Minutes:
93.1 Item A
Application DC/19/03924
Proposal Outline planning application (some matter reserved – access to be considered) for site redemption works (phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space, and associated landscaping (Phase 2).
Site Location ELMSWELL – Land to the west of the Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell
Applicant Harrow Estates PLC
93.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of approval.
93.3 The Case Officer and Area Planning Manager responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed access to the site, that there would be only one access, the advice that was given in the Suffolk Design Guide, the response from the Highways Authority, and the proposed vehicle routes that could be taken from the site to the A14.
94.4 Members considered the representation from Peter Dow of Elmswell Parish Council who spoke against the application.
94.5 Members considered the representation from Geoff Armstrong who spoke as the Agent.
94.6 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members regarding the capacity for healthcare and that this would be mitigated through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
94.7 Members considered the representation from Councillor Sarah Mansel who spoke as a Ward Member.
94.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Helen Geake who spoke as a Ward Member.
94.9 The Ward Members responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the expansion of schools in the area, and the current status of the Neighbourhood Plan.
94.10 Members debated the application on the issues including: the contents of the Suffolk Design guide , specifically regarding the access to the site and its suitability. Members continued to debate on issues including: the provision for education including the schooling provision, the proposed cycle benefits and the details of what these would be, and any risks of flooding downstream.
94.11 A short adjournment was taken between 12:55-13:01.
94.12 The Area Planning Manager addressed the Committee outlining concerns regarding the Highways comments and the proposed improvements and updated the officer recommendation as follows:
- That the application is deferred for the reason below:
- Officers Considered that given the questions raised on Highways matters during the presentation and debate that further consideration and detail was needed to provide Members with sufficient information to take a decision forward. Further details as to the highway considerations and improvements shall be compiled and the application would be returned to the MSDC Development Control B Committee.
94.13 Councillor Guthrie proposed that the application be deferred as detailed in the updated officer recommendation. Councillor John Matthissen seconded the motion.
94.14 By a unanimous vote
94.15 RESOLVED
That the application was deferred for the reason below:
- Officers Considered that given the questions raised on Highways matters during the presentation and debate that further consideration and detail was needed to provide Members with sufficient information to take a decision forward. Further details as to the highway considerations and improvements shall be compiled and the application would be returned to the MSDC Development Control B Committee.
Supporting documents: