Issue - meetings

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning application for up to 99 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation, vehicular access point via the demolition of an existing property on Echo Hill (all matters to be reserved save access).

RESOLVED: That application 20/00744/OP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

(1)       By reason of its prominent position and the topography of the site and location outside the settlement boundary of Royston, the proposed development would be likely to result in significant localised adverse impacts on both the character of the area and visual receptors, particularly when viewed from certain locations on Royston Heath. While these impacts could be mitigated to a limited extent, the combination of residential built form on high ground and the associated urbanising infrastructure, and development breaking the skyline, would act to occasion a marked and adverse change in the character of the immediate and intermediate locality and wider valued landscape. This adverse impact would represent conflict with the aims of the NPPF and Polices CGB1, SP5, SP12c and NE1 of the emerging local plan and Policies 6 and 21 of the Saved local plan.

(2)       At the time of determination the planning application, the subject of this decision notice, has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a completed S106 Obligation) securing the provision of the requisite infrastructure and financial contributions towards off site infrastructure or on site affordable housing. The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development on the identified services in accordance with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD, Saved Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations or proposed Local Plan Policy HS2 of the Submission Local Plan (2011-2031). Without this mechanism to secure these provisions the development scheme cannot be considered as a sustainable form of development contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Proactive Statement:

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Audio recording – 10 minutes 54 seconds

Outline planning application for up to 99 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation, vehicular access point via the demolition of an existing property on Echo Hill (all matters to be reserved save access).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00744/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans and provided the Committee with the following updates:

·                Additional representations had been received since the publication of the report;

·                Natural England had stated that following removal of the emergency access they had no objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured by the Section 106;

·                An email had been received from Therfield Heath Conservators regarding concerns about the report and recommendation being presented to the Committee this evening – this representation had been responded to and did not change the recommendation for approval or the details in the Heads of Terms in the Section 106;

·                A letter from Buxton Solicitors on behalf of the action group ‘Say No To Gladman’ had been received and a response from the NHDC legal advisor had been sent covering the issues raised regarding access, the EIA, the tilted balance and the SSSI, and concluding that NHDC did not consider that there was a risk of judicial review should the Committee be minded to grant the application;

·                A late representation had been received regarding land ownership and access. This issue had been raised numerous times and the applicant had responded stating that no third-party land has been included and this had been checked and confirmed on numerous occasions. Any dispute would be a civil matter and not a planning consideration.

Spelling mistakes and clarifications on the Report

·                There was an error in the text of the Report at Section 1.4 – the text was out of date and should be in line with what was stated in Section 4.3.16 where the emerging Local Plan was now well advanced and the Local Plan Inspector had issued their proposed further modifications following the additional hearings earlier that year;

·                4.3.28 – there was a spelling mistake: ‘tiled balance’ should read ‘tilted balance’;

·                4.4.3 – ‘can be sustained at appeal’ should read ‘cannot be sustained at appeal’.

Conditions – changes to wording

·                Condition 22 – Section E added ‘details of a phased landscaping scheme of all planting to be submitted with agreed triggers’;

·                Condition 24 – ‘hedges’ had been added to trees in the wording where appropriate to ensure their protection;

·                Informative 11, Design – Wording had been added so the first sentence would read: ‘Given the topography of the site and the general character of the area, as part of any reserve matter application, the inclusion of a single storey development on the more sensitive areas of the development should be considered and any development above two storeys needs to be carefully considered and adequately justified.’.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131