Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/15/036

Proposed residential development of 166 no. market dwellings, including associated public open space, associated accesses, landscaping and ancillary works, including the part retrospective development of 24 residential units (as amended by drawings received 09 July 2015 which proposes 49 affordable housing units).

Proposed residential development of 166 no. market dwellings, including associated public open space, associated accesses, landscaping and ancillary works, including the part retrospective development of 24 residential units (as amended by drawings received 9 July 2015 which proposes 49 affordable housing units).

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee because it was a major application and objections had been received from Beck Row, Holywell Row and Kenny Hill Parish Council and third parties.

A Member site visit had been held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be approved as set out in Paragraph 267 of Report No DEV/FH/15/036.

The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects advised the Committee that the site had already achieved planning permission for 150 dwellings for occupation by USAF personnel and the 24 units currently under construction were being built in accordance with that permission.  However, if Members were to grant the application before them this would remove the occupancy restriction in respect of these dwelling units.

The Officer also explained that in the application seeking determination, Holmsey Green would no longer be ‘stopped up’ as had been the case for the previously granted application.  The Suffolk County Council Highway’s Officer in attendance explained that this change had been brought about following a safety audit which had highlighted that the delivery vehicles visiting the neighbouring retail units would be unable to turn around if Holmsey Green were to be stopped up, and so would therefore need a through route access.

Lastly, the Committee was advised that following comments made by the West Suffolk Strategic Housing team the applicant had confirmed that they would be marginally increasing the size of their 2 bed units, but this would have no impact on the layout of the development.

Some Members raised concern with regard to the access to/from the dwelling units numbered 151 and 152 due to their close proximity to the Holmsey Green/The Street junction.  Councillor Ruth Bowman asked if it would be possible to condition the application to ensure that the additional highway work required under a separate highway application (but not part of the planning application) was implemented prior to occupation of these units.  The Planning Officer agreed that this was indeed possible and the Highways Officer stated that she would support this way forward.

Following which it was moved by Councillor Simon Cole that the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation and with the additional condition as identified.  This was seconded by Councillor Louis Busuttil and with 13 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that:

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

1.       The completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the following    (subject to meeting the CIL Reg 122 tests):

•        Policy compliant level and tenure split of affordable housing.

•        Education contribution.

•        Pre-school contribution.

•        Provision of on-site and off site open space.

•        Transport contribution.

•        Healthcare contribution.

2.       And the following conditions/informatives:

1.       Time (3 years for commencement).

2.       Compliance with approved plans.

3.       Highways – Storage of refuse and recycling bins.

4.       Highways – Details of carriageways and footways.

5.       Highways – Deliveries Management Plan.

6.       Highways – Parking.

7.       Contamination – further investigative work if found.

8.       Foul water disposal details.

9.       Surface water drainage details: SuDs management plan.

10.     Construction method statement.

11.     Working hours.

12.     Ground levels details.

13.     Details of boundary treatment.

14.     Samples of materials.

15.     Detailed scheme of hard and soft landscaping.

16.     Tree protection.

17.     Details of tree works for retained trees.

18.     Detailed Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection            Plan.

19.     Open space management plan.

20.     Details of play equipment.

21.     Details of lighting.

22.     Recommendations of Ecological Appraisal to be implemented.

23.     Provision of fire hydrants.

24.     Waste minimisation and recycling strategy.

25.     That the highways measures in connection with the development be in place prior to occupation of dwelling units 151 and 152.

In the event that there are any substantive changes to the Section 106 package, then this would go back to Members for consideration.

In the event the applicant declines to enter into a planning obligation to secure the Heads of Terms set out above, for reasons considered unreasonable by the Head of Planning and Growth, planning permission be refused for the following reasons (as may be appropriate):

1.       Unsustainable form of development not mitigating its impact on education provision, open space sport and recreation, transport (contrary to the Framework and Core Strategy Policy CS13).

2.       Non compliance with affordable housing policy (contrary to Core Strategy policy CS9 and supporting SPD document).

Speaker:      Mr Martin Davidson (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Following the conclusion of this item the Chairman permitted a short comfort break.