23-home school redevelopment at Former St James Ceva Middle School, Bury St Edmunds

What was proposed

The scheme would partly demolish the former school, convert three buildings into 14 homes, build nine more homes, and provide parking, paths and landscaping.

“Ward: Eastgate Proposal: Planning application a. Partial demolition of existing school buildings b. Conversion of three buildings to 14 residential dwellings c. Construction of nine dwellings within three terrace blocks d. Associated parking and landscaping…”

“Consent is sought for the demolition of some of the school buildings on the site with the retention of three existing buildings. Those three buildings are proposed to be converted to 14 residential dwellings. The scheme also proposes three separate blocks of new residential dwellings. These are shown as Terraces A, B and C on the submitted plans, and they would deliver 9 additional dwellings. The proposal would deliver 23 dwellings in total.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 1.2-hectare former school site lies beside the Abbey Gardens and River Lark, outside the housing boundary, near significant heritage assets.

“The site measures approximately 1.2 hectares and is located to the east of the Abbey Gardens and the River Lark but located to the west of the A14 and the Moreton Hall housing estate. The site slopes downwards to the west as it extends towards the river with the bottom part of the site at a significantly lower level.”

“The Bury St Edmunds Housing Settlement Boundary abuts the site to the north and as such the site is located in the open countryside for planning policy purposes. The site also abuts the Bury St Edmunds Conservation Area on the western boundary with the Conservation Area also being located to the north of the site. Bury St Edmunds Bridleway 14 runs along the southern and eastern boundary of the site on the other side of the Precinct Wall to the development.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers accepted that housing outside the settlement boundary conflicted with policy, but considered heritage repairs, brownfield reuse, housing and sustainable travel benefits outweighed that conflict.

“In accordance with the test provided at paragraph 215 of the NPPF where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset (which in this case includes the wall which is both listed and a scheduled monument as well as the wider Abbey as scheduled monument and the separately protected Abbey Garden) this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.”

“In conclusion, whilst the location of the development represents a technical conflict with the development plan, these policies exist to prevent unnecessary residential development in small unconnected settlements without the services or infrastructure to accommodate them. The application demonstrates the sustainable location of the site and the substantial and wide ranging benefits which outweigh the policy conflict in this case.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions, while the Energy Officer objected to carbon-intensive materials and incomplete water-management details.

“WSC Conservation Officer No objection subject to conditions relating to: Materials, 2. details of the materials to form the new access to the river lark path and 3. Specification of the mortar mix to be used in the wall repair.”

“WSC Energy Officer Objects to the scheme as it uses carbon intense materials like bricks and details of water management (water butts) are missing.”

Officer report

What residents and groups said

Objectors questioned traffic, parking, landscaping, heritage impact, trees and the River Lark setting, while some residents supported redevelopment and improved security.

“Highways • New houses will increase traffic and pose a safety risk for young children • During construction, access for the large vehicles would be difficult due to the parked vehicles on the Vinefields.”

“The Bury Society continues to object to this application. Our original objections supported the Heritage Partnership proposals to make the western margin available to widen the riverside walk and protect the tree screen and requested that new development should be restricted to the footprint of the existing buildings. The proposal seeks to construct an array of new buildings and to bring these further towards the River Lark and the Abbey.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector representing the Abbey of St Edmunds Heritage Partnership spoke against the application, and the agent spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members welcomed reuse of the site and repair of the listed wall but debated trees, lighting, access, parking, the river and abbey ruins.

“Considerable debate took place on the application, whilst Members welcomed the site being brought back into use and recognised that the proposal would result in the repair of the Grade I listed precinct wall, which carried significant weight in favour of the scheme, some concerns were also voiced in connection with the removal of trees, the lighting and the impact of the development on the adjacent River Lark and abbey ruins.”

“Precinct wall – likewise, following the initial repairs to the wall as funded by the applicant (condition No 31), a management company would also be formed, as funded by residents, to ensure the condition of the wall was regularly surveyed and repaired as necessary.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Ian Houlder proposed approval, seconded by Councillor Carol Bull, and the motion passed with 13 votes in favour and one against.

“Councillor Ian Houlder spoke in support of the application and welcomed the scheme in addressing the detraction of the abbey ruins by an abandoned school site. He therefore proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation. This was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Bull.”

“With 13 voting for the motion and with 1 against it was resolved that…”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was granted subject to a Section 106 agreement, conditions, and delegated arrangements to secure ongoing maintenance of the Precinct Wall.

“Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the receipt of legal advice, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning (in consultation with the Chair of the Committee) to include a further condition or legal agreement in respect of securing the ongoing maintenance of the Precinct Wall;”

“The development to which this permission relates must be commenced not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents, unless otherwise stated.”

Minutes