Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

28.1 A lunch break was taken between 13:10-13:40 after the completion of DC/19/03486 but before the commencement of DC/19/02090.

 

28.2 It was noted that Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE left the meeting during the lunch break.

 

28.3 Item B

 

Application          DC/19/02090

Proposal             Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved)- Erection of up to 210 dwellings and new vehicular access to include planting and landscaping, natural and semi- natural green space including community growing space(s), children’s play area and sustainable drainage system (SuDS), to include 35% affordable dwellings. 

Site Location       THURSTON – Land to the East of, Ixworth Road, Thurston, Suffolk

Applicant             Gladman Developments Ltd

 

 

28.4 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.

 

28.5 The Senior Development Management Engineer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed improvements at the Bunbury Arms junction, and that there was proposed to be a crossing on Barton Road but its precise location had yet to be determined.

 

28.6 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed environmental benefits, electric vehicle charging points, ecological mitigation strategy, the healthcare provision in the area, and the proposed planting to restore hedgerows and reinforce them.

 

28.7 Members considered the representation from Richard Fawcett and Victoria Waples who spoke on behalf of Thurston Parish Council.

 

28.8  The Parish Council representatives responded to Members questions on issues including: engagement from the applicant with the Parish Council, why the site was not included in the Neighbourhood Plan, and the traffic situation on Ixworth Road.

 

28.9 Members considered the representation from Keith Towers who spoke as an Objector.

 

28.10 Members considered the representation from Stuart Carvel who spoke as the Agent.

 

28.11 The Agent responded to Members questions on issues including: that the package of planning permission and Section 106 would be sold.

 

28.12 The Transport Policy and Development Manager advised Members that the majority of the transport assessment had been completed but not all the scoping had been completed.

 

28.13 Members were advised that the email representation from Councillor Wendy Turner applied to applications DC/19/03486 and the application before Members.

 

28.14 Members considered the representation from Councillor Harry Richardson who spoke as the Ward Member.

 

28.15 Councillor Peter Gould left the meeting at 14:29.

 

28.16 Members debated the application on the issues including: the healthcare provision in the area, the highways mitigation measures, that the site was not in the Neighbourhood Plan, and the CIL monies that would be generated from the site.

 

28.17 The Transport Policy and Development Manager advised Members that a further improvement was proposed with the Bunbury Arms junctions of using a system called MOVA.

 

28.18 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: safe access to the school, the Neighbourhood Plan’s aspiration for bungalows, and the proposed landscaping of the site.

 

28.19 The Case Officer and Professional Lead for Housing Enabling advised Members the Committee that it could be secured that no built form would take place on the designated green areas, and that good connections to the school were secured through the Thurston 5 that had previously been approved as well as the proposed Section 106 for the application before Members, and that the open housing mix was not within the Planning Committees control.

 

28.20 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the conflict between the Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF, the proposed highways mitigation measures, the response from the police regarding the design.

 

28.21 Councillor Dave Muller proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Lavinia Hadingham seconded the motion.

 

28.22 By 5 votes to 6

 

28.23 The motion was lost.

 

28.24 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the proposed highways mitigations and that the complete modelling had yet to be completed.

 

28.25 Councillor John Field proposed that the application be minded to refuse  and is subject to the following points:

 

-        Further analysis of the highway situation at the Bunbury Arms junction and Barton Road/ Station Hill junction

-        Updated information on railway station improvements

-        Greater certainty over the landscape buffer forming part of the scheme.

-        And that the application be reported back to Committee with such further information

 

28.26 Councillor Rowland Warboys seconded the motion.

 

28.27 By 5 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions

 

28.28 RESOLVED

 

The application is minded to refuse and is subject to the following points:

 

-        Further analysis of the highway situation at the Bunbury Arms junction and Barton Road/ Station Hill junction

-        Updated information on railway station improvements

-        Greater certainty over the landscape buffer forming part of the scheme.

-        And that the application be reported back to Committee with such further information

 

Supporting documents: