Minutes:
87.1 Item 6A
Application DC/21/05017
Proposal Full Application – Erection of two-storey, part three-storey GP Surgery and Pharmacy, with associated parking, external works and landscaping.
Site Location SUDBURY – Former Lorry Park, Station Road, Sudbury, CO10 2SS
Applicant Apollo Capital Project Developments Ltd
87.2 Councillor Ayres confirmed the Chair that she would remain on the Committee for the duration of the application, and not speak as Ward Member.
87.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location and layout of the site, the location of the adjacent listed buildings and conservation area, the current use of the site, the proposed parking and access plans, and the officer recommendation of approval subject to drainage conditions as detailed in the committee report.
87.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the existing parking facilities at the site and any proposals for alternative facilities, the proposals compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the railway line, land contamination issues, and car parking enforcement plans.
87.5 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: the plans for the existing surgery located in Great Cornard, the time limited parking restriction, access to the balcony and whether the applicant had considered a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution.
87.6 Members debated the application on issues including: the parking and access issues at the existing surgeries, potential traffic issues, and the benefits to the local community.
87.7 Councillor Owen proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation.
87.8 Councillor Osborne seconded the proposal.
87.9 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: access to the balcony.
87.10 The Case Officer and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the proposal’s compliance with the NPPF, alternative sites considered for the development, potential traffic issues and the permitted parking time.
87.11 The Proposer and Seconder agreed to the following informative:
The applicant is requested to enter into discussions with the current landowner to ensure a longer permitted parking time than the 45 minutes which has been mentioned.
By a vote of 10 votes for and 1 against
It was RESOLVED:
That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to GRANT full planning permission subject to the prior conclusion of a surface water sequential test and resolution of surface water drainage arrangements, in consultation with the LLFA, to his satisfaction and
(1) Subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation on appropriate terms to the satisfaction of the Chief Planning Officer as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer to secure:
• Diversion of public footpath 14
• Monitoring of the Travel Plan
• Directional signs to the public footpaths
(2) Subject thereto that the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions as summarised below and those as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:
• Standard time limit
• Approved Plans
• Materials
• Arboricultural Method Statement and Dedicated Tree Protection Plan
• Land Contamination
• Fire Hydrants
• Travel Plan
• Directional HGV Signage to be removed
• Ecological Appraisal Recommendations
• Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy
• Wildlife Sensitive Lighting Design Scheme
• Construction Hours
• Construction Management Statement
• Acoustic Assessment
• Hard Landscaping Scheme
• Landscaping Time Limit
• Landscape Management Plan
• Sustainability Measures
• Flood and SW management and emergency measures
(3) And the following informative notes as summarised and those as may be deemed necessary:
• Proactive working statement
• Land Contamination
• Highways Notes
And the following additional informative:
The applicant is requested to enter into discussions with the current landowner to ensure a longer permitted parking time than the 45 minutes which has been mentioned.
Supporting documents: