Agenda item

Report No:   CAB/SE/16/009

Portfolio Holder: Alaric Pugh           Lead Officer: Steven Wood

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/16/009, which presented the recommendations of the Sustainable Development Working Party emanating from its meeting 27 January 2016.

On 27 January 2016, the Sustainable Development Working Party considered the following substantive items of business:

(1)     Park Farm, Ingham: Adoption of Concept Statement; and

(2)     Tayfen Road Development Area, Bury St Edmunds: Masterplan.

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet, including that thorough consideration had been given to the two items outlined above at the meeting of the Sustainable Development Working Party.

In respect of the Park Farm, Ingham Concept Statement, the Sustainable Development Working Party had drawn attention to traffic generation issues and pedestrian access/egress, and whilst early discussion had been held with officers of the highway authority regarding such matters, they were outside the remit of the Concept Statement and would be addressed at the later Masterplan and planning application stages.

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Concept Statement has been prepared in accordance with the Vision 2031 Development Plan document and the Council’s Protocol for Preparing Concept Statements.

In respect of the Tayfen Road Development Area Masterplan, the draft Masterplan was intended as a replacement for the existing Masterplan dating from 2009 which had not been delivered. Given recent major changes in the ‘off line’ retail market place it was no longer considered that the 2009 Masterplan was deliverable over the Development Plan period (to 2031).

The Masterplan under consideration was not entirely consistent with the adopted Concept Statement and sought to amend the configuration of commercial (non- residential) uses of the site that were envisaged in the previous Concept Statement adopted in 2007. The amendments proposed were a consequence of changed conditions in the retail market. The current Masterplan also proposed residential development on part of the existing allocated ‘public open space’ to the north of the site.

Whilst the Masterplan under consideration retained the concept of mixed uses for the site, Officers outlined at the Sustainable Development Working Party meeting its principal differences with the original Masterplan, as contained in Report No: CAB/SE/16/009.

The Sustainable Development Working Party had expressed concerns in relation to the Masterplan, in respect of the following, to which officers had duly responded, as set out in Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/16/009:

          (a)     increased traffic generation;

(b)     affordable housing;

(c)     type of commercial development; and

(d)     pedestrian/cyclist links.

The Cabinet made specific reference to (a) and (b) above and considered that during the pre-application and planning application stages that discussions would be required to establish that a planning application would need to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment which would assess the traffic impacts of the application(s) and to make proposals to mitigate these. Members acknowledged that  Suffolk County Council’s Bury St Edmunds Transport Strategy 2011 -2031 had identified that there needed to be improvements to junctions along Tayfen Road but were of the view that there were wider considerations of the need for highway improvements in connection with the re-development of this area of the town and the town centre generally.  Such improvements needed to sit comfortably with the emerging Bury St Edmunds Town Centre Masterplan. 

In respect of (b) above, concern was expressed that the planning application currently being processed in respect of the Masterplan area only contained 10% of affordable housing units rather than 30% in line with the Council’s adopted policy.  Officers explained that this was a matter which was still the subject of assessment and negotiation and viability issues needed to be addressed. Members reaffirmed the view that that the amount of affordable housing to be provided as an integral part of the overall development should accord with policy expectations.

The discussion then centred on viability issues and the provision of sufficient affordable housing in line with adopted policy, and whether potential benefits associated with a potential ‘public open book’ policy outweighed the risks of potentially making Bury St Edmunds unattractive for developers.