| 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 Paul Clark, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Harry Spencer - Smith and Councillor M.E. Weeks. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | John Chapman (Area Planning Officer), Tom Rea (Area Planning Officer), Tom Donovan (Development Officer), Nurainatta Katevu (Property and Planning Lawyer) and Ian Gourlay (Committee and Member Services Manager). |
| ALSO PRESENT: | At the commencement of the meeting Councillors Julian Cunningham, Tony Hunter and Valentine Shanley and approximately 95 members of the public including 6 registered speakers and 1 Member Advocate (Councillor Mrs C.P.A. Strong). |
| Meeting attachments |
Audio Recording of Meeting Agenda Front Pages |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 31 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Jean Green, Ian Mantle and M.R.M Muir. |
Noted | ||
| 32 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 21 July 2016 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments to Minute 27 - Land to the South of Bendish Lane and adjacent to 2-12 Cresswick, Whitwell: Page 5 - ninth paragraph - changing the last word from "Whitwell" to "the Parish of St. Paul's Walden"; and Page 7 - third paragraph from the bottom - addition of the word "emerging" between "the" and "Local Plan; deletion of the words "which meant that the Council had found the site acceptable for development"; and deletion of the word "acknowledged" on the second line, so that the paragraph now read: "Members acknowledged that the site was included in the emerging Local Plan for development and 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." |
Agreed | ||
| 33 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. |
Noted | ||
| 34 |
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 bell 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 | ||
| 35 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Chairman confirmed that the 6 registered speakers and 1 Member Advocate were present. |
Noted | ||
| 36 |
15/02555/1 - LAND TO THE SOUTH OF BENDISH LANE AND ADJACENT TO 2-12 CRESSWICK, WHITWELL Report Location Plan Appendix 1 - Report to 21 July 2016 Planning Control Committee Appendix 2 - Representation Letter from St. Pauls Walden Parish Council: 7 July 2016 Appendix 3 - Further Representation Letter from St.Pauls Walden Parish Council: 15 July 2016 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: (1) Councillor John Bishop made a Declarable Interest as he lived on Cresswick, which was adjacent to the proposed development and would therefore leave the room during the debate and vote. However, he would listen to the Area Planning Officer's introduction and the public speakers before making a statement and then leaving the room; (2) Councillor Harry Spencer-Smith declared that, prior to him being elected as a councillor, he had received hospitality from the landowner of the site. He did not consider that this was sufficient for him to not participate in the debate and vote upon the matter; and (3) The Chairman (Councillor David Barnard) declared that, since the previous meeting, he had become aware that his son-in-law acted as a contract farmer for the site landowners. Councillor Barnard stated that he had no pecuniary interest in this state of affairs, but nevertheless asked the Committee if they considered that he should stand down as Chairman for this item. Members were content for him to chair the item.] The Area Planning Officer (JC) introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that consideration of this application had been deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee held on 21 July 2016, in order to allow local residents to comment on the amended sustainable urban development drainage system proposals. The Area Planning Officer advised that 197 standard letters of representation from residents had been received, which he quoted as follows: "I would like to comment on the amended urban drainage system proposals relating to the West Whitwell development. (1) The Environment Agency identify the site as being at high risk through surface flooding. The site was flooded in 2014. The developer's own food risk assessment states that the site has a 1 in 1 year flood risk, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk (NPPF, Paragraph 100). The planning practice guidance is clear that this means areas at risk from all sources of flooding. (2) Both a 3,700 cubic metre (50% bigger than an Olympic Swimming Pool) and a 1,100 cubic metre flood control pit on site are proposed. The larger will be over 55 metres long and 5 metres deep. No evidence has been made available regarding safety, effectiveness and upkeep. We understand that no similar arrangements have been applied elsewhere in Hertfordshire. Despite a scheme based on absorption of water into the ground, no relevant soil tests have been undertaken. Secondly, acceptance by the County Council in its role as Lead Flood Authority has been based solely on data provided by the developers. (3) At the Planning Committee meeting on 21 July 2016, Officers sought to argue that the drainage pits are only in place to protect the existing houses in Cresswick from flooding. This is incorrect. The two large drainage pits are there to catch the significant amounts of water that flow down the valley and across the site. This