Agenda item - 20/01886/FP LAND AT CORNER OF PROTEA WAY AND PIXMORE AVENUE, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, HERTFORDSHIRE

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of homeless shelter to provide 40 bedspaces including creation of vehicular access off Pixmore Avenue, parking, landscaping and associated works (as amended by plans received 12th January 2021).

RESOLVED: That application 20/01886/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Senior Planning Officer.

NB: The Committee took a comfort break at 20.50

The meeting resumed at 20.55 at which time the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Manager undertook a roll call.

Audio recording 6 minutes 32 seconds

Erection of homeless shelter to provide 40 bedspaces including creation of vehicular access off Pixmore Avenue, parking, landscaping and associated works (as amended by plans received 12th January 2021).

NB: Committee Member Councillor Sue Ngwala advised that she would be acting as a Member Advocate for this item and would not take part in the debate or vote on this item only.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01886/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans, and provided the following updates:

· It was clarified that the applicant was Haven First and the application was submitted on their behalf by the agent, Smith Jenkins Ltd;

· There was an error in the published Committee report at paragraph 3.21 which stated that some representations had been removed from the website. However, it was confirmed that no representations had been removed from the website at this time. Representations had been reviewed by the Council’s Policy Team and it had been considered that over 60 of the representations were inappropriate, inflammatory, offensive or based on a negative stereotype of homeless people. As such, all the representations from local residents, management companies and businesses would be removed from the Council’s website after the Committee meeting, as the Council could not condone inappropriate or offensive representations. However the relevant material planning considerations raised had been considered in the report;

· With reference to paragraph 3.20 of the report, in response to publicity the Local Planning Authority had received 86 representations - 82 were objections, 3 were in support and 1 was neutral;

· The Crime Prevention Design Advisor, Hertfordshire Constabulary, was incorrectly referred to as the Architectural Liaison Officer in paragraph 4.3.90;

· There was an error in paragraph 3.3.113. A condition was not recommended in relation to the use class. The following informative was recommended:

“A homeless shelter does not fall within a Use Class as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and is a 'sui generis' use (a use falling 'in a class of its own'). Therefore, planning permission would be required for any change of use of the approved development.”

· The applicant had agreed to pre-commencement conditions 11, 13 and 17, but had suggested changes to the wording of the other pre-commencement conditions. Following consultation with the relevant consultees it had been agreed with the agent to change the wording to some of the conditions as follows, as their requested wording was reasonable and acceptable:

3. Details and/or samples of materials to be used on all external elevations and the roof of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works above slab level commencing. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and subsequently implemented as approved, all prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted. The landscape scheme shall include the following :

a) which, if any, of the existing vegetation is to be removed and which is to be retained

b) what new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas are to be planted, together with the species proposed and the size and density of planting

c) the location and type of any new walls, fences or other means of enclosure, and any hardscaping proposed

d) details of any earthworks proposed

6. Prior to the installation of any external lighting and prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of all external lighting required in association with the development scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details or particulars and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

15. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a detailed scheme showing the coverage of the site and buildings by appropriate fire hydrants shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

16. Prior to any above ground level construction works, the final design of the drainage scheme shall be completed and sent to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The surface water drainage system will be based on the submitted Surface Water Drainage Strategy carried out by Solution Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers, Job No. 1039, dated July 2020, the additional Pre-Planning Assessment Report conducted by Anglian Water, dated 03 December

2020. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

1. Detailed infiltration testing to BRE Digest 365 standards carried out at the location and depth of the proposed soakaway feature.

2. Should infiltration prove to not be a viable discharge method then a drainage scheme relating to connection into the public surface water sewer should be submitted with a limited discharge rate of 2 l/s and any surface water attenuation required.

3. Final detailed drainage layout for the proposed development site which indicate the size, volume, depth of the SuDS features including any connecting pipe runs.

4. Detailed engineered drawings of all the proposed features including their size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs and all corresponding calculations/modelling to ensure the scheme caters for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40% allowance for climate change events.

