Agenda item

Erection of 133 no. one and two bedroom flats and 2 no. Class A1, A2 or A3 retail units with associated access, car parking, landscaping, bin and cycle storage (following demolition of existing buildings), as amended, at Land at Station Hill, Bury St. Edmunds for Peal Estates LLP.

Report No. DEV/SE/15/67

See also agenda item 10 below.

Erection of 135 no. one and two bedroom flats with associated access, car parking, landscaping, bin and cycle storage (following demolition of existing buildings), as amended, at Land at Station Hill, Bury St. Edmunds for Peal Estates LLP.

(Councillor Julia Wakelam declared a local non-pecuniary interest as her husband’s firm had been involved in drawing up plans for the proposal at a pre-application stage but at the present time it was no longer engaged as an agent for the applicants.  She remained within the meeting)

This application had been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 6 August 2015 when Members had been mindful of granting planning permission.  A further report on Section 106 matters had been requested before a final decision was made and the Committee also needed to consider a Risk Assessment given that such a decision would be contrary to the Officers’ recommendation.  This information was provided in paragraphs 7 and 51 to 54 of Report DEV/SE/15/67.  A report on Development Viability commissioned by the applicants was contained as Exempt Appendix B to this report.  Further exempt information provided by the Council’s appointed viability consultant had been previously circulated as a Committee Update Report after the agenda and papers for this meeting had been distributed.  The Committee agreed that it did not wish to discuss the content and detail of the viability issues as referred to in Appendix B and the Update Report.  In presenting the report Officers drew attention to an amendment of the application whereby, because of objections from the highway authority, the proposed two retail units had been withdrawn and substituted with two dwellings thus reverting to the original total of proposed dwellings involved of 135.

The following person spoke on this application:

(a)     One of the Ward Members        -        Councillor David Nettleton.

In response to Members’ questions Officers advised as follows:

(i)      the site was not within an Air Quality Action Area and therefore there was not a need to pay close regard to pollution issues.  Officers dealing with Air Quality matters had been consulted about the application and no concerns had been raised in response;

(ii)     there could be no requirement for the dwellings to be constructed to level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes as the Government had recently abolished these standards.  The advice of Government contained in the National Planning Policy Guidance was that local planning authorities would need to provide evidence of a localised need for sustainability measures in support of any planning policy requirement to build at standards above those prescribed by the Building Regulations.  Policy DM74 of the Joint Development Management Policies reflected the latest changes regarding the consideration of sustainable construction issues relating to planning proposals.  The Council, as local planning authority, could require Water Efficiency measures but other matters relating to sustainable construction were to be resolved under the Building Regulations;

(iii)    the amount of affordable housing agreed with the applicants was 10% of the total although a review mechanism (as recommended by the Council’s viability consultant) had also been accepted by them.  This would ensure that enhancements in the market could be captured with potentially more affordable housing contributions being received.  Whilst it may not result in a greater number of affordable homes being built on the application site it may require a contribution to be made towards the provision of such dwellings elsewhere in the town;

(iv)    the impact on the historic railway station buildings had been the principal reason for the Officers’ recommendation that the application be refused;

(v)     there was no scope for requesting the layout of the scheme now under consideration to be amended and if Members wished for changes to be made this could only be achieved by refusing the current application;

(vi)    the local planning authority could not control the manufacture or type of paint to be used although it could stipulate colour schemes and this was part of one of the conditions being recommended in the report;

(vii)   there would be no requirement for a commuted sum to be paid to the Council by the applicants in respect of the maintenance of open spaces since it was not intended that the authority would take over such areas.  The probability therefore was that a management company would be engaged by the developers to carry out this and other maintenance work at the application site; and

(viii)   the need for trees of appropriate species to be planted would be taken into account when details of the landscaping scheme were being considered. These were required to be submitted under a proposed planning condition.

In discussing the application some Members expressed concern about the impact the height of the proposed buildings would have on the street scene along Station Hill but it was acknowledged that the form of the development had been set to a large extent by the design of the blocks of flats in Forum Court opposite the application site.  The Committee also acknowledged that re-development of the area of the application site was needed in view of its untidy and neglected state.

Decision

Subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement, the imposition of planning conditions and the resolution of objections received from the Travel Plan Co-ordinator, Suffolk County Council, permission be granted.