is why the site is so unsustainable for housing. (4) The provision of an underground sewage tank requiring off-peak pumping could be a significant risk to good water and the iconic watercress beds, even with the application of Environment Agency recommended conditions. (5) The proposed development of 41 homes, together with the earthworks required to create both the 3,700 cubic metre and 1,100 cubic metre pits in the ground will result in significant harm to the character and beauty of the countryside, particularly when viewed from the Chiltern Way. The significant adverse visual impact of the proposed housing scheme, which urbanises the site, together with the required extreme untested flood mitigation scheme, drainage and sewage arrangements, outweigh any of the benefits of the scheme and, as such, I strongly object. The core NPPF principles seek the use of brownfield land, preservation of the intrinsic beauty of the countryside, location of houses in areas at least risk of flooding, and for planning to empower local people to help share their surroundings. This application is contrary to those core principles and should be refused." In respect of item (3) above, the Area Planning Officer advised that what he had stated at the 21 July 2016 meeting was that the area identified as the larger pond was to provide a sustainable urban drainage system to protect the development and properties in Whitwell from flooding, in order to deal with historic flooding issues. The area identified as the smaller pond was to protect Whitwell properties from potential flooding that may be caused by the proposed development. He had not stated that the proposed sustainable urban drainage system was only in place to protect the existing houses in Cresswick from flooding. The Area Planning Officer advised that there had been a further 29 letters of representation received from named individuals and residents of various roads in Whitwell. The Area Planning Officer stated that a report had been produced by JBA Consulting on behalf of St. Paul's Walden Parish Council. The JBA report was critical of the methodology and basis on which the Lead Local Flood Authority had reached their conclusion. The report had been sent to the Lead Local Flood Authority, whose full response had been circulated to Members of the Committee. The Lead Local Flood Authority had maintained their view that there was no reason to refuse the application on flooding grounds, although had proposed the following additional condition: "The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a detailed ground investigation report, including a detailed assessment of ground water levels, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site." The Area Planning Officer commented that Members would also be aware of the response received from Fairhurst Consulting, explaining why they disagreed with the JBA Consulting report. The Area Planning Officer reported that the Council had also received a Briefing Note from the Bendish Lane Action Group. He understood that this had been circulated to Members, together with a Briefing Note from the applicant. The Area Planning Officer had received an e-mail from Mr Tim Roberts, on behalf of St. Paul's Walden Parish Council, re-iterating the Parish Council's comments which were set out in the appendices to the report submitted to the Committee on 21 July 2016. The Area Planning Officer took Members through a slide presentation of photographs and drawings relating to the application. He commented that the ponds on the site were only likely to be full in the event of a flood occurrence. He explained that the housing would be contained in the centre of the site and below the 105 metre contour line. He concluded by recommending that planning permission be granted as per the original report, but with the inclusion of the additional condition proposed by the Lead Local Flood Authority, as set out above. Mr Simon Lambert and Ms Rachel Keen (representing St. Paul's Walden Parish Council and the people of Whitwell) addressed the Committee in objection to application 15/02555/1. Mr Lambert reminded the Committee that at its previous meeting on 21 July 2016 there had been 95 residents from Whitwell present to demonstrate how strongly the village felt that this was the wrong site for housing development. Mr Lambert explained that the main points of objection related to the visual impact of the development on this 5.9 hectare site. This was a very beautiful sloping agricultural valley site, highly visible from the Chiltern Way and other footpaths and bridleways in the area. The Planning Officers; report stated that only 2 hectares of the site were to be developed, but looking at the urbanising effect of the overall site, with significant structure for drainage ponds, pathways and roadways, the whole of the 5.9 hectares of open countryside would be lost. This would be contrary to the Council's own Landscape Character Area Assessment, which identified that the development of sites over 5 hectares would not be appropriate due to the visual impact. Mr Lambert stated that the impact on the intrinsic beauty of the countryside was a core planning principle in the NPPF and a legitimate reason for refusal. He asked Members to agree with him that the impact would be significant. Mr Lambert considered that the scheme had been designed in the manner presented because