Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are required to notify any substitutions by midday on the day of the meeting.

Late substitutions will not be accepted and Members attending as a substitute without having given the due notice will not be able to take part in the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Louise Peace, Tom Tyson, Ian Moody, Terry Tyler and Daniel Allen.

Having given due notice, Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Ian Moody, and Councillor Dave Winstanley substituted for Councillor Daniel Allen.

Audio recording – 1:38

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Louise Peace, Tom Tyson, Ian Moody, Terry Tyler and Daniel Allen.

Having given due notice, Councillor Michael Muir substituted for Councillor Ian Moody, and Councillor Dave Winstanley substituted for Councillor Daniel Allen.

Councillor Phil Weeder was absent.

Members should notify the Chair of other business which they wish to be discussed at the end of either Part I or Part II business set out in the agenda. They must state the circumstances which they consider justify the business being considered as a matter of urgency.

The Chair will decide whether any item(s) raised will be considered.

There was no other business notified.

Audio recording – 2:12

There was no other business notified.

Members are 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 are required to notify the Chair 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, wishing to exercise a ‘Councillor Speaking Right’, must declare this at the same time as the interest, move to the public area before speaking to the item and then must leave the room before the debate and vote.

(1)  The Chair advised that in accordance with Council policy this meeting was being audio recorded as well as filmed. The audio recordings would be available to view on Mod.gov and the film recording via the NHDC YouTube channel.

(2)  The Chair reminded Members to make declarations of interest before an item, the detailed reminder about this and speaking rights is set out under Chair’s Announcements on the agenda.

(3)  The Chair advised that Section 4.8.23(a) applied to this meeting.

(4)  The Chair clarified the speaking process for registered speakers.

(5)  The Chair advised that she had agreed to allocate 10 minutes each for the public speakers and Member Advocates to speak on Item 6.

Audio recording – 2:15

(1)   The Chair advised that in accordance with Council policy this meeting was being audio recorded as well as filmed. The audio recordings would be available to view on Mod.gov and the film recording via the NHDC YouTube channel.

(2)   The Chair reminded Members to make declarations of interest before an item, the detailed reminder about this and speaking rights is set out under Chair’s Announcements on the agenda.

(3)   The Chair advised that Section 4.8.23(a) applied to this meeting.

(4)   The Chair clarified the speaking process for registered speakers.

(5)   The Chair advised that she had agreed to allocate 10 minutes each for the public speakers and Member Advocates to speak on Item 6 – ‘18/01154/OP Land North of Highover Farm to Stotfold Road, Highover Way, Hitchin, Herts’.

To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

Audio recording – 3:50

The Chair confirmed that the registered speakers were in attendance.

RESOLVED: That application 21/00504/OP be GRANTED planning permission due to the reasons outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 4:26

The Development and Conservation Manager provided the following update:

·         The applicant was the Letchworth Heritage Foundation, and their representative was Mr. David Ames.

·         The application was for up to 120 dwellings. When the Reserved Matters were considered, there could be fewer.

·         The amount of affordable housing on this site would reduce pro-rata if fewer houses were developed as this was an outline application.

·         Condition 24 in the report was a duplicate on Condition 22 and was deleted.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 21/00504/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Sean Nolan

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Dave Winstanley

In response to the questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised:

·         Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) had determined that Section 106 contribution would go towards improvement of the recycling centre.

·         The Revised Technical Report submitted by the applicant concluded that there would be no Highway Safety impact. The developer contributions would go towards improving capacity.

·         It was for HCC and the Central Bedfordshire authority to agree on recycling arrangements.

The Chair invited Julia Sonander to speak in objection of the application. Ms. Sonander thanked the Chair, gave a verbal presentation and advised:

·         The application was portrayed as an extension to Norton Village, but it was Letchworth that was being extended.

·         The Master Plan had not identified key services and the transport plan was inadequate.

·         Norton St Nicholas School was key to this plan, however it was selective on faith and not related to the catchment area. This was not addressed in the Master Plan.

·         There were limited access points to the site, and no safe transport connection to Letchworth.

·         There was no provision for cycling or to improve footpaths for modal use, and the bus service was limited.

