| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor D.J. Barnard (Chairman), Councillor Fiona Hill (Vice-Chairman), Councillor John Bishop, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Harry Spencer - Smith, Councillor Terry Tyler (Substitute) and Councillor M.E. Weeks. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | John Rumble (Lead Local Flooding Authority), Sana Ahmed (Lead Local Flooding Authority), Simon Ellis (Development and Conservation Manager), James Gran (Senior Planning Officer), John Chapman (Area Planning Officer), Nurainatta Katevu (Property and Planning Lawyer) and Hilary Dineen (Committee and Member Services Officer). |
| ALSO PRESENT: | At the commencement of the meeting Councillors Tony Hunter, David Levett and Lynda Needham. Approximately 98 members of the public including 6 registered speakers. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda Front Pages Audio Recording of Meeting |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 22 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Paul Clark, Michael Muir and Adrian Smith Having given due notice, Councillor Terry Tyler advised that he would be substituting for Councillor Paul Clark. |
Noted | ||
| 23 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 30 June 2016 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 24 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. |
Noted | ||
| 25 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman welcomed the Committee, officers, general public and speakers to this Planning Control Committee Meeting; (2) The Chairman announced that Members of the public and the press may use their devices to film/photograph, or make a sound recording of the meeting, but he asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices; (3) The Chairman reminded Members and speakers that in line with Council policy, this meeting would be audio recorded and that speakers should use their microphones when speaking, as comments made without their use would not be recorded;; (4) The Chairman clarified that each group of speakers would have a maximum of 5 minutes. The gavel would sound after 4 1/2 minutes as a warning, and then again at 5 minutes to signal that the presentation must cease; (5) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and were required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest which required they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, could speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote. |
Noted | ||
| 26 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Chairman confirmed that the 6 registered speakers were present. |
Noted | ||
| 27 |
15/02555/1 - LAND TO THE SOUTH OF BENDISH LANE AND ADJACENT TO 2-12 CRESSWICK, WHITWELL Report Appendix Plan Residential development for 41 dwellings comprising 25 open market houses (5 two bed dwellings, 6 three bed dwellings, 6 three bed bungalows, 5 four bed dwellings, 2 four bed bungalows and 1 five bed dwelling) and 16 affordable dwellings (6 one bed dwellings, 7 two bed dwellings and 3 three bed dwellings), associated parking, cycle storage, refuse storage, pumping stations and open space. Prior to the item being discussed Councillor John Bishop declared a Discloseable Pecuniary Interest as he lived on Cresswick, which was adjacent to the proposed development and would therefore leave the room during the debate and vote. The Property and Planning Lawyer advised that Councillor Bishop would be able to speak on the item, but would be required to leave before the debate and vote. The Area Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. The Area Planning Officer informed Members that the application was submitted to NHDC on 6 October 2015. Consultations with local residents had been undertaken and a number of important points had been made including the impact that the development would make on the countryside, the type of housing that was proposed and its impact upon the nearby primary and nursery schools Paragraph 3.0 of the report listed the representations received prior to publication of the report, with paragraph 3.12 listing the addresses of letters of objection received prior to the report being prepared for members, together with the reasons for objection. Members were advised that as a result of the initial consultations, the scheme had been amended to change the two-storey houses at the front of the site and adjacent to Cresswick to bungalows. Despite these changes, objections had been maintained, and new concerns raised particularly in respect of flooding. As a result of these objections, which refereed to the report carried out in January 2015 regarding a previous flooding incident on 7 February 2014, detailed discussions were held with the Lead Local Flood Authority to ensure that the proposed development was acceptable to them. As a result and following further consultation, primarily with the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Lead Local Flood Authority confirmed that they no longer recommend that the application be refused. The Area Planning Officer advised Members that the areas shown as ponds, would normally be seen as landscaped sustainable urban drainage systems, designed to cope with a 1/100 year flooding event. The larger pond was not related to the proposed development, but was a flood mitigation system to deal with run off from adjoining land. The smaller pond was associated with the proposed development and this had not changed since the consultations carried out in January this year. He also advised that the applicant, in response to concerns about noise, had moved the proposed pumping stations from the original position adjacent to St Mary's Chapel, to the far side of the smaller pond. A condition regarding noise attenuation was recommended to deal with potential noise concerns. Throughout the process NHDC Officers and consultees had sought to find solutions to overcome the flood risks, which had now been achieved. The main concerns raised since publication of the report regarding the flood mitigation scheme, were regarding the scheme designed to mitigate flooding from adjoining land rather than that associated with the proposed development. The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that the site had been included in the Draft Local Plan, which had been discussed by Council on 20 July 2016. He informed Members that they needed to consider the key issues set out at paragraph 4.4.1and decide whether the benefits of this scheme would outweigh the harm caused but that for the reasons set out in Paragraph 4.4.3 of the report, it was felt this was the case in this instance. He drew attention to the S106 contributions including the possibility of the open space land being leased to the Parish Council, which would prevent further development of the site and the mitigation of existing flood risk problems, which would be unlikely to be provided without development of this site. It was also felt that new homes in the village would help provide continued support for local facilities and there would be significant ecological enhancements through the development of the site. Updates The Area Planning Officer advised that representations received by email had been sent to Members prior to the meeting. Representations received included: - Letters from St Paul's Walden Parish Council dated 7 July 2016 and 15 July 2016; - An 18 page petition received from Amy Crossley containing 284 addresses, 111 of which contained comments regarding the proposals; - A petition received from Mr Ashton on behalf of the Bendish Lane Action Group consisting of 143 standard letters and a further 11 letters from local residents - An email from Mr Norman, Chair of St Paul's Walden Parish Council dated 17 July 2016; - 69 other letters from people living in local roads' - 21 other letters with no address; - Representation from Councillor John Bishop; - A briefing note from Pigeon Homes together with a technical note regarding flooding. The main objections sited in the representations were: - Damage to the landscape; - Risk of pollution of ground water; - Flood Risk; - Unsustainability; - The risk of further development on the site; - No notification of and insufficient time for consultation. The Area Planning Officer recognised the strength of feeling and acknowledged that development of a greenfield site would always be controversial. He acknowledged the comments made regarding the refusal of a planning permission to a site off at the High Street, together with appeal decision at Rose Farm but stated that this application significantly different planning considerations. The major change made to the scheme since consultation had been carried out with local residents related to the flood mitigation scheme, which aimed to protect properties in Cresswick through a larger area of re-contouring to the west of the site. Mr Simon Lambert, an objector speaking on behalf of St Paul's Walden Parish Council and the residents of Whitwell, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Mr Lambert advised Members that the number of letters of objections and the petition containing almost 300 signatures demonstrated that the villagers felt passionately that the application should be refused. The site was a highly sensitive site, being situated in the picturesque Whitwell/Mimram valley, which was well used by cyclists, walker and horse riders. The proposed development would have a devastating impact on the intrinsic beauty of the countryside. The Council's Landscape Character Assessment for the Whitwell Valley recognised that this is a sensitive site, due to cross valley views, noting that panoramic views were common from the valley slopes. To lose this 15 acre field could not possibly be considered a small scale development. The Officer sought to argue that the scheme was in keeping with the village, but the residents felt exceptionally strongly that the development was not sensitively designed, creating a cul-de sac that was detached from the village, was land hungry and was massively out of keeping with the character of Whitwell. The scheme had grown since consultation had taken place to include a drainage hole with 3,700 cubic metres of water. This giant trench was considered to be so insignificant by Officers, that the village wasn't even consulted on this change. He stated that there had been no work undertaken on the visual impact, the technical specification or ground conditions required to support nearly 1 million gallons of water and questioned whether the Committee had been provided with enough information to assess the visual impact of this hole. Mr Lambert stated that the Council should be asking why a hole this size was needed and whether the chalk conditions were appropriate for the creation of a colossal water basin before considering the application. The NPPF required the Council to assess whether this was a sensible place for housing when given the known flooding issues and it was clear from meetings held with the Local Flood Authority that the assessment was based solely on data and assumptions provided by the applicant, which had not been independently validated and was unproven as there was no similar scheme in operation in Hertfordshire. He questioned whether the issue of long term maintenance, upon which the scheme is highly reliant, would be determined by high quality or low cost. The extreme technical solution demonstrated that the site was very sensitive to flooding and should only be considered for development as a last resort. Technical flood risk work should have been undertaken before the site was considered as part of the emerging Local Plan. The technical assessment said that the junction could support the extra cars, but this wasn't about junction capacity, it was about 80 additional cars battling their way down the High Street each morning. He stated that this development would literally stink as there was insufficient capacity in the sewer system. The proposed solution was to hold waste from 41 homed in a giant tank to be pumped out at quiet times. However robust the maintenance plan looks, things can and do go wrong. Any failure would result in the sewage, stored next to a primary school, flowing on to the historic cress beds and the Environment Agency have stated serious concerns about the use of an underground tank in a groundwater source protection zone. Mr Lambert concluded by stating that a doubtful, desperate attempt at flood mitigation, an enormous hole in the ground opposite a primary school, an estate of houses detached from the village, yet more traffic in the Whitwell bottle neck, the destruction of beautiful valley scenery and agricultural land adjacent to a conservation area, did not add up to a good scheme. This was not a small scale development and it would result in significant and demonstrable visual impact upon the unique landscape. The Committee recently voted to refuse development of SP1 and this proposal was similar, with the added perils of flooding and an even greater visual impact on the landscape. He asked the Committee to refuse planning permission. Members asked Mr Lambert to clarify that the area to be developed was not the 15 acres mentioned in his presentation and queried whether the landscaping would improve the vista. Mr Lambert stated that he considered the 15 acres to be development as the area not built on would be landscaped and would no longer be a field, which would not improve the views. A Member asked how many people lived in Whitwell. The Area Planning Officer advised that, according to the Local Plan, there were 530 homes in Whitwell. The Chairman thanked Mr Lambert for his presentation. Mr Simon Butler Finbow, Applicant's Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Mr Butler Finbow informed Members that the modest application for 41 dwellings represented an approximate 7 percent increase, which would be appropriately accommodated within the village. The emerging Local Plan acknowledged the acceptability, in principle, of developing this site. The specific policy regarding this scheme sought to address a number of matters and the application being considered comprehensively addressed all of those as well as meeting the Council's other policies and National Planning criteria. The policies helped to ensure the positive contribution that the scheme should make, being a high quality, low density, landscape led proposal. It provided 40 percent affordable housing, 17 percent bungalows to meet local needs and was not in the green belt. The site was approximately 6 hectares in size, although new homes would only occupy 2 hectares with the remainder providing significant green infrastructure for the village. A large number of house types would be provided, which would add to the quality of the scheme with houses being at 20/hectare and echoing the housing in Cresswick and Mimram Close. The scheme had been sympathetically designed to achieve a resonance with the adjacent St Mary's Chapel and to minimise impact on the adjoining conservation area. The 4 bungalows on Bendish Lane have been set well back from the road with the landscape in front of tem and bungalows were set along the eastern boundary. There was a 3.5 metre landscape belt between these and the houses in Cresswick and a 6 metre belt between this and the Chapel. If Members wished the bungalows adjacent to Cresswick to be moved further away, this could be accommodated. Pond one had been designed to deal with the surface water of the new homes. It would look like a village pond and include an ecological feature that would cut through the strata to allow surface water to infiltrate through the soil. Infiltration tests had been undertaken and the results supported this approach and it was extremely unlikely that this pond would ever be full. Pond two would provide betterment against the historical flood events experienced by the village. It was of sufficient capacity to ensure that previous flooding events were not repeated and this was the only site that could deliver this benefit. Foul drainage would be pumped into the existing system at off-peak times in accordance with current best practice to mitigate risks of leakage as agreed with Thames Water. This proposal had been supported by all drainage bodies consulted. Mr Butler Finbow stated that he struggled to agree with the objections regarding the impact on Chiltern Way. The site was a grade 3 agricultural field, which would be planted with 4 hectares of green infrastructure and therefore enhance the quality of the areas landscape and biodiversity, creating a new green open space for the benefit of the wider community. In addition to the benefits discussed, extensive open space would be leased to the Parish