Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Residential development of 180 dwellings comprising 21 x 1 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom houses; 63 x 3 bedroom houses; 56 x 4 bedroom houses; and 4 x 5 bedroom houses; new vehicular access onto Bedford Road, associated garages and car parking space, public open space, landscaping and ancillary works. (As amended 2/2/18).

RESOLVED: That application 17/02175/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Residential development of 180 dwellings comprising 21 x 1 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom apartments; 18 x 2 bedroom houses; 63 x 3 bedroom houses; 56 x 4 bedroom houses; and 4 x 5 bedroom houses; new vehicular access onto Bedford Road, associated garages and car parking space, public open space, landscaping and ancillary works. (As amended 2/2/18).

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that there were a number of updates to the report as follows:

 

Hertfordshire County Council Property Services

Updated financial contributions based on the slight reduction in the number of dwellings had been provided

 

The authority required slightly higher contributions for the lower and middle schools and a slightly lower sum for the Upper school contribution.

 

In addition, a slightly lower contribution was required for libraries provision.

 

Henlow Parish Council

Additional comments had been received that asked the Committee to note that the application site was adjacent to Henlow Camp rather than Lower Stondon and that the report should be amended to clarify that Henlow Camp settlement was entirely outside of the administrative boundary of North Hertfordshire and should not be referred to as a Category A settlement. 

 

Conservation Officer comments

The Council’s Conservation officer had formally confirmed an objection to the proposed development based on the development failing to satisfy sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy framework as the proposals constituted poor design contrary to Paragraph 64 of the Framework.

 

NHDC Environmental Health Officer

The submitted noise assessment had been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Protection officer and he advised that the mitigation measures were appropriate and acceptable.

 

As such the officer recommends an appropriately worded condition should the Committee be minded to grant planning permission.       

 

Applicant

A statement had been received from Barrett David Wilson North Thames and the Committee was asked to consider the following points:

 

·                The site was identified for housing in the emerging local plan and would deliver 180 homes in sustainable location;

·                If approved, the applicant could deliver 65 dwellings a year assisting the Council’s housing target and five year land supply and providing 40% affordable housing;

·                Statutory consultees had not objected to the development;

·                Significant additional planting had been provided to screen the development and enhance the public footpaths;

·                Footpath extensions were proposed as well as a considerable extension to public realm;

·                The company had given a formal undertaking to meet the costs of a legal agreement which would be reflective of the heads of terms set out in the officer report. The drafting of the Section 106 agreement could therefore be undertaken without delay;

·                The company believed that the scheme would deliver a significant range of benefits meeting the social, economic and environmental objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework;

·                If not approved the Council would need to find further greenfield sites to meet its housing target, the timescale of which may be detrimental to the delivery of homes through the emerging plan.   

 

Objection

A letter had been received from Mr Crowe of Turnpike Lane Ickleford raising concerns with regard to overdevelopment, adverse impact on heritage assets, loss of agricultural land and adverse impact on local services. 

 

Draft Revisions to NPPF (Consultation Proposals)

Since writing this report the Government had published, on 5 March 2018, draft changes to the National Planning Policy Framework in order to implement planning policy changes since the Framework was first published in 2012.

 

The revised Framework was out for consultation until May 2018 and, although of limited weight due to its draft form, was a material consideration when determining planning applications.

 

Officers had considered the consultation document, which maintained the presumption in favour of sustainable development, however there was nothing in the draft consultation that would affect the officer recommendation in this case.       

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

Parish Councillor Miles Maxwell, Ickleford Parish Council, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02175/1.

 

Parish Councillor Maxwell informed Members that Ickleford Parish Council, along with neighbouring Parish Councils in Stondon and Henlow, opposed this application. They agreed with the NHDC Planning Advisors that permission should be refused because the development was of poor design and did not improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functioned.

 

It was an overdevelopment, it provided insufficient parking spaces, and would adversely affect the historical environment of the Grade II star listed Old Ramerick Manor and its associated non-designated heritage assets.

 

These were sufficient reasons for the Committee to refuse planning permission, but other relevant factors which further undermined the application should be mentioned

 

He drew attention to the recent case of Steer vs the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Ors (2017) on the setting of heritage assets.

 

This case referred to the setting of the historical asset as being just as important as the bricks and mortar of the building itself.

 

Old Ramerick Manor was the hub of the farming community for centuries, and to remove the farmland adjacent to it and thus reduce the historical site to a manor house set behind a modern housing estate undermined its historical importance.

 

The site was not within a settlement boundary.

 

They had serious concerns about road safety at the entrance/exit point from the site on to the A600 as the road access was in a dip, with limited visibility in both directions.

 

Although the submitted plans proposed a reduced speed limit, with the absence of effective enforcement, vehicles would be travelling quickly over the brow of the hills either side of the site.

 

Compare this situation with the recent road safety improvements needed for the North Herts Crematorium a little further south on the A600.

 

It was negligent for the applicants not to have proactively proposed something similar here.

 

The impact on key local services had not been adequately factored in by the developers. For example, a Section 106 obligation of £146,000 was proposed to support GP services via expansion of the Lower Stondon Surgery.

 

However, the lead GP at that practice had objected to this site in his submission to the NHDC Local Plan. Even if physical expansion of the surgery were feasible and acceptable to the practice, the proposed funds would be insufficient to achieve it.

 

Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework required preference to be given to development on brownfield land, and Paragraph 112 required planning authorities to consider the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

 

This site was high-quality Grade 2 land, and therefore development of this site underplayed the impact on loss of farm land.

 

It was unacceptable for developers to suggest that simple proximity to a bus route conformed to NPPF requirements on sustainable transport.

 

The 2011 census showed that only 1.9 percent of North Herts residents used the bus to get to work, a figure likely to be lower still in rural parts of the District.

 

The bus services in this area were irregular, infrequent, did not cover early mornings or late evenings, and did not directly serve either Hitchin or Arlesey train stations.

 

Most residents of this putative development would rely on private vehicles, adding to the already congested roads, and contravening NPPF Paragraph 34.

 

NPPF Paragraph 32 required cumulative traffic impacts of developments to be considered. This was particularly important in this location due to the number of new developments in adjacent Lower Stondon and Henlow.

 

A total of 1,724 new homes could be built in those two villages over the coming years. Due to the paucity of sustainable transport options, a conservative estimate of 2,750 additional vehicles could be expected on the nearby roads.

 

Moreover, the increased traffic was associated with impacts on pollution and air quality. The NPPF, Paragraphs 120 and 124, also required the cumulative effects of developments on these two factors to be considered.

 

Parish Councillor Maxwell concluded by stating that this proposal was an over-development of very poor standard. It attempted to urbanise a rural location, and did so with scant regard to a range of impacts.

 

The plans contravened a raft of NPPF criteria and would adversely impact residents present and future. He hoped that the Committee will agree with him and the NHDC Planning Advisors, and refuse planning permission.

 

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Maxwell for his presentation.

 

Members commended the Planning Officer for his report and agreed with the content. They also expressed concern regarding road safety in respect of the entrance to the site.

 

Members queried whether an additional reason for refusal of prematurity could be added.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager stated that guidance advised that prematurity was rarely used as a reason for refusal and, if it was, it was use for sites that were such that they would undermine the basis of the Plan.

 

In his opinion, a refusal for this reason would not be in accordance with that guidance and would be difficult to defend if there were a public inquiry.

 

RESOLVED: That application 17/02175/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.