Minutes:
39.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/06333
Proposal Full Planning Application - Development of a petrol filling station, a drive-thru restaurant and coffee shop, together with various infrastructure and landscaping works
Site Location Land Off A14, Elmswell, Suffolk
Applicant Euro Garages Ltd.
39.2 Councillor Mansel declared herself as the Ward Member for this item and confirmed that she would not debate or vote on the application.
39.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, the constraints of the site, the site location plan, the existing and proposed site layout, proposed highway and pedestrian access, the elevations, floor, and roof plans for the proposed units, proposed electric vehicle charging points, the landscaping strategy, the proximity of the site to nearby churches, and the Officer recommendation for approval.
39.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) will have access to the site, previous application refusals on the site, pedestrian access to the site, the proximity of the site to the A14, the proximity of the site to listed buildings, whether the canopy will be lit, vehicular access to the site from both directions along the A14, the dimensions of the proposed units, the recommendation of the installation of a fire hydrant from Suffolk Fire and Rescue, the proposed construction hours, and whether the proposed facilities will have their own designated parking spaces.
39.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from the Ward Members on issues including: whether the application will provide a financial contribution towards the development of a cycle route between Elmswell and Woolpit.
39.6 The Highways Officer, Ben Chester, responded to questions from Members on issues including: who pays for the Stage 1 audit, the location of the pedestrian crossing, the location of the pedestrian refuge, the application’s proposed financial contributions towards pedestrian access developments, the impact of increased traffic on the current road networks, and the safety concerns of HGVs accessing and using the site.
39.7 Members considered the representation from Councillor David Brown who spoke on behalf of Elmswell Parish Council.
39.8 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: the traffic capacity limits for the existing roads coming into Elmswell.
39.9 Members considered the representation from Julia Ewans who spoke as an Objector.
39.10 Members considered the representation from James Bailey who spoke as the Agent.
39.11 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether the site will be leased or sold after construction, the maintenance of the site, the direction of vehicles through the site, and the amount of proposed parking spaces.
39.12 Members considered the representation from Councillor Helen Geake who spoke as a Ward Member.
39.13 Members considered the representation from Councillor Sarah Mansel who spoke as a Ward Member.
39.14 A short break was taken between 11:04am and 11:14am.
39.15 Members debated the application on issues including: the location of the site, the potential heritage impact of the site, the consultation response from Suffolk Police and the potential for an increase of crime in the area, the pre-existing traffic issues near the site, the demand for the proposed services.
39.16 Councillor Stringer proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:
· The development would be contrary to the provisions of saved Policy T6, T10 of the Development Plan and paragraphs 110, 111 and 130(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework
· That the less that substantial harm caused to the significance of heritage assets is not outweighed by the limited public benefit of the proposal and therefore does not comply with paragraphs 199 and 202 of the NPPF
Subject to further highways and heritage advice and a risk assessment on the above reasons for refusal
39.17 Councillor Warboys seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the Committee is minded to refuse for the following reasons, subject to further highways and heritage advice and a risk assessment on the below reasons for refusal:
The proposed development, by reason of the design and layout of the proposed vehicle egress onto the A1088 and resulting increase in uncontrolled traffic levels, and the resultant conflicts between vehicles exiting the site and those using the existing A14 egress slip road, would result in severe detrimental impact on existing highway safety. On this basis the development would be contrary to the provisions of saved Policy T6, T10 of the Development Plan and paragraphs 110, 111 and 130(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The proposal results in a level of less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets, due to the increased prominence of modern development within the setting of the historic parish churches at Woolpit and Elmswell. This is not outweighed by the limited public benefit of the provision of an additional petrol filling station in an area with sufficient provision, such that the proposal does not comply with paragraphs 199 and 202 of the NPPF.
Also delegate to officers to review whether the proposed development would fail to safeguard against crime and disorder.
Supporting documents: