Issue - meetings

23/00743/RM Land Adjacent To Oaklea And South Of, Cowards Lane, Codicote, Hertfordshire, SG4 8UN

Meeting: 13/06/2024 - Planning Control Committee (Item 7)

7 23/00743/RM - LAND ADJACENT TO OAKLEA AND SOUTH OF, COWARDS LANE, CODICOTE, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 8UN pdf icon PDF 645 KB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved Mattersapplication forapproval ofthe detailsof theappearance,landscaping, layout and scaleof thedevelopment for80 dwellingsincluding streets, carparking, openspace andassociated works(pursuant tooutline application  17/01464/1  granted  02.11.2022)  (as  amended  by  plans  anddocuments received 30th October, 29th November, 20th and 22nd December2023 and 4th January, 7th February, 7th March and 18th April 2024). 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 23/00743/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the removal of Condition 2 and the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Minutes:

Audio recording: 57 minutes 48 seconds

 

The Chair clarified for Members that outline planning permission had already been granted for residential development on this site including details of access. This was a Reserved Matters application to deal with the details relating to layout, landscaping, appearance, and scale.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

 

·       The applicant is Croudace Homes Ltd.

·       An extension to the statutory period had been granted to 19 June 2024.

·       Outline planning permission was granted on 2 November 2022, not 2011.

·       Condition 2 should be removed as it duplicates a condition on the outline application.

·       Granting “Planning permission” should read granting “Reserved Matters details”. The recommendation in 10.1 should be worded as follows: “That the Reserved Matters details are GRANTED subject to the following conditions.”

·       Further resident objections had been received regarding concerns about the boundary of the site and possible Japanese Knotweed, which had been covered by a landscaping condition requiring details of boundary treatment to be submitted and approved and with regard to Japanese Knotweed the applicant has been notified and no objection had been received on the application from Herts Ecology.

·       There were concerns raised that the 6-metre buffers to much of the hedgerow network endorsed by Herts Ecology was not consistent with the policy which states that 12 metres should be applied.

·       Whilst Local Planning Policy stated the provision of 12m buffers of complimentary habitat around wildlife sites, trees and hedgerows should be provided it was not an absolute requirement of policy.

·       A further representation was received from a neighbour regarding the protection of the wildlife on the boundary hedgerow and asked if the Council would consider asking that the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) offsetting was planted onsite. It was the officer’s understanding that at least 10% BNG could be provided on site, although a condition was recommended requiring an updated Biodiversity Metric.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/00743/RM supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Micheal Muir

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Louise Peace

 

In response to the points of clarification, the Senior Planning Officer stated that:

 

·       The 10% biodiversity net gain had been secured on site. This was not clear in the outline application when it was submitted. The initial application was granted before the requirement for BNG.

·       Highways initially objected to this application, but minor changes had now been made to the layout and they had withdrawn their objection.

·       Proposals for Solar Panels and Heat Pumps would form part of the Energy and Sustainability statement required by condition on the outline planning permission.

·       Whilst most of the trees to be planted were situated in communal areas, some were sited in residential gardens and there was no condition which could be added to ensure that these would not be felled over time.

·       The 12-metre buffer was deemed not to be required on the whole site. The parameter plan had been approved as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7