the developers were fully aware of the visual sensitivity of the site. The scheme attempted to locate houses within a dip through the middle of the site. Unfortunately, when designing the scheme the developers were unaware of the surface water and flood issues that the site faced and had inadvertently placed the houses in precisely the place where flood water would flow through the site. Mr Lambert was of the view that the Committee had been led to believe that the flood ponds were not required for the new homes, but to protect existing homes from a historical flood issue. He thought that some comfort was taken that this scheme offered a solution to protect the properties previously at risk. However, those three properties had all installed on-site flood protection. They did not need this new development. The huge ponds proposed were included solely to try to make the site acceptable for new housing. Ms Keen stated that the period of deferment had enabled the Parish Council to employ a flood specialist to assess the submitted material. The site was unusual and problematic because it was a chalk valley and drained from a huge valley area. The flood specialist had calculated that the natural catchment was double that estimated by the developer, and local knowledge supported this view. As the water drained onto the site, the ground became saturated, which was what had occurred in the flood event of 2014. Ms Keen advised that high groundwater levels caused standing water. In these recent circumstances the huge proposed pond (1.5 times the volume of an Olympic Pool) would already be substantially full, with nowhere for the water to drain due to the saturated ground and high water table. This size pond would even be insufficient to deal with the volumes of water the flood specialist had estimated would be generated. This concern was also raised in the response from the Environment Agency. Ms Keen commented that if the huge pond was full and the water could not drain away, then any new water would flow across the site at the lowest point (ie. exactly through the new proposed houses). The conclusion of the flood specialist was that infiltration and run off was not an appropriate mitigation where ground water was an underlying cause of flooding. It was simply a case of digging a pond large or deep enough or pump water fast enough if the ground was already saturated and more water was flowing into the site from the surrounding valley. Mr Lambert advised that the Parish Council still had huge concerns regarding sewerage and the fact that the existing sewage system was full, which meant that waste needed to be stored and pumped. As pumps sometimes failed, he asked who and how these would be monitored and what would happen should they fail. Mr Lambert and Ms Keen concluded that: - No weight should be attached to the identification of this site in the draft Local Plan document. There had been no update to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. This was contrary to the NPPF; - Members were fully within their rights to find that the impacts of the intrinsic beauty of the countryside were significant and outweighed the benefits of 41 new homes; - All other Section 106 monies were mitigation for the impacts of this development and not a benefit to be weighed in the balance; - The NPPF removed the presumption in favour of sustainable development where specific policies within the Framework indicated that development should be restricted. Paragraph 100 of the NPPF was clear that "inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided"; - The site was at significant risk of flooding and the proposed mitigation would not work due to the levels of ground water at times when it was most needed; and - The houses were proposed in the area of the site at most significant risk of flooding contrary to the NPPF. Mr Lambert concluding by stating that the residents of Whitwell were not against development, as the Parish had taken its fair share and had grown by over 7% since 2001. A Parish Council survey had discovered that 40% would support an additional 10-20 new homes provided they were on the right site. They considered that this was not the right site due to flooding, visual impact and concerns about sewerage, and respectfully requested that the Committee refuse planning permission for this application. A Member asked for the speakers' opinions on the Lead Local Flood Authority's consultants report which stated that bore hole readings indicated that the water table would be 80m-90m below the surface of the site (ie. it was not a ground water problem). Ms Keen replied that she worked for the Environment Agency (but was not representing the Environment Agency). She stated that part of the Environment Agency's response referred to the fact that their records indicated that ground water levels were between 14m-20m below the ground in most areas of the site, but that there were no monitoring ground holes in the area. Hence, a ground water monitoring condition had been recommended by the Environment Agency. However, it had also been flagged that ground water levels fluctuated seasonally. When the applicants carried out their trial infiltration digs this was in September and to the depth of 4m-5m, and hence water drained away. The highest point for ground water was generally between January and March, and it was believed that it was such a