Agenda item

Councillor Tony Hunter declared he was predetermined on this item due to comments he had previously made in the consultation process. He advised that he would move to the public gallery where he would speak as Member Advocate against the item, before leaving the Chamber for the remainder of this item.

 

Councillor Gerald Morris called for a recorded vote on this item.

 

The result of the vote was as follows: 

 

YES:	6
ABSTAIN:	1
NO:	1
TOTAL:	8

 

The individual votes were as follows:

 

Cllr Terry Tyler	YES
Cllr Val Bryant	YES
Cllr Amy Allen	YES
Cllr David Levett	YES
Cllr Morgan Derbyshire	YES
Cllr Nigel Mason	YES
Cllr Daniel Allen	NO
Cllr Tom Tyson	ABSTAIN
Cllr Michael Muir
Cllr Tony Hunter

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 18/01502/OP be DEFERRED until a response had been received from Herts Ecology. 

Audio recording – 4 minutes 05 seconds

 

Councillor Tony Hunter declared he was predetermined on this item due to comments he had previously made in the consultation process. He advised that he would move to the public gallery where he would speak as Member Advocate against the item, before leaving the Chamber for the remainder of this item.

 

Following a request on behalf of Barkway Parish Council for a recorded vote, the Chair took advice and confirmed that this request could not be made by a Parish Council. However, a Member Advocate or member of the Committee could make this request.

 

Councillor Gerald Morris called for a recorded vote on this item.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised of the following updates:

 

·         Following notification of errors in the report, labelling on the plans and three of the Highways conditions had been updated.

·         Confirmed that the meeting had been called legally and was in line with advice surrounding meetings during the official mourning period.

·         The Local Plan Inspectors Report had been received and sections relevant to this application had been supplied as an addendum.

·         Newsells Park Stud had provided a document which had been circulated to Members ahead of the meeting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 18/01502/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised:

 

·         Herts County Council owned the reserved school site, but the rest of the site is owned by the applicant. The reserved school site was not part of this application.

·         There had been no response from Herts Ecology so far, despite Officer communications.

·         Herts Ecology had three options, they could respond with no objections, they could have concerns that need addressing and this would be done alongside the applicant and they could object in principle, in which case the application would return to the Planning Control Committee.

 

The Chair invited Mr Julian Dollar and Ms Jacqueline Veater to speak against the application and advised they had been allocated 10 minutes to share.

 

Mr Dollar thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and advised the Committee of the following:

 

·         He had been involved in Stud breeding for 25 years, and manager at Newsells Park Stud for the last 16 years.

·         The Newsells Park Stud is one of the most successful stud farms in the UK, with an international reputation.

·         The stud employs 42 people, the majority of who live on the site and support local businesses.

·         The stud purchases goods and materials from local suppliers and has taken a keen interest in the local community, especially through support provided to the local school.

·         The land bordering the BK3 site is the most suitable for raising foals and was the reason for the stud being established 100 years ago. The newer land is not of as good quality for the raising of foals.

·         The development of site BK3 would be detrimental to the rearing of horses, as these are animals which react to noise, and there were no measures possible to mitigate against this. This would further cause risk of accident, with horses reacting to additional noises and disturbances.

·         There would be an increase in footfall on the bridleway and therefore further land owned by the stud would be unsuitable for use by horses.

·         Riders would be put at additional risk due to the route of the bridleway through the proposed development site.

·         They understand the need for houses in North Herts, but the small village of Barkway is not suitable.

 

Ms Veater thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and advised the Committee of the following:

 

·         The development is unwanted by the District Councillors, County Councillor, Barkway Parish Council and Barkway residents.

·         The British Horse Society, the Ramblers and the Friends of the River Quin are against the proposals due to the destruction of the environment.

·         The site owner has not taken into account the issues raised in consultation.

·         The Parish Council would continue to object to this application, and would support the District Council should they wish to refuse the application and are taken to appeal.

·         The housing requirement on the Council has changed and been reduced by 2,500 homes, the 140 homes in Barkway could form part of this reduction.

·         Thames Water had stated that the sewage treatment infrastructure could not support the development and there is insufficient information is available to ensure the River Quin is protected from raw sewage overflow.

·         Newsells Stud is central to the village and a part of the local economy and this development threatens its existence.

·         BK3 does not trigger the need for a school, as has been maintained by the County Council. Without a school the sustainability of the site had been further reduced.

·         Proposals for a convenience store may not be sustainable in the long run, but it will have an impact on the store in neighbouring Barley.

·         Suggested additional wording to be included within the conditions and made further suggestions of a conditions to be added to the application.

·         The Parish Council requested that, if permission was granted, they were consulted on all reserved matters application so they can assist the District Council to minimise the negative impact on Barkway.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor David Levett, Ms Veater advised that she was unsure whether there was a specific objection from Thames Water, but they have said that the current infrastructure is unable to deal with the additional housing. This is reflected in the experience of village residents.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Dollar and Ms Veater for their contribution.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Gerald Morris and Councillor Tony Hunter to speak against the application as Member Advocates and advised they had been allocated 10 minutes to share.

 

Councillor Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and advised the Committee of the following:

 

·         The agenda had been published on the day of The Queen’s death and it would have been more suitable to delay the meeting to allow the Parish Council to fully discuss proposals.

·         Last year the were 734 hours of raw sewage discharge into the Barkway source of the River Quin.

·         Environmental Protection and the Environment Agency had not been consulted on these proposal.

·         The supplementary document does not refer to the reduction of 2,500 houses in North Herts, and these 140 proposed houses could form part of this.

·         Details of his consultation response had been limited to four lines in the report and were not reflective of the entire response.

·         There was already an existing, ancient green corridor on the site, which supported wildlife that would be impacted by this development.

·         The County Council requested the British Horse Society be consulted by the developer, but this would be too late. The Parish Council consulted them and they objected.

·         The Officer suggests that the school does not need to be developed at the same time as the rest of the development. Previously this was a reason for rejection, as piece meal development was not seen as suitable, and those concerns remain.

·         There were no business plans for the shop on site and no impact assessment on the shop in neighbouring Barley.

·         There has been no Section 106 agreement.

·         No amount of signage would stop the impact of 140 families, some with dogs, would prevent the impact on the neighbouring stud.

·         Overall the development would harm jobs, destroy existing wildlife corridors and would damage the environment.

 

Councillor Hunter thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and advised the Committee of the following:

 

·         He had always believed this site would be decided as unsuitable before reaching the Committee, and this view had been previously supported by Planning Officers.

·         It is not sustainable to add 140 houses to the outskirts of a village and sets a dangerous precedent across North Herts.

·         The local surgery is already full, meaning new residents would have to travel.

·         Educational provision would be provided in Barley, Buntingford and Royston, further exacerbating issues.

·         The bus service in the village is almost non-existent and the minibus used by the school is for school visits.

·         There were several parts of the NPPF which could be used as reasons for rejecting this development.

·         The Inspectors report on the Local Plan suggested the school would be triggered at some point, but the County Council have confirmed there are spaces in existing schools and this trigger point could be reached after this Local Plan had expired.

·         This development is being considered due to North Herts lack of a five year land supply for housing, but the tilted balance does not support 140 homes in the middle of the countryside.

·         This application should be refused so it does not become standard. 

 

There were no points of clarification from Members for Councillors Morris and Hunter, and the Chair thanked them for their contribution.

 

The Chair invited Mr David Fletcher to speak in support of the application and advised he had been allocated 10 minutes.

 

Mr Fletcher thanked the Chair from the opportunity to speak and advised the Committee of the following:

 

·         The application had been subject to long period of engagement with Planning Officers, Highways, HCC Education and Thames Water.

·         This site is included within the Local Plan and the Planning Inspector’s report says this is required to meet demands.

·         The BK3 site is one of the few remaining undeveloped sites that is not within the Green Belt.

·         Applicants have worked with Officers to meet master planning requirements, including a 15m landscape buffer to the northern boundary with Newsells Park Stud, provision for a village square open space with good pedestrian access to existing village, maintenance of setback dwellings on eastern side and a lower density of housing on this side as required.

·         The development would also contribute towards the building of a new community sport hall in the village.

·         There was no objection from Thames Water, however in discussions they have acknowledged that there would be a requirement to upgrade the water works in Barkway. There is a statutory duty on Thames Water to make those upgrades.

·         Newsells Park Stud had been sold during the application period and, if there was an impact on the viability of the stud, this would have been identified in due diligence checks at this stage.

·         The Planning Inspector’s report had taken into account Newsells Park Stud.

·         Internal ecologists had completed their own assessments and found no issues, so it was not expected that HCC Ecology would have any objections.

·         Should consent be granted there was a desire to work with the Parish Council.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Tom Tyson, Mr Fletcher advised:

 

·         The statutory duty is on Thames Water to complete necessary upgrades.

·         Discussions with Thames Water had included a phasing of the development, only allowing certain dwellings to be completed until upgrades had taken place.

·         There was no timeframe set, but it would be determined by the speed at which the site is developed.

·         Both parties had a good idea of what was required, but this needed to be formalised.

 

N.B. Councillor Tony Hunter left the room following the conclusion of the public speakers.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor David Levett

 

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·         HCC Education work on the rough basis that 500 houses would mean that a new form would be required at the local school, so this site would not meet that criteria.

·         Ecology and sustainability were of particular concern.

·         The bus service was in existence when the site was allocated, but the service has been significantly reduced.

·         No response had been received from Herts Ecology and this is a key issue to consider. It would be inappropriate to move ahead with this without a response on this.

·         There was too much still open ended with the application, which needed to be addressed before a decision.

·         The condition on Thames Water could be strengthened.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that it was possible to defer until Herts Ecology had provided their response. This would not cause more expense to the applicant and it was unlikely in this case they would appeal against non-determination. If there was an additional burden put on applicant, as would be the case if it was deferred due to Thames Water concerns, this would be more likely to go to appeal. The most suitable deferral would be to wait for Herts Ecology response and it would be brought back to the Committee.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed and Councillor Amy Allen seconded and the result of the vote was as follows: 

 

YES:	6
ABSTAIN:	1
NO:	1
TOTAL:	8

 

The individual votes were as follows:

 

Cllr Terry Tyler	YES
Cllr Val Bryant	YES
Cllr Amy Allen	YES
Cllr David Levett	YES
Cllr Morgan Derbyshire	YES
Cllr Nigel Mason	YES
Cllr Daniel Allen	NO
Cllr Tom Tyson	ABSTAIN
Cllr Michael Muir
Cllr Tony Hunter

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 18/01502/OP be DEFERRED until a response had been received from Herts Ecology. 

 

N.B. The Chair allowed a 5 minute break following the conclusion of Agenda Item 5.