Council, which would include play features, improved pedestrian and cycle links and improved public transport links. There would be improved education provision, library, waste and recycling facilities as well as improved play space at Bradbury Recreation Ground. There was also an offer to make financial contributions towards the Fellowship Hall and the primary school, which could also include land to the west of the school, if this was appropriate. Officer support and advice was appreciated and the scheme had been amended to respond to comments made by the Parish Council, local community and stakeholders. Mr Butler Finbow concluded by stating that the benefits delivered by the scheme clearly outweighed any adverse impact. The scheme had the potential to make a lasting social, environmental and economic contribution to the village for many years to come. Members asked if the flood mitigation measures would be implemented if the site was not developed. Mr Butler Finbow advised that, without the flood mitigation measures, there was a risk that the flooding would occur again. The proposed mitigation scheme eradicates that potential. The Chairman thanked Mr Butler Finbow for his presentation. The Area Planning Officer introduced Mr John Rumble and Ms Sana Ahmed form the Lead Local Flood Authority. Members asked for confirmation that, if the flood mitigation schemes were implemented, the flood risk would be reduced fro 1/30 years to 1/100 years. Mr Rumble explained that they considered how a development would affect flood water. The drainage arrangements checked by the Local Flood Authority for the site were based on the 1/30 year event, which was not about how often floods would occur, but abut the magnitude of rain falling. They look at whether there would be flooding to property on a 1/100 year basis, plus an allowance for climate change, which for this site was plus 30 percent. Under the NPPF this was the level that the developer was required to make arrangements for. Pond 1 was designed for the 1/100 year event, along with the drainage system, including permeable paving. It considered the volume of water to be managed at the site and how the water was transferred around the site, with the eventual residual water ending up in the pond. Some of the flooding in 2014 was caused by extensions to properties such as garages and physical barriers such as close boarded fencing on the boundaries of properties. In addition there was a considerable body of water which backed up at the top of the site, with the ground at that time being heavily saturated, which resulted in rainfall not permeating into the ground, but running across the surface. Pond 2 was designed to deal with the overland flow which ran through a defined valley onto Cresswick and Mimram Close. This was tested by model flow using Environment Agency flow maps. The Local Flood Authority believed the solution offered was satisfactory to meet the 1/100 year events. Members asked how the water would move from the retention ponds, whether the modelling was done using figures provided by Pigeon Homes and whether there were any plans to provide flood protection independently of the development. Mr Rumble advised that the water would be moved through evaporation and soak-away. The modelling was based on figures provided by Pigeon Homes, although these were checked to see if they were what were expected. There were no plans by Hertfordshire County Council to provide flood protection in this area. Councillor John Bishop addressed the Committee and stated that the majority of the village did not agree with the Applicant's Agent that the flood prevention and other provisions were benefits which outweighed the harm of the development. He did not believe that the flood prevention scheme was a satisfactory planning justification. He acknowledged that this site was included in the Local Plan, but the Committee had refused an application previously for a site, in Whitwell, that was also in the Local Plan. In respect of flooding, 41 houses would generate a lot more risks for flooding and the flood and sewerage schemes seemed to rely very heavily on pumping systems, which could fail and cause bad odours that would affect the living conditions of those nearby. Councillor Bishop concluded by stating that this was a case of balancing the harm caused by the development to the beauty and intrinsic character of the countryside and urged the Committee to refuse the application. The Chairman thanked Councillor Bishop for his statement. Councillor Bishop left the room for the duration of the debate. Members acknowledged that the site was included n the Local Plan for development, which meant that the Council had found the site acceptable for development and acknowledged the benefits of the development for Whitwell which included flood protection, landscaping, S106 contributions and a design that appeared to be sympathetic with the village. They also acknowledged that a significant number of residents of the village were against the development and were concerned about flooding. Members were concerned that the amendments to the application, particularly in regard to the flood alleviation scheme, had not been fully consulted on with residents and felt that, with the agreement of the Applicant, the decision should be deferred until the next meeting of this Committee in order to allow time for that to take place. The Chairman confirmed that the Applicant's Agent was agreeable to a deferral to the next meeting of this Committee. It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to the next meeting of this Committee. Upon the vote it was: RESOLVED: That planning application 15/02555/1 be DEFERRED to the next meeting of this Committee, due to be held on 18 August 2016. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow consultation with local residents on the amended sustainable urban drainage system proposals. The Chairman adjourned the meeting for 5 Minutes. When the meeting was resumed Councillor Bishop returned to the room. |
