Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 18/01502/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with an amendment to Condition 9 to read:

 

“Prior to the commencement of development, a development and infrastructure phasing plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA  which must be agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Thames Water.  This plan is to set out the measures / works required to ensure that the local infrastructure has the capacity to serve the development and to allow the development to be occupied.  Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.

 

Reason: Sewage Treatment Upgrades are likely to be required to accommodate the proposed development. Any upgrade works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.”

 

Audio recording – 6 minutes 18 seconds

 

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised of the following updates:

 

·         Three late letters had been received and circulated to Members ahead of the meeting.

·         HCC Growth and Infrastructure Team had requested that monitoring fees be included as well as the Section 106 contributions, following a change in their guidance. They had also requested that the fire hydrants be included as a condition for this application, and this now formed Condition 25.

·         Councillor Hill maintained her objection to the application.

·         Barkway Parish Council had continued their objection to the application. The response from the Planning Officer to the Parish Council regarding their additional conditions proposed had been published and the Planning Officer had offered support to three of these additional proposals.

 

Councillor Tony Hunter advised that due to comments made during the Local Plan process he was predetermined on this item and would therefore speak as a Member Advocate before leaving the Chamber for the remainder of the item.

 

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 18/01502/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

(At this point of the meeting Councillor Phil Weeder entered the Chamber at 19.48)

 

The Chair invited Ms Jacqueline Veater and Ms Aimee Cannon to speak against the item.

 

Ms Veater thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

 

·         Objections to the development had come from all areas.

·         The new development of housing will remain remote from the village in the near future.

·         The Parish Council would support the District Council if the application was refused permission.

·         The village was at risk of becoming nothing more than a housing estate, with limited employment opportunities.

·         The 140 homes proposed would make a minimal contribution to the housing supply in the district.

·         There were amendments to the Levelling Up Bill which aimed to commit developers to offset pollution caused to environments, but the phased sewage plant scheme for this development is not enough to protect the River Quinn.

·         Requested that the sewage plant condition be amended to require an upgrade to the sewage plant before commencement of the development.

·         Requested additional wording to Condition 19 to ease parking and traffic congestion around the site.

·         Further exploration of the proposed shop is required.

·         The application should be refused as an inappropriate and unsustainable development.

 

Ms Cannon thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

 

·         Newsells Park Stud farm remain of the view that this development is not suitable, but request measures are put in place to mitigate against harm if permission is granted.

·         The parameters needed setting at this stage of the application.

·         No noise assessment has been made as part of the application and an acoustic fence should be required around the boundaries of the site and this should be in place before development

·         There should be no development until the mature landscaping around the site has been completed.

·         There should be a management plan in place, with the onus put on the developer to mitigate against harmful impacts, for example through the prohibition of lanterns and fireworks on this site.  

 

There were no points of clarification from Members and the Chair thanked Ms Veater and Ms Cannon for their presentation.

 

The Chair invited Councillors Gerald Morris and Tony Hunter to speak against the item, as Member Advocates.

 

Councillor Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

 

·         Newsells Park Stud has detailed that this development would lead to the loss of 35 jobs, with impacts on families, suppliers and contractors involved.

·         Signage suggested around the site is not suitable as a mitigation to the impact of the development on the Stud.

·         There was no need to create a north-south wildlife corridor as there was already an existing one through the site and the new proposed road would destroy this. This is contrary to NPPF policy, which states developments should not cause a loss of biodiversity or harm natural environments.

·         Thames Water have detailed that in Barkway last year there were 734 hours of raw sewage pumped into the River Quinn and it was expected that this would double with this development.

·         The Environment Agency had detailed that water companies should be consulted as part of the Local Plan development, in this instance North Herts had not completed this.

·         Thames Water have identified an inability of the existing sewage treatment to deal with the housing on this development.

·         Needed to send a message to government that this sort of development is not acceptable and should therefore be refused.

 

Councillor Hunter thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

 

·         Provided details of NPPF policies where were not met with this application, including NPPF 6, NPPF 4, NPPF 8 and NPPF 11, amongst other relevant considerations.

·         Not a suitable site due to the lack of amenities, including schools and transport.

·         There were no mitigation measures included within this proposal.

·         As had been detailed, without a school the site would not be sustainable and would see residents travelling neighbouring towns for schools or leisure.

·         The Committee should refuse the application and allow an Inspector to make the final decision.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Daniel Allen, Councillor Hunter stated that the potential costs of losing an appeal should not be prioritised over supporting the views of residents and the local community.

 

The Chair thanked Councillors Morris and Hunter for their contribution.

 

N.B. Following his declaration on this item and having spoken as a Member Advocate, Councillor Tony Hunter left the room at 20.03.

 

The Chair invited Mr David Fletcher and Mr Rob Rand to speak in support of the item.

 

Mr Rand thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including:

 

·         The objections raised to the application had been fully addressed.

·         As with all new development, infrastructure or services will need to be improved and this site is no different. There is a legal requirement on Thames Water to provide suitable upgrades to the sewage system within two years of the development. Without permission on this site, there would be no requirement for the sewage plant upgrades.

·         The potential impact on Newsells Park Stud is minimal and the Inspector had suggested landscaping measures to mitigate against any potential harm, as detailed in the proposed master plan.

·         The accusation that the Stud would be unviable if permission was granted was incorrect, as the Stud had been purchased in 2021 following due diligence and impact assessments, and three years after the submission of the planning application.

·         The BK3 site was the largest undeveloped site allocated within the Local Plan which was not within existing greenbelt land.

·         There had been no objections from statutory consultees.

·         The previous affordable housing in Barkway had been sold off and smaller developments did not meet the threshold to require affordable housing to be included. There were 56 affordable dwellings proposed in this development, with 65% being rented.

·         BK3 was arguably the most scrutinised site in the Local Plan process and even had a dedicated public meeting to understand concerns and multiple visits from the Inspector, but ultimately the Inspector concluded that this was a sound site for development.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor David Levett, Mr Fletcher advised that there had been a number of discussions which had taken place with Thames Water over a number of years since the site was allocated within the Local Plan. The applicant was aware of the issues with sewage capacity, however the dates for the upgrade could not formally be agreed until permission was granted. This would be the next stage of the development for the applicant.

 

In response to the public presentations, the Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised that this was an allocated site within the Local Plan, which means it had been deemed sustainable by the Inspector, and the Local Plan had been formally adopted by Council.

 

Councillor David Levett noted that this was a site within the Local Plan and it was an outline application with all matters reserved, which meant there would be a while before detailed plans were submitted for consideration and it would take a significant time to agree a sewage plan with Thames Water.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed to grant permission, with an amendment to Condition 9 to say that ‘no development shall commence until’. The Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised this would be a suitable amendment.

 

Having been proposed, as amended, by Councillor Levett, it was seconded by Councillor Daniel Allen and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 18/01502/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with an amendment to Condition 9 to read:

 

“Prior to the commencement of development, a development and infrastructure phasing plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA  which must be agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Thames Water.  This plan is to set out the measures / works required to ensure that the local infrastructure has the capacity to serve the development and to allow the development to be occupied.  Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.

 

Reason: Sewage Treatment Upgrades are likely to be required to accommodate the proposed development. Any upgrade works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.”

 

Following the conclusion of this item there was a short comfort break in proceedings until 20.24, at which point Councillor Hunter returned to the Chamber.