Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 22/00927/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 49 minutes 30 seconds

 

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

 

·         There were two applications for this site but the updates would be provided for both, with votes taking place separately.

·         A group of objections had been received from nearby schools raising safeguarding concerns with regard to these applications.

·         An objection had been received from a neighbouring business.

·         A group of residents had submitted an objection.

·         A statement from the YMCA had been provided in support of the application.

·         A detailed response from the Police Liaison Officer had been received and it detailed that although anti-social behaviour had increased in the town from October 2019 to September 2022, this could not be attributed to 20 High Street.

·         Most issues raised in these late representations had been addressed within the report.

·         There were no safeguarding concerns raised by consultees.

·         There was no reference to the loss of commercial floorspace in the report, but this application is for a temporary change of use and therefore not relevant in this circumstance.

·         The Local Plan does contain provision for the support of homeless people.

 

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 22/00927/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The Chair invited Ms Karan Bugler to speak against the item.

 

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

 

·         The residents believe that the report is flawed and their objections had been submitted in response to this.

·         It is clear than only offences within the building itself have been referenced, when there are wider issues across the town.

·         A Freedom of Information request had been made, but a response had not yet been received. In the interim residents had compiled a list of incidents with Police Crime Reference Numbers, with 24 occurrences happening in a 3 month period over summer 2022 all involving residents of 20 High Street.

·         There was no police station in Baldock.

·         A stabbing had taken place in Stevenage recently and it had been confirmed that the perpetrator was resident at 20 High Street, Baldock.

·         The decision should be deferred to allow for time to receive an accurate police report.

·         In the report it is detailed by the Police Liaison Officer acknowledges that a high number of the residents are and will be drug users and suggested that this would increase the likeliness of drug dealers in the area.

·         The report proposes mitigations to protect residents, but not to protect the vulnerable residents in the community.

·         The proximity to local schools, and the position of the site along a key walkway to these, has not been considered in the report. Headteachers from the schools had provided a submission detailing safeguarding concerns.

·         Should the extension be granted, Baldock would have more beds to support homeless people than Stevenage, which was a bigger town. Baldock had limited employment opportunities and sporadic access to public transport and therefore did not provide a sustainable site for this service.

·         The lack of infrastructure in place and the lack of a detailed police report meant Members did not have suitable information to make a decision on these applications this evening.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Daniel Allen, Ms Bugler advised that reference numbers and photographic evidence of crimes recorded by residents could be shared with Members following the meeting.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Bugler for her contribution and invited Councillor Michael Weeks to speak against the item, as Member Advocate.

 

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

 

·         Members should take in account the document submitted by Ms Bugler which challenged the findings of the Officer and brought into consideration parts of the newly adopted Local Plan.

·         The Officer needed to provide a reply to the concerns raised in the document submitted.

·         The incidents being referred to are happening now, with only 9 residents on site, but this number will increase by 10 people under proposals.

·         The Police clearly did not have the time or resources available to provide accurate records and therefore the residents had submitted a Freedom of Information request.

·         A vast majority of the incidents go unreported.

·         Three nearby schools have objected to this application.

·         There was no reference to the safety of women and girls, which is of national importance.

·         Baldock is a small, historic market town and the proposals to 20 High Street put this at risk, especially as the Council Plan detailed that it would put People First.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen noted that this was a planning meeting and the content of Councillor Weeks’ presentation was nothing to do with planning considerations.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Weeks for his contribution and invited Mr Euan Courtney-Morgan to speak in support of the item.

 

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

 

·         He was speaking in support of both applications regarding 20 High Street, Baldock.

·         There would be a dedicated set of staff on site on a 24/7 basis to manage the building and support residents.

·         There was full support and counselling provided.

·         The accommodation was temporary and individuals could be placed here for up to 18 months.

·         There was a preferred alternative site on Protea Way, Letchworth and approval had been granted for this and it was currently subject to negotiation and contract.

·         He was unaware of any anti-social behaviour issues regarding residents.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

·         Councillor Tony Hunter

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Courtney-Morgan advised:

 

·         There would be a dedicated support team on site.

·         He was unsure as to what attempts had been made by residents to engage with the community.

·         He was unsure at this time what levels of staff would be present on site at one time.

 

In response to the public presentations, the Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised:

 

·         It was not of the Planning Committee members to tackle anti-social behaviour, this was for the Police to consider and deal with and for the management of the building.

·         The vast majority of the objection received from Ms Bulger had already been published and the key issues addressed.

·         There were no changes to the recommendations in the report and no reasons identified for deferral.

 

Councillor David Levett noted that this application was something he would usually support, but he had concerns over this with the main issue regarding whether this would create a safe and accessible place, which would not undermine the quality of life of residents or community cohesion, as detailed in NPPF Section 8. He also had concerns that public opinion was not adequately taken into account and that additional proposed recommendations had not been fully considered. Whilst he recognised there was not sufficient ground to refuse the application, Members had not been provided with enough evidence to approve either.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed that the application be deferred until sufficient information could be provided by the Police for Members to make a decision. This was seconded by Councillor Morgan Derbyshire.

 

In response to the proposal to defer from Councillor Levett, the Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised:

 

·         The Police had been contacted several times and the most recent conversation took place 10 days ago to specifically ask about the figures provided.

·         There was limited further advice that could be provided by the Police.

·         The NPPF paragraphs referred to creating policies for areas where the layout and design was an element of the proposal. This was a change of use application and there were no layout or design considerations.

·         There was a requirement to minimise anti-social behaviour through Secure by Design methods.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen noted that this placed too much emphasis on the anti-social behaviour and crime aspect, which was an issue, but this Committee dealt with planning considerations. Councillor Allen felt there was not enough information provided by Councillor Levett to support deferral.

 

Councillor Levett noted that the NPPF did not solely apply to layout of proposals, but could take into consideration other aspects including promoting social interaction in communities.

 

Councillor Tony Hunter highlighted that there were several parts of the NPPF Section 8 which this application did not meet. The Officer was suggesting that there was no answer that can be provided by the Police with regard to the anti-social behaviour, but the Freedom of Information request had been submitted and deferral until a response had been received either way would be sensible.

 

In response to points raised, the Legal Advisor commented:

 

·         The Officer has spoken to the Police and have not got further information and can only provide information in the report based on the answer that is received.

·         We would need to understand further what the wording of the Freedom of Information request and with no knowledge of what the response will be.

·         The Council had not submitted the Freedom of Information request.

 

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager noted that the crime stats provided by the Police were uploaded as an addendum and circulated to Members ahead of the meeting and these provided figure through to September 2022.

 

Councillor Terry Tyler noted that the Police had provided figures for crimes linked to 20 High Street, Baldock, but the public needed to provide their evidence of incidents to Members and therefore would support deferment.

 

Councillor Simon Bloxham advised that he could understand the views of both the Officer and Councillor Levett, but it did not appear that we would get further information to what had been supplied. Therefore it would make sense to either approve or refuse, but not defer.

 

In response to a question from the Legal Advisor regarding the timeframe for deferral and what additional information would be provided, Councillor Levett advised that the Officers should consult the Police on the issues documented by residents and this should then be brought back to the Committee. If the reports of residents are true, then there is a conflict between the reports of the police and residents, therefore a decision could not be adequately taken and must be deferred. He would suggest a Committee meeting in February 2023 to allow for the Freedom of Information request to be answered and presented.

 

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager confirmed for Members that the planning committee was not responsible for the crime statistics in an area, it is for other statutory bodies to deal with crime.

 

The Chair noted the issues regarding the crime figures provided, but it is difficult to return to the Police and say their evidence is wrong.

 

Following the debate, and having been proposed by Councillor Levett and seconded by Councillor Derbyshire, the Chair moved to a vote and it was:

 

LOST: That application 22/00927/FP be DEFERRED to await further details from the Police regarding incidents of anti-social behaviour.

 

Councillor Bloxham commented that he would vote on the application with a view to represent and look out for the community, including those within the facility itself, whether or not this amounted to breaching planning requirements for refusal.

 

The Chair noted that should there be a proposal to refuse Members would have to do this based on planning considerations.

 

Councillor Allen commented that Members soapboxing on the most vulnerable and comments from the public gallery made it difficult for Members to adequately make an impartial decision. He noted that it was important that crime statistics were still provided so that residents could be supported in dealing with any issues.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed to approve the application and Councillor Nigel Mason seconded.

 

Councillor Levett advised that he would like to have supported this proposal, as it does support vulnerable people, but there was insufficient evidence to prove this was right for the community.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason commented that these were hard decisions and commended the public objector for their approach to the Committee and their presentation of points and Members were sympathetic to issues raised by residents. It was important to put people first and the residents in this accommodation are some of the most vulnerable and ultimately these facilities are required for those in need.

 

Having been proposed to approve by Councillor Allen, Councillor Nigel Mason seconded and, following a vote, it was tied. Therefore the Chair cast the deciding vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/00927/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.