Agreed | ||
| 28 |
16/00410/1 - FORMER BLACK SQUIRREL PUBLIC HOUSE, 10 GERNON ROAD, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, SG6 3DU Report Appendix Plan Residential redevelopment of site to provide 18 dwellings comprising 7 x 1 bedroom flats and 11 x 2 bedroom flats, landscaping and ancillary works following demolition of existing building (as amended by plans received on 22 June 2016). The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. The Senior Planning Officer advised that further representations received since the report was published. Objections had been received from the Letchworth Garden City Society and two residents who had previously commented. The representations stated that that the previous objections remained as the amended number of units did not alter the number of bedrooms in he development. In respect of noise to the proposed development and lack of parking provision, they stated that it was not just lorries that used the service area to the rear of the shops, but also residents of flats on Eastcheap and the private car parking spaces rented to individual businesses. A small petition of 12 signatures had been received objecting to the application and calling for a public meeting. An amended noise assessment had been submitted as an addendum, which detailed the findings and mitigation measures. Following this submission the Council's Environmental Health Officer had removed his objection, as the Applicant had provided more detail regarding the deliveries and noise sources within the site, particularly regarding the service yard at the rear of the site. To alleviate noise problems for residents of the proposed development there were two conditions which required that mitigation measure be implemented, these being: - Bedroom windows to the side and rear, facing the entrance and service yard to be fixed shut with provision of an adequate ventilation system; - A close boarded fence be placed at the rear boundary to act as noise attenuation for the rear patio area. In view of the above the recommendation had changed to one of approval, subject to the Environmental Health conditions and the other conditions appended to the report. The proposed development was a 3 storey building of a design that was acceptable to the Conservation Officer. Members asked whether a lift would be provided in the development, whether the service yard was used 24/7 and why the windows to the bedrooms should be permanently fixed. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the development did not provide a lift, that the service yard was used 24 hours a day for residential use and that, if windows could be opened, there would be opportunity for noise complaints, which could penalise existing businesses. Mr Neil Vincent, objecting to the application, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Mr Vincent advised that he was speaking on behalf of the Letchworth Garden City Society and 31 local residents. There were three main objections as follows: Lack of Parking Provision The lack of parking was raised as a key concern by every person objecting to the application. NHDC's Parking Policy stated that there should be a minimum level of parking provided and that, if this wasn't met, there should be a strong evidence based reason. This development did not include any parking provision and did not provide strong evidence for it to be exempted from the framework. The applicant stated that the current level of car ownership in the Town Centre was lower than the Letchworth average with 53 percent not owning a car. This meant that 47 percent did own a car. Palace Court, Eastcheap was a comparable development, which provided one parking space per flat, why should this development not be required to make similar provisions. The applicant case is for a green scheme of zero car ownership, but how would this be enforced. Paragraph 4.3.31 of the report states that residents with cars would have to rely on existing Town Centre car parks, which the residents would have to pay for. He questioned why a truly green scheme of zero car ownership would even consider the issue of parking, unless tis would not be the case. Environmental Impact Freeman House, Radburn Way and a large 2 storey property on Wilbury Road, owned by the Local Authority, were currently vacant and consideration should be given to using existing housing stock before building new developments. The outside space provision for the proposed development was minimal. It was therefor likely that children from the development would play on the streets, with the associated road safety issues. There were parks available, but access was across busy roads. This was a 3 storey building which would therefore impinge on the privacy of nearby residents. The new development would be hemmed in by the goods yard and there would considerable noise and disruption during construction. Density There was an inaccuracy in the report in that there were no 3 storey residential buildings in Gernon Road. There would be more households crammed into this development than along the whole of Gernon Road. The Chairman thanked Mr Vincent for