Management Policy DM35 and paragraph 91 of the NPPF.

 

(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.

Councillor Donna Higgins joined the meeting at the start of Part B.)