Bury St Edmunds plans for 26 homes on former Hanchets Stonemasons site, in King’s Road, recommended for approval
Plans for 26 homes on land which is part of a wider site that included an infamous development built over Victorian chalk mines could be given the go-ahead.
West Suffolk Council’s development control committee will, on Wednesday, discuss the proposals, submitted in August last year by Maurice and Lesley Sananes, for land at King’s Road, Bury St Edmunds.
The site includes buildings once used by Hanchets Stonemasons which have stood empty for more than 16 years and have since been vandalised.
The plans, recommended for approval, include six one-bedroom apartments, 10 two-bedroom apartments, nine three-bedroom houses and one four-bedroom house.
History of the site
Developing the site has been complex and has stalled as it was included in the former St Edmundsbury Borough Council’s Vision 2031 framework for growth and was known as ‘Land at Jacqueline Close’.
It includes parcels of land owned by Mr and Mrs Sananes, St Edmundsbury Borough Council (now West Suffolk Council), Havebury Housing Partnership, Agrarian Finance and others.
When the plans were submitted it was said West Suffolk Council required a development brief for the whole site before any planning applications could be determined.
However, a planning statement prepared by Turley on behalf of Mr and Mrs Sananes, who own the largest portion of the site, said they felt their only option was to proceed with their application, having ‘exhausted all other possibilities at the expense of several years of discussion with the council and other landowners, to no avail’.
The council, owners of the second largest portion of the site, said in 2020 it had no plans to develop its land; Havebury took an interest in preparing a development brief but is separated from the pair’s land by other landowners and Agrarian Finance declined involvement.
To the south of the application site is Jacqueline Close, which was historically mined for chalk and in 1964 was developed for about 30 homes.
In July 1967, a sink hole opened up in front of a property in Jacqueline Close and in December of the following year there was a larger collapse near another home.
The homes were evacuated and the majority demolished, but two remain.
Planning permission to build a three-bedroom house on garden land next to 1. Jacqueline Close was approved in 2021.
The southern part of the site was bought by the council in 1976 and the statement said the mines were not filled, presumably due to insufficient finance and interest in redeveloping the land at that time.
Part of the site has been fenced off to prevent public access ever since but streetlights are still present and roads are partially visible in the undergrowth.
Mr and Mrs Sananes have decided to exclude the southernmost land in their ownership as this includes significant areas of chalk mines.
Advice was sought from a civil engineer who has advised they cannot realistically try to fill the mines on their land only, while leaving the mines on the council land as they are.
The two chalk mine incursions are proposed for public open space and will be filled.
A draft development brief was prepared by the applicants for the wider allocation, but the council would not accept this without the agreement of the other landowners.
An illustrative masterplan for the wider site was submitted with the application.
The statement added that the development of the application could act as a catalyst for the other parts of the site and the proposal would deliver sustainable development.
Concerns raised
Cllrs Jo Rayner and Julia Wakelam, who represent the Abbeygate ward, asked for the application to be considered by the development control committee.
Cllr Rayner said the key issues included traffic in King’s Road, loss of resident parking to enable a junction, limited visitor parking on the development, impact on neighbouring properties, the size and scale of the properties and the history of the site with the chalk mines.
Cllr Wakelam said she had ben contacted by many residents with their concerns, some of which she shared.
Bury St Edmunds Town Council recommended refusal due to concerns about traffic and access, existing sewage pipes and refuse collection.
The Bury Society neither objected or supported the application.
It said while it was encouraging the applicants had interrogated the chalk pits aspect of the site, it asked for this to bee closely monitored as concerns remained over the extent of the chalk pits.
It also had concerns about King’s Road and access.
Following the initial application, West Suffolk Council received comments from 10 third-parties and seven objections.
Concerns included access and parking, access to neighbouring land including garages, traffic, scale of the development, chalk mines and land stability.
After a reconsultation on amended plans, there was one objection with concerns about private right of way / access, one supporting the overall look but remaining concerned about parking and traffic issues and one continuing to raise concern about biodiversity.
West Suffolk Council recommendation
The council recommended the plans for approval subject to a legal agreement.
On the issue of chalk mines and land stability, a report to councillors said investigations confirmed the areas proposed for construction were safe for the use of conventional foundations.
Where the mines enter the site, a method for remediation of these areas is proposed with localised plugging at the boundary and filling of mines within the site area.
The report said: “This method has been deemed to make safe the public open spaces and avoid potential damage to the existing trees.”
There was a technical conflict due to the absence of a development brief for the site, which carried ‘marginal weight’ given the council’s emerging local plan.
However, it said the site would no longer be allocated so there would be no policy requirement for a development brief.
The report said: “In any event the applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily how the proposed development would provide pedestrian connectivity and not prejudice the potential future development of the rest of the site.
“There would be a slight increase in traffic as a result of the development which is not considered to have a severe impact on the local highway network.
“Reduced parking when considered against the Suffolk Guidance for Parking is of local concern.
“However, policy allows for reduced parking in locations well served by services and facilities and with access to public transport.”
