Agenda item

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 following Member asked a question of clarification:

 

·                Councillor David Levett.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded as follows:

 

·                The planners had given pre-application advice that means of access, layout and scale should be dealt with at outline stage, however the applicant had chosen not to go down that route and therefore the application as presented had been considered.

 

Ms Melanie Hill and Ms Clare Swarbrick thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00744/OP.

 

Ms Hill gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                Ms Hill represented the group ‘Royston Says No to Gladman’ and over 450 residents and households who objected to the application;

·                She also lived next to the property due to be demolished;

·                This application was worse than the previous application in terms of access, planning balance and sustainability;

·                There were safety concerns with regard to the demolition of the adjoining property. Gladman had offered to buy two further properties to demolish for access;

·                Restrictive covenants existed on every property on Echo Hill which residents would enforce;

·                Deeds showed that the applicant did not own all the land required for access;

·                Several of Hertfordshire County Council Highways (HCCH) Planning Conditions (including No 5 and No 1) could not be achieved, in relation to achieving gradients and also reserved matters relating to access;

·                The Demand Responsive Transport proposed to deal with the lack of a bus stop within 400 metres of the development was in her view flawed;

·                The Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens had refused permission for mitigation works on their land, and were very unhappy with the detailof S106 proposals;

·                In her view HCCH had failed in their statutory duty to consult under point 3 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and NHDC should have made available to the public or other consultees the evidence used in accordance with The Town and Country Planning Order 2015;

·                No time had been given for public consultation on Natural England’s response;

·                In her view there was no credible evidence of SSSI mitigation measures;

·                No new EIA had been carried out;

·                The NPPF specifically stated that local authorities could refuse such schemes, even if the five-year land supply had yet to be agreed, if the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits as she considered they did in this case.

 

The following Members asked questions of clarification:

 

·                Councillor Tom Tyson;

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor Mike Rice.

 

Ms Clare Swarbrick responded to questions as follows:

 

·                Residents on Echo Hill would be prepared to enforce the covenant which stated that the properties could not be demolished;

·                Three documents had not been seen by residents;

·                The applicant did not own all the land required for access – there was a boundaries dispute between numbers 23 and 24;

·                It was noted that 350 viewers were currently watching the meeting via YouTube.

 

Councillor Carol Stanier, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00744/OP.

 

Councillor Carol Stanier gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                Access to the site via Briary Lane/ Sun Hill was narrow and heavily parked up;

·                The road was not suitable as the only access to a large estate and for the large amount of traffic this development would generate;

·                Large vehicles already had problems accessing parts of Echo Hill;

·                The development was too far from the centre to walk or cycle with Echo Hill being very steep;

·                The development would be an obstacle to achieving the Sustainable Travel Town status as it would encourage car use over alternative more sustainable means of transport;

·                The proposed development was not in the current or emerging local plan and it was a greenfield site;

·                The proposed development threatened biodiversity and the SSSI;

·                There would be a negative impact on the view of the landscape, particularly from the Heath;

·                Royston Town Council strongly objected to the development;

·                Concerns regarding NHDC’s fulfilment of its statutory duties should be resolved before proceeding.

 

Ms Sian Gulliver thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/00744/OP.

 

Ms Gulliver gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                Gladman had worked closely with officers and statutory consultees to address any concerns raised, and all of the reasons for refusal of the previous application had been overcome;

·                The proposed number of dwellings had been reduced and measures includingadditional structuralplanting, landscapebuffers anda reductionin thescale and density of development along the development edge had been incorporated, to ensure the developmentwould beassimilated intothe locallandscape;

·                Thesubstantial on-siteopen spaceprovision, includingnew walkingroutes, in combinationwith afinancial contributiontowards awarden aspart ofthe heath  management programme, would ensure that the development had no detrimental impact on  the SSSI;

·                Following the removal of a proposed emergency access off Briary Lane, which was not required to make a safe access, no part of the application site lay within the SSSI land;

·                Access from Echo Hill was deemed safe and acceptable to County Council highways officers;

·                Theapplicant hadagreed toa financial contributionof £120,000to  enable  their  current  Demand  Responsive  Transport  Service  coverage area to be extended to cater for this site. This would ensure that new residents had accessto anaffordable publictransport servicedirectly from andback totheir homes;

·                In the context of a five-year housing land supply of just 2.2 years, equating to a significant shortfall of more than 3,300 houses, the delivery of up to 99 dwellings on this site, including 40%affordable, wouldmake  an  important  contribution  to  the  Council’s  future  supply;

·                The development would revertecologically poor farmlandto chalkheathland habitat,  enhancing biodiversity;

·                Footwayimprovements would be made alongSun Hill  to  improve  pedestrian  connectivity  into  the  town centre;

·                The proposals incorporated a range of measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change.For example,every homewould beequipped withan electricvehicle chargingpoint and cycle or mobility vehicle storage, and more than 50% would have south-facing habitable rooms, so would benefit from solar gain. 

·                Asconcluded  by  the  case  officer,  conflict  with  policy  would  not  in  itself  significantly  and  demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposals, and it had been established that there were notechnical mattersprecluding planningpermission beinggranted.

 

The following Members asked questions of clarification:

 

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Ruth Brown.

 

Ms Gulliver responded to questions including:

 

·                Following pre-application advice, Gladman produced a revised scheme and were satisfied that remaining matters could be dealt with at reserved matters stage;

·                Detailed drawings had been prepared for the access proposals and it had been demonstrated that the gradients would allow the application site to be accessed suitably. This had also been agreed by Highways and no concerns had been raised about accessibility for wheelchair users.

 

Mr Roger Taylor, Hertfordshire County Council responded to points raised regarding highways as follows:

 

·                The gradient was 1:15 which was less than the existing road which was 1:20 and a mobility scooter would be able to go up such a slope;

·                Safety Audits were usually carried out on new developments and new roads, or roads with a history of accidents which this road did not have;

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to a question regarding the ownership of land as follows:

 

·                There was a disagreement concerning the ownership of land which was a civil matter and not a planning consideration.

 

In response to a Point of Order from Councillor David Levett, Councillor Ruth Brown confirmed that she did not have a declarable interest as she did not sit on the Royston Town Council Planning Committee.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Tony Hunter;

·                Councillor George Davies;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Ruth Brown;

·                Councillor Daniel Allen.

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·                A Safety Audit of Echo Hill was not present in the documentation and Safety Audits had been done in the past for other planning applications in the area;

·                The site proposed was not included in the emerging Local Plan (which was close to being implemented) and did not comply with all the policies in it;

·                The covenants on the Echo Hill houses and the fact that this was an application for Outline Planning Permission meant that the scheme would not be immediately deliverable therefore would not help with the housing delivery test;

·                The application had only 8 units less than the previous one;

·                The Demand Responsive Transport scheme would only last as long as the £120,000 provided for it was available unless it was a commercial operation;

·                Any benefits did not clearly outweigh the demonstrable and significant impacts on the area, particularly Therfield Heath and the views from it;

·                The development was in conflict with Saved Policy 6, CGB1, SP5 and NE1 of the emerging local plan;

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised the Committee on possible grounds for refusal.

 

It was proposed by Councillor David Levett, seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown, and upon being put to the vote it was:

 

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.

 

NB: The Committee took a comfort break at 20.56

 

The meeting resumed at 21.04 at which time the Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer undertook a roll call.