his presentation. Councillor Lynda Needham, Member Advocate speaking in objection to the application, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Councillor Needham advised that she had not seen the addendum and that she felt that local residents had not been given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the amendments. In respect of parking, Policy SP6 on sustainable transport in the Draft Local Plan documents clearly stated that a pragmatic and realistic approach should be taken, that recognised the role of the car in modern lifestyles. This demonstrated that the Council recognised that families will own, or aspire to own, one or more cars and on the basis of one car per bedroom, there would be 27 vehicles associated with the proposed development with no allocated parking. She disagreed with the Officer assessment that there would not be an unrealistic impact on the safety of the adjoining highways and that this was a highly sustainable location. With parking restrictions in the locality extra vehicles would cause a severe impact on the roads as the surrounding roads were already always fully parked and it was unlikely that residents would pay to use the local car parks. Policy S7 regarding infrastructure requirements stated that a small development on its own may not be enough in itself to have an impact in the area. However, collectively a number of developments can create additional demands and burdens on the existing infrastructure. There was still a current permission for 47 flats with the shopping development, with a condition to provide 27 parking spaces. This would result in a number of additional cars to find parking spaces. Additionally a 24 hour fitness gymnasium had received permission on appeal and parking spaces would be needed to make this a successful business. Collectively the parking for these three developments cannot be managed in the space and the effect of parking for the cinema and new theatre had not been addressed The application was originally recommended for refusal on the grounds of noise from the service yard, giving a significant loss of residential amenity for occupiers of the development. The addendum mentioned fixed shut windows, which the Officer stated did not provide an acceptable standard of living. Councillor Needham queried whether the fire service had been consulted regarding the fixed windows. She concluded by asking Members not to allow NHDC to become an authority that allows less than the best living standards for residents, just because they fall in the affordable housing bracket. The Chairman thanked Councillor Needham for her presentation. Mr Tim Sturgess, Applicant's Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Mr Sturgess reminded Members tat the application had been recommended for approval following extensive constructive engagement with Officers, including pre-applications discussions resulting in the proposals being refined. Following submission the scheme had responded positively to consultations by incorporating design revisions and reducing the number of units and the application was considered acceptable in planning terms. Parking The new development SPD stated that reductions in the provision of parking would be considered in exceptional circumstances, for example for small residential developments in Town Centres. Whilst it was recognised that parking was normally provided on a unit by unit basis, this site was unique in its circumstances in that car ownership statistics identified that residents in Town Centres were significantly less likely to own a car. Future purchasers of the properties would be aware that there was no dedicated parking. Whilst it was recognised that future residents may own a car, they would not be eligible for a parking permit and would not be able to park within 200 metres of the site due to existing controlled parking zones. However there were a number of car parks located in the Town Centre, including Garden Square and Town Hall car parks. Adequate secure cycle parking would be supplied, Letchworth train station was less than half a mile away and the nearest bus stop was located in Gernon Road. Therefore all amenities and services were either within walking distance or accessible by public transport. For these reasons exceptional circumstances applied to this application as a car free development, which was not considered by the Highway Authority to have a severe impact on the highway network. This development provided an opportunity to meet local a national aspirations to make use of sustainable transport and reduce dependency on cars. Development Policy encouraged use of brownfield land and this site comprised of previously developed brown field land. The scheme proposed 18 new homes in a highly accessible Town Centre location. The Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year land supply for new homes and was under pressure to develop green field land. This development provided the opportunity to develop a brown field site and therefore should be considered favourable in the context of providing new housing. The current building did not make a positive contribution to the Letchworth Conservation area and had been vacant for 18 months and therefore was not contributing to the Town Centre. The scheme provided an opportunity to address these issues by providing a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. The design enabled a transition between the residential dwellings and the Town Centre which provided and enhancement to the site and reflected the area. Mr Sturgess concluded by