The Chair invited David Ames to speak in support of the application. Mr. Ames thanked the Chair, gave a verbal presentation and advised:

·         The application was supported through the examination of the Local Plan and followed Planning Policy with affordable housing.

·         There was detailed engagement with the local community and key stakeholders such as the Allotment Association and schools.

·         Traffic, parking, connections and impact were identified as issues in the public consultation.

·         Lack of toilet provision at the current site and security concerns were also raised.

·         Cycle use would be promoted, and footpath 26 would be improved. Footpath lighting was also being discussed.

·         There was a biodiversity net gain for the site if this application was approved.

·         There were conditions to improve the recycling centre in the report.

In response to the question from Councillor David Levett, Mr. Ames advised that principles in the Master Plan would develop the idea of carbon zero homes further, such as through the incorporation of PV panels.

The Development and Conservation Manager responded to issues raised and advised:

·         Conditions would provide improvements to Flint Road and Blackhorse Lane.

·         Carbon zero homes would require an Energy Sustainability Statement to address  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

RESOLVED: That application 18/01154/OP be DEFERRED outline planning permission to allow a review and update of the submitted Transport Assessment in order to address the cumulative impact of recent housing development in Hitchin on the road network and provide more detail of transport mitigation measures.

Audio recording – 40:34

The Senior Planning Officer advised that one further late representation had been received from a resident, which questioned the access to the site.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 18/01154/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Sean Nolan

·         Councillor Dave Winstanley

In response to the questions, the Senior Planning Officer and Oliver Sowerby, representative from HCC Highways Authority advised:

·         The Highways Authority considered the Traffic Assessment provided as acceptable. The proposed application would not have a significant impact on the roads and the junction capacity was acceptable.

·         A full length of palisade fencing would be included by the railway line to prevent trespassing as a reserved matter.

·         £3.3million in developer contributions would go towards sustainable transport and priorities that the Highways Authority had identified in Hitchin.

·         The Transport Plan included the pinch points on Woolgrove Road, with the possibility to introduce a shuttle working system underneath the railway bridge.

·         The 30mph speed limit on Stotfold Road would be extended to a suitable distance, and there was an in-principle commitment to reducing speed.

·         The Highways Authority had assessed the capacity and the development would not have a severe impact on the roundabout at Cambridge Road.

The Chair invited Neil Dodds and Richard Wilcox to speak in objection of the application. Mr. Dodds and Mr. Wilcox thanked the Chair, gave a verbal presentation and advised:

·         The land allocated for the site was taken out of the Greenbelt, which would mean countryside and wildlife habitat loss.

·         There was a large amount of vehicle traffic around the site, and the proposals would increase air pollution further and decrease air quality.

·         The road infrastructure was not suitable to support the proposed site and pavements under the railway bridge are narrow and not sufficient for cyclists and mobility scooter users.

·         The proposed primary school would deliver extra capacity for pressures generated by other housing development areas, not this site.

·         There were no key services on the Walsworth side of Hitchin, with a considerable distance to the nearest amenities.

·         This would result in the residents of the proposed development being heavily car-dependent, in conflict with sustainable transport goals.

·         The increased Hitchin population would put pressure on Lister Hospital and local GP services.

·         The Traffic Assessment provided was outdated, with most data collected five years ago.

·         Proper infrastructure needed to be in place to support the proposed development and current residents of Hitchin.

Councillor Val Bryant commented that the Section 106 education money for Pound Farm meant the catchment areas would be moved over, which meant pupils would go to the nearest schools in Hitchin.

The Chair invited Councillors Elizabeth Dennis and Daniel Wright-Mason to speak in objection as Ward Members for Hitchin Walsworth. Their verbal presentation included:

·         There had not been much community engagement with the current residents and the new developer, which was a concern.

·         Collison Close had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

RESOLVED: That application 22/00303/FP be DEFERRED as the funding for the delivery of this proposal is dependent upon application 18/01154/OP being granted.

Audio recording – 2:19:20

The Chair advised the funding for this proposal was dependent upon application 18/01154/OP being granted. As application 18/01554/OP had been deferred, she proposed to defer this application.

This was seconded by Councillor Mick Debenham, and following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 22/00303/FP be DEFERRED as the funding for the delivery of this proposal is dependent upon application 18/01154/OP being granted.