Bid to redevelop former Goldings Garage, in Newmarket, granted second approval by West Suffolk Council despite renewed concerns

A bid to redevelop a derelict garage has been granted a second planning approval despite renewed concerns.

Members of West Suffolk Council's development control committee met this morning to discuss FYK Trade Ltd's proposal to demolish the former Goldings Garage building, in 8 Park Lane, Newmarket, and turn the site into five apartments and one commercial unit.

The plans were initially granted planning consent last month, but councillors were told the site's access was no longer achievable and warranted further discussion.

This was due to the approved plans including separate access through third-party land, for which the landowner declined to grant the right of access, meaning a separate planning application was needed.

Although the application was brought back due to its access proposals, the concerns shared this morning were varied and echoed those raised during last month's meeting.

Cllr Kevin Yarrow, of Newmarket Town Council, criticised the car-free scheme and said the site should be handled with extreme diligence due to its potential impact on heritage assets and the conservation area.

He said: "There is no available parking for cars, and it's naive or ill-informed to suppose that potential residents will not have cars.

"Newmarket is not a large urban community, it has limited and unreliable public transport — to get to work outside Newmarket on time by public transport, it's difficult and, at times, impossible."

Cllr Rachel Hood, who reiterated the same concerns, said the local community's view had been ignored and swept aside previously.

She said: "We accept the principle of development here, but this is not the right development, it's overdevelopment."

From the perspective of other councillors, however, there was a feeling these concerns had been considered and discussed during the earlier meeting.

Cllr Peter Armitage said overdevelopment was a matter of personal opinion and too subjective, and pointed out there was a car park nearby, suggesting it could accommodate any potential increase in traffic.

The planning officer said the impact on amenity was considered acceptable.

When voting, councillors decided to once again grant planning permission with 12 votes for and two against.