5. Final detailed management plan to include arrangements for adoption and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

18. A Biodiversity Gain Plan shall be prepared, detailing how measurable net gain will be achieved. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval and the approved details shall be fully implemented, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

The Senior Planning Officer then summarised the application as follows:

· The applicant, Haven First, was a charity currently operating the existing homeless shelter facility in Hitchin and a purpose-built shelter in Stevenage. The proposal was for a new homeless shelter, which would provide 40 bed spaces for single homeless people. This would replace the existing homeless shelter in Hitchin – the Sanctuary, which provided a vital service, but was not fit for purpose with very limited capacity and shared rooms (meaning they are only available for male residents). The proposed homeless shelter would be a purpose-built facility like the one operated by Haven First in Stevenage. This would have individual rooms and the space to provide more support to residents, including during the day;

· This site was in a designated Employment Area in both the Saved Local Plan and the Emerging Local Plan. However, the proposed homeless shelter complied with two of the exception criteria in Emerging Local Plan Policy ETC1: Appropriate uses in Employment Areas, as the proposal would bring comparable benefits to a B-class use in the same location and would make use of a site that would otherwise be likely to become or remain vacant for an extended period of time. Emerging Local Plan Policy ETC1 could be given some weight given the stage of the Local Plan process and lack of objection to this policy;

· The proposal had also been assessed against the applicable points set out in supporting paragraph 5.7 of the policy. It was considered that the proposal would result in employment generation on site; would not have an adverse impact on Letchworth town centre; would provide benefits to the wider community by providing accommodation and support for homeless people; the site was accessible by non-car modes of transport; sufficient evidence had been provided clearly demonstrating that the land or premises was no longer required to meet future employment needs of the District; the land was unfeasible for employment use, based on market conditions and no other suitable sites outside designated employment areas were viable and available;

· The other key material consideration that weighed strongly in favour of the proposed development in the planning balance was the clear and demonstrated need for a homeless shelter in North Hertfordshire.

· In the Senior Planning Officer’s view the proposal met the social, environmental and economic objectives of the NPPF;

· One of the main issues raised by local residents and businesses was the concern that the proposed homeless shelter could result in an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime in the area. This was covered in the Senior Planning Officer’s report. In the absence of an objection from any consultees, including the Police, in her view there would not be sustainable grounds to refuse planning permission on the basis of possible increase in crime and anti-social behaviour;

· Whilst the concerns raised by local residents were noted, it was considered that there were no sustainable reasons to withhold planning permission.

Ms Sarah Choudhury thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01886/FP and included the following points in her presentation:

· Ms Choudhury was representing residents who lived close to the proposed development and had strong objections to the location although they were not opposed to a homeless shelter ‘per se’;

· The residents had concerns about the planning application process and considered that the development warranted further review before going ahead;

· There had been 189 objections to the development. These had been made on the planning website, in response to a survey by the managing agent of the Phoenix Park Housing Estate, and included 61 objections deemed inappropriate which had been removed from the website;

· Residents felt there had been failures in the consultation process which called into question the legitimacy and legality of the proposal;

· The group strongly objected to the proposed development due to its proximity to established residential areas populated by families with young children, the elderly and vulnerable people;

· The site search was five years old and should be recommissioned to identify a more suitable site in North Hertfordshire;

· Planning permission was granted in 2013 to expand the Hitchin shelter but was not implemented – this could be considered further by the developer;

· The proposed site was contaminated and needed extensive drainage and highway works which made the site costly to develop therefore surely it would be more sustainable and cost-effective to use an existing vacant building elsewhere;

· There was high biodiversity in the site but a lack of detail regarding its protection;

· Some residents had serious concerns about an increase in anti-social behaviour, noise disturbance and feeling safe in the community which they felt were being ignored;

· There was particular concern for the safety of children and a potential increase in anti-social behaviour in the alleyway which linked Pixmore Avenue with Dunhams Lane;

· Concerns had been discounted in the planner’s report due to a lack of before and after data of crime figures relating to a similar provision;