stating that Officers recommended the application for approval and the presumption in favour of development led him to ask that the application be approved. Members asked for clarification regarding the quoted Garden Square parking and asked whether the disabled would have access to the properties as no lift or parking would be provided. They queried how the figures regarding car ownership were arrived at. Mr Sturgess confirmed that the parking mentioned was the multi storey car park and that units on the ground floors would be available to disabled users. In respect of parking, there would be an opportunity to discuss parking for disabled users along Gernon Road. When considering parking allocation it was necessary to look at the site characteristics and car ownership levels, the car parking statistics were gleaned from ONS data. The Chairman thanked Mr Sturgess for his presentation. The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that parking issues had been the main concern of all objections. The SPD allowed for reduced parking in Town Centres and Paragraph 32 of the NPPF stated that application should only be refused on transport grounds if the cumulative effect of developments would have a severe impact. This development was for 18 units in a highly sustainable location and it couldn't be demonstrated that the impact would be severe. The Development and Conservation Manager clarified that the outstanding application in the Leys Avenue area of Garden Square was for 47 flats, with a condition to provide 47 parking spaces. Members asked whether the application for the 24 hour gym had any associated parking. The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the Gym was a new scheme which relied on car parks used by other businesses. Members were concerned at the late change in recommendations and that there was too much being squeezed into this limited space. They expressed some concern regarding waste management for the proposed development. Members acknowledged that future residents would be aware of the lack of parking associated with the development but were concerned at the presumption that residents living in Town Centres would not own a car and that the scheme appeared to disadvantage the disabled. They queried whether figures were available regarding usage of Town Centre car parks, particularly at weekends, as residents parking in these car parks could affect the economy of Town Centre shops. They also noted that the multi storey car park was closed overnight. The Senior Planning Officer advised that he did not have specific figures regarding usage of Town Centre car parks, but the SPD stated that Letchworth had more parking capacity than Hitchin Members noted the original reason for refusal regarding the poor quality of amenity for residents and felt that this had not been overcome by having to sleep in bedrooms that had non opening windows. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that, in respect of waste management, communal large bins would be provided and that only bedroom windows to the rear and side elevations would be sealed with alternative ventilation methods provided. The noise report had been received at the time of writing the report, but the Environmental Health comments had not. The list of conditions were attached to the report in case comments were received. The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the report made clear that the recommendation may be amended, but the timing of the application meant there was no option other than to present to this meeting of the Committee. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused permission by reason of the zero on site parking provision and the significant loss of amenity sue to the non opening windows. RESOLVED: That application 16/00410/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons: 1. By reason of the zero on-site parking provision for occupiers and visitors of the proposed development, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, a severely harmful impact would result upon the parking capacity of the local highway network and local public car parks. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 55 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations, the Council's Supplementary Planning Document - Vehicle Parking at New Development and Section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework; 2. In addressing the unpredictable and sporadic nature of the noise sources present adjacent the development site, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, a significant loss of residential amenity would occur for occupiers of the development, particularly during night time hours. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 17, 123 and Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Proactive Statement: Planning permission has been refused for this development for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council has not acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant as in the Council's view the development is unacceptable in principle and the fundamental objections cannot be overcome through dialogue. Since no solutions can be found the Council has complied with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. |
Agreed | ||
| 29 |
