Supermarket and drive-through at Land North Of Rougham Hill, Bury St Edmunds

What was proposed

The application proposed a supermarket, drive-through restaurant, car parking, footpaths, street furniture and associated infrastructure.

“Planning permission is sought for a supermarket and drive-through restaurant with car parking and ancillary development, on land previously used as the West Suffolk household waste recycling centre, before a larger site was identified to offer this service off Bury Road, Fornham St. Martin.”

“The application proposes a supermarket to the north of the application site, with drive-through restaurant to the south. Associated car parking, footpaths, street furniture and infrastructure are included within the proposal.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site was former household waste recycling centre land in designated countryside, beside commercial development and emerging housing, with no relevant planning history.

“The application site comprises a large area of hardstanding centrally within the development area of the site. The site is situated within designated countryside and is not within an otherwise allocated area within the West Suffolk Local Plan. The land in the north and west comprises areas of soft landscaping. The trees on the northern and western boundary of the site and those in the centre of the site are not protected by Tree Preservation Order.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the development acceptable overall, despite BREEAM and active travel policy shortfalls, because its economic and regeneration benefits outweighed the identified harm.

“In drawing the balance together, it is necessary to weigh the significant economic and regeneration benefits of the proposal, together with the strong policy support for brownfield redevelopment, against the identified conflict with the development plan in respect of BREEAM performance and, to a lesser extent, active travel provision.”

“When all material considerations are taken together, including the scale of public benefits, particularly the significant economic and regeneration benefits to which substantial weight is attached, the absence of substantive harm in other respects, and the ability to secure mitigation through conditions, it is considered that the adverse impacts are comfortably outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, National Highways, ecology, landscape, flooding and environmental health consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the Energy and Sustainability Officer maintained an objection.

“No objection subject to conditions: SCC raises no objection subject to the agreement and implementation of planning conditions and/or obligations as set out in this consultation response.”

“The suggestions to remove T1-T8 are not acceptable, as it would be a detrimental loss to the local landscape. In conversation with the LPA’s Landscape Officer since these comments have been received, a planting plan and associated landscaping conditions are considered appropriate to mitigate the perceived harm.”

Officer report

What people said

Most resident representations opposed the development, citing traffic, congestion, cumulative impacts, safety, amenity, environmental effects, health, timing and retail concerns.

“A total of thirty-five representations have been received from local residents, with thirty two objecting to the proposed development and three raising general observations. Between them, these raise the following matters: - Traffic and Congestion: Strong consensus that roads are already over capacity; further development would worsen daily congestion and queuing.”

“- Environmental Impact: Loss of trees and increased pollution raised as contrary to sustainability objectives. - Health and Policy Fit: Objections to additional fast food provision and perceived conflict with planning and public health policy. - Timing and Precedent: Strong view that approval would be premature, set an undesirable precedent, and undermine plan‑led development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident objector, an adjacent ward member and the applicant spoke against or in support of the application.

What members debated

Members remained concerned about the failure to achieve BREEAM Excellent, while additional workplace facilities were offered to address active travel concerns.

“The Senior Planning Officer explained, as part of his presentation, that the applicant had further reflected on the inclusion of conditions requiring details of workplace changing facilities for both the supermarket and drive-through buildings and agreed to them being included if Members were minded to approve the application.”

“Questions were posed by Members in respect of how the applicant could potentially reach the 70% rating to achieve Excellent, in view of the scheme’s current rating being 67.84%. The Council’s Senior Energy and Sustainability Officer was introduced by the Chair and was invited to address the meeting on this matter and outlined some of the options available to the applicant to achieve additional credits.”

Minutes

How members voted

Members rejected a refusal motion by four votes to six, then approved the application by six votes to four.

“Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as the application failed to meet the Policy LP1 requirement for BREEAM ‘Excellent’. This was duly seconded by Councillor Jon London.”

“Upon being put to the vote and with 4 voting for the motion and 6 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was granted subject to a Section 106 agreement, including monitoring contributions, and planning conditions covering development, drainage, biodiversity, transport and staff facilities.

“Planning permission be GRANTED subject to…”

“Infrastructure Item Contribution On-site Provision Council BNG Monitoring Fee £7,475.71 BNG Monitoring WSC SCC Parking Restrictions £15,000.00 N/A SCC Travel Plan Monitoring Fee £6,000 (£1,200 per year for five years) Travel Plan Monitoring SCC”

Minutes