· The CPDA originally asked for the scheme to meet the Secure by Design status but the developer had said that this was not needed due to additional cost which was another example of the residents’ concerns being ignored;

· The proposal did not meet the National Planning Policy Framework Section 8 - Promoting Healthy and Safer Communities;

· A Business Sustainability Impact Study should be carried out as there were concerns that business could be lost if people avoided the area;

· The proposal did not comply with the emerging Local Plan as the site was for employment use and the developer was changing the site classification by exploiting a loophole in planning policy;

· The group of residents felt that the developer had failed to demonstrate how the proposal fitted in with the local area without causing a profound impact on existing and incoming residents, their welfare, ecology and local businesses;

· The Committee was therefore requested to review the entire process and refuse the application to allow a review of an alternative location.

The following Members asked questions of clarification:

· Councillor Daniel Allen;

· Councillor David Levett.

Ms Choudhury responded to questions raised as follows:

· It was possible that the figure of 189 complaints made might include some double-counting of people who had complained on more than one occasion to more than one party;

· The residents had submitted and were awaiting the response to a Freedom of Information Request concerning crime/anti-social behaviour figures around homeless shelters as they considered that it was clear that crime increased around such facilities.

During the discussion, it was noted that the online consultations which had happened in July and August 2020 which some residents were not aware of were part of the developer’s consultation process. The Planning Authority’s consultation process took place subsequently and gave residents the opportunity for comment.

Councillor Sue Ngwala, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01886/FP.

Councillor Sue Ngwala gave a verbal presentation including:

· As a Councillor she was representing the concerns of the residents of Letchworth East;

· 82 objections had been received including a petition from the Management Company for the Phoenix Park Estate – this was a considerable number of dissatisfied residents and their concerns ought to be heard;

· Initially residents were only given one week to reply to the consultation which was subsequently extended. Some 27 residents did not receive consultation letters;

· The proposed site was, under the emerging Local Plan, a designated employment area. Post Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council should not be releasing land within an employment area. With businesses closing and loss of jobs, it was more important than ever to retain employment sites for future development;

· The proposed site was not solely within an industrial area but some 200 yards distance from permanent homes on Pixmore Avenue, the Phoenix Park Estate and opposite on Ridge Road. These residents had quite rightly raised their objections to the change in the primary use of this land in order to build a homeless shelter;

· Residents had strongly objected to this application because they feared that a shelter of this nature may generate crime and social disorder within the area, a consideration acknowledged in paragraph 3.9 of the Senior Planning Officer’s report, and paragraph 3.14 referred to the Crime Prevention Design Advisor for Hertfordshire Constabulary asking for a Secure By Design (SBD), to be attached to this development;

· The alleyway that ran alongside the residential area of Ascot Drive and Phoenix Drive giving access to amenities such as McDonalds, Costa and Aldi, was some 200 yards from the proposed site and was likely to be used by residents of the homeless hostel;

· Haven First described their residents as typically having complex needs. Coupled with the proposal for some 40 beds and it was not hard to imagine how crime and disorder may be generated where by alley ways and parks became areas in which antisocial behaviour developed;

· The National Planning Policy Framework Policy 8 “Promoting healthy and safe communities”, paragraph 91 stated “Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places to live so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion”;

· The Crime Prevention Design Officer’s view was that there was a public perception that such a hostel could become a crime generator and the level of fear and anxiety that had been expressed about this possibility was significant;

· Residents were extremely concerned that this hostel would generate crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour within the area as a result of a homeless hostel being situated only yards from their homes and as such would undermine the quality of their lives;

· It was noted that Haven First require residents to sign a Licence Agreement when entering the shelter but there remained a concern that these residents would have no commitment to the local area being there temporarily, whereas permanent residents had a greater vested interest in creating a harmonious and safe community in which to live;

· Although there was a desperate need for homeless accommodation in North Herts, this was not the right location for such a development.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Daniel Allen

Councillor Sue Ngwala, Member Advocate responded accordingly to questions raised.

