REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER
Outline application for a residential development for up to 83 dwellings (all matters reserved except access) (as amended by plans and documents received 4 January 2019 and 21 January 2022)
RESOLVED: That planning permission is resolved to be GRANTED subject to referral to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required and the conditions and informatives as set out in the report, and the following amendment:
Informative 2 relating to off-site Highway Works to read:
“Off-site highways work Informative
The off-site highways works referred to in conditions 17 and 18 above shall include:
· Pedestrian dropped kerbs and tactile paving either side of the Cowards Lane / spine road junction, with a suitable level of visibility from the tactile crossing points.
· Pedestrian dropped kerbs and tactile paving either side of the B656 / spine road junction.
· Measures to prohibit the parking of vehicles (e.g. double yellow lines) at the roadside of the B656 to ensure the necessary level of visibility from the site access, and from the pedestrian crossing points on the B656, are maintained in perpetuity.
· The upgrading of the two existing bus stops closest to the site along the B656, including raised Kassel kerbing.
· The details of these off-site highways works need to be completed in accordance with an approved S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority, prior to the occupation of any dwelling forming part of the development.”
Audio Recording – 7:48
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 17/01464/1 - LAND ADJACENT TO OAKLEA AND SOUTH OF, COWARDS LANE, CODICOTE supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs and provided the following additional updates:
· The supplementary agenda pack published with this item included an update on the implications of the Inspectors Report on the emerging Local Plan which had been returned; the main point included was that subject to a number of main modifications set out in the appendix to the report the emerging Local Plan was sound, legally compliant, and capable of adoption;
· This meant that the policies and site allocations made under the emerging Local Plan could be given very significant weight when determining planning applications;
· Two additional representations had been received since the report was written which were uploaded to the Planning Portal and which reiterated objections already included in the report;
· A representation from Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust had also been received which made comments regarding the 12m buffer to hedgerows and objections to the interpretation of the emerging local plan’s policy by Herts Ecology;
· The front page of the report omitted the applicant’s name in error; the applicant was Warden Developments Limited;
· There was an error in paragraph 4.3.1 of the report where it refers to “full” application it should instead refer to “outline” application;
· There was an error in informative 2 which related to off-site highways works where the numbers of the conditions to which it relates were missed which should read “The off-site highways works referred to in conditions 17 and 18 above shall include:”
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Ian Moody
· Councillor David Levett
· Councillor Simon Bloxham
· Councillor Nigel Mason
· Councillor Alistair Willoughby
· Councillor Tony Hunter
In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:
· The changes to the hedgerow buffer such that only the wildlife site would have 12m were consulted on during the course of the application and Herts Ecology raised no objections to the proposed amendment;
· Insisting on a 12m buffer around all sites could impact the deliverability of developments on smaller sites such as this;
· The extension of time was requested prior to receipt of the inspector’s final report; officers considered that the application was in a position to be determined hence its inclusion on the agenda and it was not felt that prematurity would be a viable reason for refusal;
· 40% of the development would be affordable housing as secured in the S106 agreement. This was a percentage figure as at this stage the total number of dwellings was not determined but as the outline application was for up to 83 dwellings figures had been proposed to illustrate the housing mix as follows – 33 affordable dwellings, 65% of which would be social affordable rented units and 35% shared ownership units in line with the mix set out in the local plan;
· Details of the methods used to assess the levels of harm generated by this ... view the full minutes text for item 19