16/01064/1 - LADYGROVE MEWS, HITCHWOOD LANE, PRESTON, HITCHIN, SG4 7SA Report Plan Section 73 application: Sprayed gravel /chipping finish to the car parking spaces as a variation of discharge of condition 4 reference 12/01732/1DOC granted 08/10/2012 (in association with planning permission reference 11/02263/1 granted 21/02/2012 for the change of use of B1 offices into 10 x 2 bedroom residential units and insertion of rooflights in southern roof slope of Units 9 & 10. Erection of four garages, garden store and bin store. Conversion of part of barn to provide 6 stores. Change of use of car park to residential amenity space. The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report supported by a visual presentation. He informed Members that the former agricultural units had been converted to B1 use and in 2012 converted to dwellings. The surface of the car park was usable, but not of high quality and it was planned to resurface with sprayed gravel. Mr Malcolm Gomm, an objector speaking on behalf of the residents of Ladygrove Mews, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. Mr Gomm advised Members that Ladygrove Mews was part of a conversion of a Grade II listed building and he wished to explain why planning permission should be refused. Provision of a car park surface of brick paviers, as already agreed by this Council, would provide a more sustainable surface than the surface now being proposed. Residents were concerned that the lesser quality surfacing specification would require greater maintenance and therefore a continuing cost to both residents and the owner of the Freehold. Residents had already contributed, through the purchase price of their property, to the provision of the already approved surface and a less sustainable surface was difficult to understand. Residents were concerned that a spray base would not allow for demarcation of parking bays and that the bonding would be tar based, which would cause problems, with tar spray easily being picked up on shoes and trodden into dwellings, particularly in hotter weather. It had been suggested that a spray finish throughout the development would provide a more rustic appearance, however the originally approved block paving would achieve this effect as well as allow for easy demarcation of bays and alleviate concerns bout a spray finish. Condition 4 of the original application required that the approved surface be completed prior to occupation, but this was not complied with and had not been enforced by the Council. Mr Gomm concluded by stating that there was a previously agreed scheme that could be implemented and that this modification provided a surface that was inferior, less sustainable, less durable and less environmentally friendly and residents had not been consulted about this less expensive solution. This was all about saving the applicant money rather than about this important development. The application should be refused and that the original application be installed or a new application be submitted that the residents have been consulted on. Members asked whether the concrete surface of the car park was in place prior to conversion to dwellings and asked what the new surface may look like Mr Gomm advised that some of the concrete area was in place prior to the dwelling, but further concrete was added. The concerns of residents were that the surface not be tar based and that spaces were delineated. The Chairman thanked Mr Gomm for his presentation. The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the Committee could impose conditions to ensure that parking bays were delineated and that details were submitted within a certain time frame. Members asked for clarification regarding whether the existing base was in accordance with the planning permission. The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the existing base was not in accordance with condition 4 of the planning permission, however Court Homes had gone into liquidation and any breach of condition notice would have to be served on residents as well as the applicant. This was an attempt to find a way forward. It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted with a condition to specify the type of materials to be used and requiring the delineation of car parking bays. RESOLVED: That application 16/0164/1 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the amended condition 2 below: Within 6 months of the date of this decision notice, full details of surface shingle bonding and car parking space delineation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details or particulars and within a timescale which has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure a timely and high quality finish to this development. |
Agreed | ||
| 30 |
PLANNING APPEALS Report Appeal Decision - 15-00776-1 St Hughes Cottage Appeal Decision - 15-02666 - 1 Rose Farm Appeal Decision (Costs) - 15-02666 - 1 Rose Farm The Development and Conservation manager drew attention to the appeal decision regarding Rose Farm, Whitwell and tat the Planning Inspector did not wish to refuse permission on the grounds of flooding, as this was not supported by the Lead Flood Authority. Members asked whether the dismissed appeals would be referred to the Legal department for enforcement action. The Development and Conservation Manager confirmed that discussions would be held with the Legal department regarding potential enforcement action. Members asked why, in respect of Rose Farm, Whitwell, costs were awarded against the Council when the appeal was dismissed. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application for costs was made at the same time as the appeal. It was possible to apply for the costs associated with having to go to appeal and the applications would be considered separately. RESOLVED: That the report on Planning Appeals be noted. |
Agreed | ||