Ms Barbara Howard, CEO of Haven First, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/01886/FP and included the following points in her presentation:

· The concerns had been heard and she would like to take away some of the misconceptions of the clients accommodated as well as provide reassurance on the management of the project;

· Many of the residents were referred to them due to relationship breakdown and mental health issues. Not all the clients were ex-offenders or had addictions, but the people supported were from all walks of life who were genuinely homeless and in need of help;

· Nearly 300 referrals received had been last year;

· Those with addictions and offending history were supported in every possible way to move forward with their lives - day services such as employability skills, counselling, mediation, volunteer placements, health and wellbeing activities and pre-tenancy training were provided;

· Unacceptable behaviour was not tolerated – clients were aware of being good neighbours and knew that they would be evicted if they breached their licence agreement following warnings;

· The building would be managed by staff on a 24/7 basis providing full support to clients as well as reassuring the local community that there was always someone available to speak to at any time;

· Over the years Haven First has built on its successes and learnt from its failings which have not waived the necessity to keep driving forward with this development which is in line with the Council’s 5 year plan and Housing strategy;

· The Stevenage hostel has shown that this work really helps and does make a difference and Haven First wants to mirror this much needed service to those people in need in North Herts.

Ms Helen Lowe, Chartered Town Planner acting on behalf of Haven First, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/01886/FP and included the following points in her presentation:

· There was a pressing need for such a facility within North Herts, with the only existing hostel in Hitchin being severely constrained in terms of its size and not being fit for purpose – this need had increased as a result of the pandemic;

· The application site has been vacant since at least 2007 and despite a previous proposals for office accommodation, no development has been forthcoming. Given the current economic situation and the lack of demand for new commercial premises, the proposal would not lead to a loss of active employment land. In addition, the proposed shelter would employ a similar number of people than a similarly sized commercial unit in this location;

· Alternative sites were considered, but these were not suitable or deliverable for the provision of the shelter. These included the Vantage Point building referenced by some objectors, however, this building was not available for delivery in the short to medium term;

· The proposed shelter allows for a greater number of bedspaces and facilities in a purpose-built structure that would not be possible within a converted or re-purposed existing building;

· The development was in line with the aims of the Council Plan and the Council’s current Housing Strategy which included a priority to improve accommodation provision for single homeless people;

· As set out within the planning officer’s report, there were no technical objections to this application and detailed information in relation to need, the search for a suitable site and the measures that Haven First as a ‘good neighbour’ would employ to manage the shelter have been provided and accepted by officers.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Mike Rice;

· Councillor David Levett;

· Councillor Daniel Allen;

· Councillor Tony Hunter;

· Councillor Michael Muir.

Ms Barbara Howard and Ms Helen Lowe responded to questions as follows:

· The Stevenage shelter was located close to other housing;

· There had been no complaints apart from one relating to loud music which was resolved;

· Several alternative sites had been considered for this development – 4 sites in Hitchin 1 in Royston and another 2 in Letchworth – but these were not suitable for a number of reasons;

· Freemans House had been looked at, but there were alternative plans for it and it was expensive;

· The proposed development could safely accommodate both male and female clients;

· Priority would be given to residents from North Hertfordshire;

· Haven First had worked with the Crime Prevention Design Officer in Stevenage and would also do so with this hostel. Cost was a consideration as this was a charity;

· The cost of installing CCTV at the end of the footpath was very high and it was outside the vicinity of the hostel. The Police had not requested the installation of CCTV as part of the development.

