27.1 Item A
Proposal Outline Planning Application – Erection of up to 210 dwellings, means of access, open space and associated infrastructure, including junction improvements. Members are advised that this outline application requires the principle of proposed residential use to be considered along with proposed access arrangements [access to the site will not form reserved matters in the event that outline planning permission is ultimately granted].
Site Location THURSTON – Land South West of, Beyton Road, Thurston, Suffolk
Applicant Bloor Homes and Sir George A. Agnew
27.2 The Case Officer began to present the application to the Committee, but an adjournment was taken between 10:58- 10:06.
27.3 During the adjournment Councillor Kathie Guthrie left the meeting due to illness. Councillor Hicks took the Chair.
27.4 The Case Officer comprehensively presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers before Members, and the officer recommendation of approval.
27.5 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed measures regarding the railway station pathway, the proposed measures regarding Fishwick Corner and possible cycle links, the proposed highways measures and roundabouts being proposed, that the site was not within the Thurston Neighbourhood Plan area, the detail of the neighbourhood plan and the allocations within it.
27.6 The Chief Planning Officer clarified that the Thurston Neighbourhood plan acknowledged that the District would address housing need outside of the plan and that there was not a conflict between the Neighbourhood Plan and the Draft Joint Local Plan.
27.6 The Case Officer and Chief Planning Officer responded to further questions on issues including: the weight of the Development Plan and the Draft Joint Local Plan, and that the housing need was set by Central Government. The Professional Lead for Key Sites and Infrastructure Development outlined that meetings regarding the Infrastructure delivery plan were ongoing and that no formal decision had been made in terms of accessibility to the railway bridge.
27.7 The Transport Policy and Development Manager responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the number of pedestrian movements under the bridge and also the number of movements of pedestrians crossing the railway line. He further responded to questions regarding the package of proposed highways improvements and those that had been agreed previously in the area including updated traffic modelling.
27.8 Members considered the representation from Julian West and Victoria Waples of Thurston Parish Council.
27.9 Members considered the representation from Keith Towers who spoke as an Objector.
27.10 Members considered the representation from Robert Eburne who spoke as the Applicant.
27.11 The Applicants and the Highways Consultant responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the car club and its proposed operation, the build out rate of the proposal, when the proposed highways works would be completed, and the deliverability of the Affordable Homes.
27.12 Members considered the email representation from Councillor Wendy Turner.
27.13 Members considered the representation from Councillor Harry Richardson who spoke as the Ward Member.
27.14 The Ward Member present responded to Members’ questions on issues including: access to the railway station.
27.15 A short comfort break was taken between 12:00-12:10.
27.16 Members debated the application on the issues including: the sustainability of the proposal and the sustainability measures proposed, the weight of the Neighbourhood Plan and the Draft Joint Local Plan, the CIL monies that would be collected from the proposed development, and the railway pathway improvements.
27.17 The Professional Lead for Housing Enabling advised Members that all developers could apply for CIL exemptions.
27.18 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the weight of the policies associated with the application, the weight associated to the Neighbourhood Plan and the Draft Local Plan, the spatial distribution of the Draft Joint Local Plan, the sustainable location of the proposal, the highways improvements associated with the development and the Car Club.
27.19 Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation with the addition as follows:
- That Ecological Mitigation is added to the Section 106 Agreement.
27.20 Councillor Dave Muller seconded the proposal.
27.21 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the development plan, the railway link, the proposed increase in the size of the village, the land supply of the Council, the sustainability of the proposal, the provision for healthcare in the area, the conflict between the Neighbourhood Plan and the Joint Local Plan, the connectivity for cyclists.
27.22 By 7 Votes to 6
In the event of:
1. The satisfactory and prior completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the delivery of a staggered junction and associated new section of road as generally shown on drawing ref: X601_EL_201B [Fishwick Corner] along with the delivery of the matters set out in the recommend dation section of this report
v The need for a highway works phasing plan to be submitted to and approved by the Council as local planning authority before any development on site proceeds above slab height. That plan shall identify when each of the required highway works is to have been provided by reference to a prior to [x] occupations within the residential development. The mechanics for delivery of those works shall be the subject of S278 Agreements with SCC as local highway authority. MSDC as local planning authority will require the development to conform with the Highway Works phasing plan thereafter and for phased occupations not to exceed the restrictions set out within that agreed Plan
v On-site delivery of 35% affordable housing as required by the Council’s Housing Strategy Service
v £30,000 financial contribution towards a Thurston Station platform improvement feasibility and design study
v Delivery of no less than two car club vehicles within the village
v Provision of a public electric charging point within the village
v Provision of urban gym trail facilities within the development and an equipped local play area. [with appropriate maintenance arrangements]
v Provision and maintenance of open space
v Travel plan monitoring fee
v Payment of the Education contributions
New primary school land cost : £67,288
New primary school build cost: £1,019,772
New early years build cost: £372,609
Total £1,459,669 [or such other sum as shall have been agreed with SCC]
2 The Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT Outline Planning Permission subject to conditions that shall include those as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:
· Reduced time limit for submission of reserved matters [to 12 months] and then 18 to commence
· Reserved matters as submitted shall be based substantially on the illustrative drawings reference…and shall include cross sections
· Removal of householder permitted development rights
· No encroachment of built form into any of the open space areas shown on the illustrative layout
· Reduced time for submission of reserved matters [to 12 Months] and then 18 months to commence
· Reserved Matters to be substantially in accordance with illustrative material
· No built form shall encroach into or upon any of the open space land shown on the illustrative drawings
· Total residential units shall not exceed 210
· Unit size shall be a matter for reserved matters
· Removal of Permitted development Rights
· Approved Plans (Plans submitted that form this application)
· Parking to comply with Adopted Parking Standards
· Ecological Mitigation
· Electric charging to all plots and sustainable construction
· External materials which shall include clay tiles and clay stock bricks, externally applied glazing bars and 75mm window reveals in masonry
· Construction Method Statement
· As required by SCC Highways
· As required by SCC Water & Floods and ,
3 Appropriate informatives
4 In the event of the Planning obligations or requirements referred to in Resolutions (1) and (2) above not being secured within 6 months then the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to refuse the application on appropriate grounds if he deems there is little or no prospect of the issues delaying the securing of (1) and (2) being resolved given a reasonable extension of time.
 To include agreed split between affordable rented and shared ownership, nomination rights, unit size [no of beds and no of persons per unit and delivery rate linked to phased occupations of open market units