seasonal fluctuation that had occurred in the flood of 2014. The Chairman thanked Mr Lambert and Ms Keen for their presentations. Councillor Mrs C.P.A. Strong addressed the Committee as a Member Advocate. Councillor Strong began by referring to the level of objection to the scheme, as evidenced by the number of residents in attendance at the meeting, together with the amount of correspondence and volume of phone calls she had received on the matter. Councillor Strong advised that residents had concerns about this site, but were not against development in the village. Although the site had come forward as part of the Local Plan process, she was of the view that objections from the village to development of the site would continue, due to its unsuitability. Councillor Strong stated that there were many sites in Whitwell for sustainable development, which would not attract the problems of the application site. Although no drainage expert, she was aware that flooding had and would no doubt continue to occur at the bottom of the application site, and so to place additional housing in this area, combined with water run-off issues, would result in significant risks. Councillor Strong questioned whether the flood risks had been sufficiently mitigated. Were the proposals to deal with those risks acceptable? She considered that the occupiers of the new houses would be faced with a constant fear of flooding each time there was a torrential downpour. If water levels rose, then where would the water go? Councillor Strong was surprised at the number of conditions recommended by the Planning Officer. She felt that if there had to be so many conditions to make the scheme viable then something was surely not quite right. Councillor Strong considered that the planning application would do no justice to the occupiers of the new houses, and would adversely impact on the visual amenity of the village. She hoped that the Committee would conclude that the risks would not be worth taking and would refuse planning permission to the application. Alternatively, she thought that a further deferral may also be appropriate to allow for an in-depth consideration of all the various technical information provided, to perhaps result in a scheme which could mitigate all of the risks. The Chairman thanked Councillor Strong for her presentation. Mr James Bromhead (Applicant's Agent) addressed the Committee in support of application 15/02555/1. Mr Bromhead advised that Whitwell was a Category A village with approximately 530 homes in the Parish. The proposed development of 41 new homes represented a 7% increase in dwellings over the 15 year Local Plan period which, with careful planning, could be easily accommodated within the village. Mr Bromhead stated that the emerging Local Plan acknowledged the suitability of this site for housing, subject to a number of specific matters being addressed. He considered that the detailed application before Members addressed all of these matters, together with other relevant Council and National planning policies. These policies help to ensure that the scheme would make a positive contribution to Whitwell and the wider district. Mr Bromhead explained that the Council's emerging Local Plan had proposed a number of allocations in sustainable locations to meet the needs of the District, of which this site was one. It was acknowledged that allocating sites was not always a popular exercise as the Council sought to balance the needs of future communities with those of today. This scheme sought to achieve that balance, comprehensively addressing the concerns raised by a minority of households, whilst delivering a high quality development which met the needs of the community and the District. Mr Bromhead and his colleagues had been working on this scheme for over a year, and 75% of the Parish had not expressed concerns about the scheme. Of those who had commented, two thirds of those had a direct relationship with the site. The detailed application before Members provided for a high quality, low density, well landscaped development outside the Green belt, with 40% affordable housing and 7 of the private homes being bungalows to meet local needs. The scheme had been sympathetically designed, with a low density of 20 dwellings per hectare and a variety of house types to minimise the impact on the adjoining Conservation Area. The four bungalows on Bendish Lane would be set back from the road, with a landscaping belt in front of them. Bungalows were also proposed along the site's eastern boundary, again set behind a landscaping belt, with the nearest dwelling to the Chapel and houses in Cresswick being at least 22 metres away. Mr Bromhead advised that, whilst the application site was approximately 6 hectares in size, the proposed new homes would occupy only about 2 hectares. The remaining 4 hectares would be well planted green infrastructure which would significantly enhance the landscape and create new public open space as a benefit for the wider community. Mr Bromhead stated that Hertfordshire County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, had confirmed that the surface water drainage scheme had been rigorously assessed in accordance with best practice, and that it would more than adequately accommodate the 41 new homes, as well as resolving the historic flooding problems the village had experienced. This was the only site