Councillor Gary Grindal, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/01886/FP, including:

· The Council had a statutory obligation to address homelessness, underlined by the Homelessness Reduction Act introduced by the government in 2017;

· North Hertfordshire was woefully short of accommodation for the homeless;

· The Sanctuary in Hitchin was past its useful life and unsuitable for current needs;

· He welcomed the Officer’s detailed report and the Officer’s recommendation to grant the application as there were no reasonable planning grounds for it to be rejected;

· The proposed site was ideal in many aspects particularly its proximity to the Town Centre and that it was in Letchworth which had a Job Centre;

· The site had been abandoned for 17 years and used as a fly-tipping site so this was a well worth opportunity to make good use of that site for the community;

· It was very disappointing to hear about the negative comments that had been received;

· With the current pandemic, people were losing their homes – these were business people, homeowners, people who had lost their homes due to relationship breakdown, for example;

· It was a grave misconception to think that the clients at the shelter would bring crime to the area;

· People with concerns were strongly urged to contact Barbara and visit the facility in Stevenage;

· The temporary accommodation would provide a stepping-stone to getting people re-housed in permanent properties;

· A local social landlord will fund the scheme and lease it to Haven First. As Executive Member for Housing he was pleased to note that in future we may have more social housing as the design could be converted into flats.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to issues and points raised as follows:

· Regarding the consultation, there had been an issue with the delivery of the letters which had been sent out in early September and not received till late September. This was investigated and residents were re-notified and given until the 31^st October to respond;

· No representations had been removed from the website, but all would be taken down after the meeting;

· Following consultation with the Police, the Senior Planning Officer had stated in her report that the impact of the development on crime and anti-social behaviour was a material consideration, however very clear evidence that the proposed development would result in an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour would be required to recommend a refusal of planning permission – this evidence would be needed to support a decision to refuse, should this application be appealed. This evidence had not been provided by any consultees including the Police;

· The alleyway had been considered in the application. The existing problem with anti-social behaviour in the alleyway would not be a sustainable reason to refuse planning permission. The alleyway was outside the application site so if CCTV was required it would require a Section 106 agreement – the Senior Planning Officer did not think this would be reasonable and it was not related to the development as it was outside of the site.

· The planning permission for the existing Sanctuary site which had now lapsed would have only created 16 single bedrooms with some ancillary and communal areas. The site had constraints whereas the proposed site in Letchworth would provide a purpose-built scheme with a much better facility for significantly more people;

· The Planning Authority was satisfied that sufficient evidence had been provided that demonstrated that the land or premises was no longer required to meet the future employment need of the district and it was unfeasible for employment use given the current market conditions and that no other suitable sites outside the designated employment areas were viable and available. The possible community benefits of the scheme weighed the planning balance in that consideration.

· There would be two electric vehicle charging points at the site as recommended;

· The Construction Traffic Management Plan – Hours of Operation was covered by Condition 11 which was a standard condition recommended by Highways, under point G which would ensure construction activities including delivery times and removal of waste would avoid school drop off and pick up times.

NB: Councillor Sue Ngwala was placed in the waiting room at the commencement of the debate.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor David Levett;

· Councillor Daniel Allen;

· Councillor Michael Muir;

· Councillor Mike Hughson;

· Councillor Val Bryant;

· Councillor Tony Hunter

The following points were raised in the debate:

· Some of the representations made against this application had been inappropriate and should have been removed from the website. Anyone could become homeless at any time; Members of the Council had found themselves in this position - the pandemic had compounded the issue which was likely to get worse;

· The footpath had been there since the time of the original Garden City concept. It had a longstanding problem with anti-social behaviour. CCTV in this area could not be enforced as part of this development;

· A homeless shelter had been considered at Freeman House owned by County Council a couple of years ago but they had earmarked the property for private housing;

· The development would result in a loss of employment land, but that piece of land had been vacant for a long time and had been used for fly-tipping. Ascot Drive had once been Ascot Car Factory so there was a precedent in the area for employment land being lost to housing;

· A huge amount of research on homelessness had been done by Councillors including speaking to the Residents Association in the Phoenix Park area;

· This would be a much-needed facility for homeless women in North Herts as there currently was no provision;

· The objectors seemed to be working from the basis that homeless people were likely to commit crime, whereas homeless people could come from a wide spread of society, made worse during economic downturn brought about by the pandemic, and anyone could be at risk of losing their home;

· The development would take 40 homeless people off the streets or out of difficult living conditions.

Councillor David Levett proposed, Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/01886/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Senior Planning Officer and the following amended conditions and informatives: