Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/01764/FP be DEFERRED to require a more detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the Codicote Conservation Area and further assessment of the surface water management aspects of the development taking into account local flood issues.

Audio Recording - 3 minutes 34 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01764/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans along with the following updates:

 

·                A late representation received stated that the development places 63 and 61 High Street under serious threat and risk of making these uninhabitable in future, with the basement of the site frequently flooding, that the LLFA response was based on data which is either incomplete or inaccurate; the plans submitted by application were not sufficiently researched, planned and lacked sufficient detail; and harm would be posed to the listed buildings and the conservation area.

·                Following discussions with the lead local flood authority (LLFA) the decision to support the application was restated.

·                The Senior Planning Officer was happy that the concerns had been considered, as validated by the LLFA, the Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England;

·                There were no objections from Environmental Health Officer.

·                Fences could be erected without removing the existing boundary wall.

·                The car park will be set away from 63 High Street;

·                The letter does not raise any new issues which are not addressed in the Senior Planning Officer’s report.

·                The site would consist of 9 dwellings; a two-bedroom bungalow, five three-bedroom two story houses and three four-bedroom two story houses. There would be one detached garage and two bin stores. New hard and soft landscaping, including retaining wall and fencing, would be carried out and a new 11 space car park would be created. 

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Mike Rice

 

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised that EV charging points would be required by condition 12 in the report.

 

The Chair invited Mr David Hainsworth and Ms Catherine Gillings to speak.

 

Mr David Hainsworth thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak against the application and gave a presentation including:

 

·                His house had large floor to ceiling windows across much of the back of the property

·                His house has not been extended and is exactly as it was built and approved in the 1990s and professionals consulted have said that his property is most adversely affected by development

·                He had concerns surrounding proximity, privacy, massing and boundary treatment.

·                NHDC Local Plan suggests there should be 30 metres minimum on sloping ground between two rear facing properties – on this site there is less than 20 metres.

·                Plots directly facing the rear garden will have large, bifold doors with large windows across the back of the property.

·                Due to the nature of the sloping on the site, the 1.8 metre fence was only waist height when standing and therefore there would be no privacy either way, across both stories.

·                Regarding massing, there are four plots at the rear of his property, approximately 29m wide, starting 20m from the rear of existing property.

·                The plots at 90° to the existing property are largely 9 metres high.

 

Ms Catherine Gillings thanked the Chair and gave a presentation which included:

 

·                The Drainage Strategy referred to by the Senior Planning Officer had not been approved by the LLFA;

·                There was insufficient space on the plan for water storage – only 311m² shown on plans whereas this would need to be 500m².

·                The Codicote area already had a lot of surface water and she had images of the current issues facing No. 63 High Street to share with Members at request.

·                The proposal does not meet 100+40 years climate change event rates, due to figures used within the micro calculations;

 

The Chair thanked the Ms Gillings and Mr Hainsworth for their contributions.

 

The Chair invited Mr Mark Westcott, agent representing the applicant, to address the committee.

 

Mr Mark Westcott thanked the Chair for the opportunity to present in support of the application, including:

 

·                The applicant had worked closely with the Council, from the pre-application in 2020 through to design works with Conservation Officer. This has taken into account neighbour concerns including overlooking and heritage.

·                The proposal was for 9 units; one two-bedroom, five three-bedroom and 3 four-bed units and the proposals include landscaping, a refuse storage area and an 11 space car park.

·                The application is policy compliant and would make a positive contribution to NH housing targets – including family houses.

·                There had been no objections from Conservation Officer, Landscaping and Design Officer or Historic England.

·                There would be no undue impact on highways and no objections had been raised by Highway Authority.

·                There would be no undue impact in terms of drainage and flooding. There had been infiltration tests carried out to the mains sewer with the LLFA. The LLFA and Thames Water had no objections.

·                Sustainability had remained a key objective of the application – using locally sourced materials, supporting local suppliers, EV charging points, landscaping taking into account biodiversity.

·                The site had recently become a source of anti-social behaviour and the development would open up and improve the existing footpath.

·                The application accords with the NH local plan and NPPF.

 

In response to comments raised by the speakers, the Senior Planning Officer advised:

 

·                The 30m distance between properties referred to was a guideline rather than a hard rule. The distances between the proposals and the current existing nearby properties was considered to be reasonable and sufficient to avoid a harmful loss of privacy to the properties. 

·                Water would flow from the permeable surfaces and from the asphalt surface in the car park into the nearby sewer had been deemed acceptable by the LLFA and was no reason to disagree with their assessments.

 

The following Councillors took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Simon Bloxham

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

·                Councillor Tony Hunter

 

Points raised included:

 

·                LLFA had not objected, but nor have they agreed to the plans, there are number of conditions placed on the proposals.

·                The area nearby The Bell was always wet and the building itself regularly had a pump in place. Documents submitted assumed that the drains are already empty. This was an area with a high risk of damage due to drainage issues, as has been evidenced in previous years.

·                Condition 20 required a significant consideration and would need a great deal of work.

·                In the documents provided, there was no elevation plan showing the impact the development would have on the view from the High Street – the reality of this would be a significant impact on the conservation area. 

·                Regarding the proximity to No. 63, the guideline of 30 metres would suggest that it should be close to that figure. However, the 11 metres presented by the resident is not close to this guideline.

 

Councillor David Levett moves a proposal for refusal on the grounds of conservation impact and flood risk. This is seconded by Councillor Mike Rice.

 

The Planning Lawyer advised:

 

·                Condition 20 was a pre-development condition and the Conservation Officer had removed his objection. Should Members wish to use conservation grounds as reason for refusal, they would need to justify their reasons for opposing the Conservation Officer.

·                No development shall commence until Condition 20 has been satisfied with approval from the LPA.

·                The LPA would only agree to Condition 20 having been met in conjunction with the LLFA.

·                Where there has been refusal on technical grounds, but this has not come from objections by the main consultees, then it becomes more difficult for the Council to use in any appeal hearings.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

·                Less than substantial harm does not mean there is not any harm at hall and it is possible to refuse planning permission based on NPPF guidance.

 

The Chair advised that there was the option to defer the decision until a time at which further details could be provided.

 

Councillor Levett withdrew the motion to refuse. Councillor Mike Rice agreed to the withdrawal. 

 

Councillor David Levett moved, Councillor Mike Rice seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/01764/FP be DEFERRED to require a more detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the Codicote Conservation Area and further assessment of the surface water management aspects of the development taking into account local flood issues.