in Whitwell that could provide this betterment and, in the absence of any likely public funding, the proposed development was the only realistic opportunity to see this betterment delivered. Mr Bromhead explained that foul drainage would be pumped into the existing system at off peak times, adopting a standard approach that incorporated best practice for mitigating all risks. Thames Water had advised that there were at least 4,000 similar schemes throughout Hertfordshire, and none of these had ever failed. Thames Water had also confirmed that a pumping station designed and constructed in accordance with relevant legislation, and monitored and maintained correctly, did not pose a risk to the environment. Indeed, there was a far greater risk of cross contamination from outdated systems serving existing properties elsewhere in the village. Mr Bromhead commented that, along with the benefits already highlighted, the scheme would provide improved pedestrian and cycle links to the village and Byway, and substantial financial contributions towards public transport facilities, primary and secondary education, library, waste and recycling facilities and improved play space at Bradway Recreation Ground. Mr Bromhead advised that, at the Parish Council's request, the applicant had offered to make a financial contribution towards improved facilities at the Fellowship Village Hall. A financial contribution towards improved parking at the primary school had also been offered. It was appreciated that Planning Officers did not consider these matters to be essential, but the applicant was willing to continue to work with the community to deliver these benefits. Furthermore, requests from the Parish Council in regard to the long terms protection and maintenance of the open space had been agreed and incorporated into the draft Section 106 Agreement. Mr Bromhead concluded by hoping that Members had recognised that the applicant had amended the scheme many times to respond positively to comments made by Council Officers, the Parish Council and the local community and stakeholders. The scheme was supported by all main statutory consultees, and he respectfully asked Members to support the Planning Officer's recommendation to grant planning permission. In response to Members' questions, Mr Bromhead clarified that: - there were 4,000 pumping sites in Hertfordshire, as confirmed in writing by the Lead Local Flood Authority; - there would be two pumps, the second being a back up to the first - both pumps would be alarmed, insulated and double-skinned. The pumping station would prevent potential pollution, including of the watercress beds to the south of the site; and - the sewage tanks would be installed 3m-4m below the surface of the site and would have capacity to accommodate sewage that was unable to be pumped off-peak or during off-peak times. The Chairman thanked Mr Bromhead for his presentation. Upon being asked by the Chairman to respond to the speakers' presentations, the Area Planning Officer stated that the Council was beholden upon the technical expertise of officers of the Lead Local Flood Authority in respect of flood risk issues. As a result of the deferral of the application at the previous meeting, the Parish Council had been able to commission a consultant to produce a report, which had been studied by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Following consideration of the consultant's report, the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that they had no reason to consider that the scheme would be a flood risk. Indeed, they had considered that the proposals would lessen the chance of flooding in the area. The Property and Planning Lawyer commented that a Freedom of Information request had been submitted to Hertfordshire County Council in terms of flooding and drainage. She advised Members that no statutory consultees had changed their comments or requirements regarding the scheme, save for the additional condition reported by the Area Planning Officer. Councillor John Bishop stated that there were 340 (not 530) houses in Whitwell. The majority of those 340 houses had objected to the application, as evidenced by the number of representations referred to by the Area Planning Officer. Furthermore, people outside of the village had also objected. Councillor Bishop advised that he had received confirmation from an NHDC Planning Officer that the status of the emerging North Hertfordshire Local Plan was not a material consideration in respect of this application. Councillor Bishop stated that his fundamental objection concerned what he considered to be the detrimental impact of the proposed scheme on the countryside, which he felt would outweigh any presumption in favour of development. He hoped the Committee would agree with him in this respect, but if Members were not sure then he referred to a number of other matters which might sow seeds of doubt. The first related to the conflicting expert opinions as to whether or not the flood defences were appropriate. Did the additional condition recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority following their consideration of the JBA Consulting report mean that they had not been thorough enough in the first place? There were also doubts over the sewage arrangements. Finally, should permission be granted with so many conditions, most of which were based on a matter of opinion concerning the flooding issue. He urged the Committee to refuse planning permission. [At this point in the proceedings Councillor Bishop withdrew from the Chamber for the remainder of this item.] The Committee debated the application. A number of Members were supportive of the scheme and others spoke against the application. Those Members in support considered it provided much needed housing, as well as improving the flood defences for the area, as exemplified by the extra flood mitigation condition recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority. The site was also included for potential development in the emerging Local Plan. It was acknowledged that there would be some visual impact in the area, although this would be lessened by the housing element being set down in the lower reaches of the site. Those Members against the application considered that that the flooding risk had not been sufficiently mitigated by the conditions recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Concerns were also expressed regarding the sewerage arrangements and the monitoring and maintenance of the pumping station. It was also felt that the harm caused to the character of the countryside and visual amenity was sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the proposed housing scheme. It was moved and seconded that application 15/02555/1 be granted planning permission, subject to a Section 106 Obligation and the conditions set out in the report, together with the additional condition proposed by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Upon being put to the vote, this motion was lost on the Chairman's casting vote. In considering reasons for refusal, it became clear that Members were minded to refuse on flood risk grounds. The Area Planning Officer cautioned Members against this approach, as they would be effectively going against the advice of a statutory consultee (the Lead Local Flood Authority), which could result in a potential costs claim should the matter proceed to appeal. He felt that, if Members were contemplating a refusal, then they should consider so doing on environmental (rather than technical) grounds. Following a brief adjournment of the meeting, and following advice from the Planning Officers present, it was moved and seconded that application 15/02555/1 be refused planning permission, as the extent of the landscape and earthworks changes necessary to facilitate the proposed flood risk mitigation scheme would mean that the proposed development would fail to maintain the existing character and visual quality of the countryside in accordance with Policy 6 of the Local Plan and core principles set out in Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse planning permission was carried on the Chairman's casting vote. Notwithstanding the above decision, the Committee was not content with the information provided in respect of flooding issues. There appeared to be some disagreement on issues such as the height of the water table, position of the local springs etc. The Chairman asked for these concerns to be minuted. RESOLVED: That application 15/02555/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the following reason: By reason of the extent of the landscape and earthworks changes necessary to facilitate the proposed flood risk mitigation scheme, the proposed development would fail to maintain the existing character and visual quality of the countryside in accordance with Policy 6 of the Local Plan and core principles set out in Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). |
Not Agreed | ||
| 37 |
16/01536/1 - 82 WYMONDLEY ROAD, HITCHIN Report Location Plan Replacement dwelling following demolition of existing. The Development Officer introduced the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. The Development Officer advised that the plot size of 82 Wymondley Road was roughly twice the size of other plots in the road. The properties in Wymondley Road largely followed the curvature of the road and were set back from the highway. In respect of the proposed replacement dwelling, the Development Officer commented that it was of modern design. He referred to a prominent mono-pitched section of the roof, and the fact that the property was to be a mixture of single and two storey elements. Although the scale of development may perhaps be suited to the double plot size, the Development Officer considered that the new dwelling was out of context with nearby properties. He had therefore recommended in his report that the application should be refused for two reasons. The first reason was the context of the dwelling in relation to the character of the area, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He was of the opinion that the design of the new dwelling failed to properly relate to the properties either side and many others in the vicinity of similar appearance. He felt that the new dwelling should not necessarily replicate the existing, and that there was scope for a larger building containing some contemporary features, although not to the extent proposed by the design submitted in the application. The Development Officer explained that the second reason for refusal related to the two-storey mono-pitched section of the dwelling, which would sit directly opposite the front wall of No 84 Wymondley Road. The mono-pitched nature of the roof would result in a ridge height of 8.5 metres, which would be significant when viewed from the east. He considered that it would therefore be incongruous, over-dominant and intrusive, which would be harmful to the streetscene. Mr Francis Marlow addressed the Committee in objection to application 16/01536/1. He advised that he was the owner of 84 Wymondley Road, and stated that he had no objection to the principle of building a large new house on the plot of 82 Wymondley Road. He felt that it should be a great opportunity to replace the existing poor quality building with something that would enhance the neighbourhood and fit in with surrounding buildings. Mr Marlow explained that his main objection was that the style of the building proposed did not fit in with the type of houses in the neighbourhood. The proposal had a large protruding side wall which would be clearly visible from No 84 and from the street. He felt that, if built, the property would stand out for all the wrong reasons. Mr Marlow considered that most people in the area saw this part of Wymondley Road as akin to The Avenue and Chiltern Road, forming one of the most desirable areas of Hitchin. This was why he felt that it was important to ensure that new developments fitted in with the character of the area, or indeed enhanced it. He was of the view that other modern styles could be appropriate, and referred to some examples along the road, at Nos 56 and 86. These both had modern frontages which blended in well with the surrounding houses. Mr Marlow advised that Wymondley Road contained a number of Victorian and Edwardian houses, some of which had been appropriately modernised and extended to offer character in keeping with this part of Hitchin. This was a great opportunity to build something new which enhanced the area. He asked Members to consider the detrimental impact of the new dwelling on the neighbourhood and to agree with the Development Officer's recommendation to refuse planning permission. In response to a Member's question, Mr Marlow confirmed that (as set out in his objection letter) he was also concerned about the potential loss of privacy due to the new building being set further back in the plot than the existing, thereby changing the staggered nature of the streetscene. The Chairman thanked Mr Marlow for his presentation. Mr Colin Eades (Applicant's Architect) and Mr George Jackson (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of application 16/01536/1. Mr Eades advised that he was surprised that the application had been called-in by Councillors Harris and Harwood, as he considered that the application could have been easily dealt with by officers under delegated powers. He referred to Paragraph 1.1 of the report, which stated that pre-application advice had highlighted several concerns with the proposed scheme. He was of the view that this was incorrect, as the advice had shown full support to National and Local planning policies, with the sole exception of the wholly subjective issue of design. Mr Eades commented that this subjectivity was exemplified by his subsequent conversation with the Planning Officer, who had stated it was his personal opinion, and that all of the nearby houses had pitched roofs. Mr Eades advised that the proposed new dwelling also had a pitched roof. Mr Eades was of the view that this subjectivity was a demonstration of the planning "lottery" which existed, and which turned on the Planning Officer's opinion. He referred to other examples in Hitchin where the Council had supported a contemporary design amongst more traditionally designed dwellings, citing 61 Benslow Lane and 23 Blackmore Way. Mr Eades considered that it was unfortunate in Paragraph 4.3.8 of the report that the Planning Officer had attached little weight to these examples, but had provided no clues as to how he had reached this conclusion. Mr Eades was of the view that the objection from No 84 Wymondley Road was correctly dismissed in the report, as was the myth of loss of privacy at ground floor level. In respect of National Policy, Mr Eades stated that Paragraph 9 (Sustainable Development) included for the replacement of poor design with better design, and provided for wider choice of high quality houses. He thought it was unfathomable why NHDC would wish to stifle such ambition. Paragraph 50 of the NPPF advocated delivery of a wide choice of high quality houses, not simply replicating the status quo. Paragraphs 56-68 addressed good design, rather than mediocrity. In particular, Paragraph 65 set out that Local Planning Authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings which promoted high levels of sustainability because of concerns about comparability with an existing townscape. Mr Eades felt that the reason for refusal concerning the height of the new dwelling was strange, as it had been demonstrated in the Design and Access Statement and on the plans that the dwelling was no higher than the neighbouring properties. Mr Jackson (Applicant) advised that he had purchased an inhabitable, unprepossessing mid 1950s house in Wymondley Road. He and his family were currently living in rented accommodation in London. Mr Jackson explained that he and his family were committed to living in Hitchin, committed to good design, and committed to improving the built environment. They had commissioned a respected local architect to build a sustainable contemporary house in place of an inefficient and tired property. Mr Jackson stated that there were similar examples of contemporary buildings in the roads around the site, which had been supported by the Council. Encouragement had been drawn from these examples. He advised that pre-application advice had not been ignored and that the house had been approved on all grounds, save design. The design refusal had been presented to him as a personal opinion, and not as a professional judgement. He and his family should not be forced to build a home to suit the unknown aesthetic tastes of a single Planning Officer, but instead should be allowed to build to reflect modern living. Wymondley Road was diverse in styles and taste and the Council should be confident that the road and Hitchin could incorporate contemporary homes, rather than just period pastiche. Mr Jackson considered that a perusal of the plans would show that the proposed new dwelling was a full-life house, intended for his family to live as they would wish in the 21st Century. He asked the Committee to approve the application. The Chairman thanked Mr Eades and Mr Jackson for their presentations. The Development Officer confirmed that, in relation to pre-application advice given, it was made clear to all applicants at the outset that any views would be a Planning Officer's opinion. However that advice (either approval or refusal) needed to be based on National and Local planning policies. He agreed with Mr Eades that, in some cases, Planning Officer's could reach different conclusions in what could be a subjective view in terms of design. In respect of application 16/01536/1, however, the Development Officer felt that if the contention concerned subtleties of the design then it could be given more weight, but in his view the fundamental design of the proposed new dwelling was out of context with the others in the area. The Development Officer stated that, whilst he had offered some positive comments as part of his pre-application advice regarding certain aspects, he considered that design was extremely important. He felt that development should take its rightful place in and amongst the context in which it was located. The Committee debated the application, and noted the Development Officer's explanation that interpretation of the NPPF had to be balanced. For example, Paragraph 58 stated that the policies and decisions of the Council should respond to local character and history and reflecting the identity of local surroundings and materials, whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. In respect of application 16/01536/1, he had concluded that more weight should be given to the impact of the proposal on the character of the area rather than the innovative design of the dwelling. Members considered that the design of the property was not sympathetic to the local area, one of the requirements of Paragraph 63 of the NPPF. Whilst some Members were appreciative of the design, they felt that it would not be appropriate in the Wymondley Road street scene. Members further considered that the property would be overbearing to neighbouring dwellings, especially No 84 Wymondley Road, and its position would alter the appearance of the street scene by breaking the existing staggered nature of the properties in the road. The Committee therefore concluded that the application should be refused planning permission for the two reasons set out in the report. RESOLVED: That application 16/01536/1 be REFUSED planning permission, for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. |
Not Agreed | ||
| 38 |
16/01460/1 - 16A THE PADDOCK, HITCHIN Report Location Plan Variation of Condition 20 (planning permission reference 15/02332/1 granted 21/01/2016 for the erection of 1 x 5 bed detached dwelling, 7 x 4 bed detached dwellings and 6 x 3 bed semi- detached dwellings, new access road and ancillary works following demolition of existing dwelling (as amended by site layout plan PL-02 J)) to allow the development site boundary to be reduced from 15 metres to 13 metres of sewage pumping station. The Area Planning Officer (TR) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. The Area Planning Officer advised that Anglian Water had been consulted regarding the proposed variation of condition, and had responded that they considered the proposed reduction in distance from 15 metres to 13 meters from the pumping station to the development site would be acceptable, as there was an acoustic barrier (comprising a fence and hedge) between the pumping station and development site. RESOLVED: That, subject to the terms of the submitted Section 106 Agreement dated 20 January 2016, application 16/01460/1 be GRANTED planning permission, as per the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. |
Agreed | ||
| 39 |
PLANNING APPEALS Report Appeal Decision Letter - Hilltop House, Benslow Lane, Hitchin Appeal Decision Letter - Womback Yard, Whitehorse Street, Baldock The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of Planning Appeals. He advised that, since the 21 July 2016 meeting of the Committee, three appeals had been lodged and two appeal decisions had been received, all as detailed in the report. In respect of the appeal decisions received, the Committee noted that one had been allowed and one had been dismissed. RESOLVED: That the report on Planning Appeals be noted. |
Noted | ||