Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 22/01464/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement and the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 43 minutes 50 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following update:

·         Since the report had been published, there had been an additional seventeen letters of objection from neighbouring residents.

·         Hertfordshire County Council Growth and Infrastructure Unit had confirmed changes to the financial contributions required for the development, which had delayed the application.

·         There were minor changes to the conditions.

·         Condition 2, second line: the word ‘internal’ was deleted.

·         Condition 20 (i), second sentence was deleted.

·         Condition 30 (i) was deleted.

·         Condition 31 reference M4(3) was deleted.

There were no questions from Members.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01464/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Mr Kevin Hinton to speak against the application. Mr Hinton thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·         The site was a historic conservation area, and the planning application had an effect on the wider community.

·         No details had been given on the access point to the site, which included lines and turning circles.

·         Croft Lane was the only viable access to the site, however the lane was narrow at 3.8m wide, which meant cars could not pass each other.

·         Traffic had increased since Hertfordshire County Council had assessed the site.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Mr Hinton for his presentation and invited Ms Clare Newbury to speak in support of the application. Ms Newbury thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·         The adoption of the New Local Plan had resulted in the allocation of this site for residential development.

·         The current application was submitted and established the principle of the application, which was supported by the Local Plan.

·         Matters relating to access, layout, scale and landscaping would be addressed as part of the Reserved Matters application.

·         An illustrated layout plan had been submitted with the outline application to deliver 42 dwellings.

·         The applicant noted the comments from Statutory Consultees and Planning Officers in relation to the detailed policy matters, which would be addressed in the detailed design and development.

·         The application was supported by an updated Suite of Technical Assessment Work including an updated transport statement.

·         Existing trips along Croft Lane were 13 trips per hour in the AM traffic peak and 11 trips in the PM peak.

·         The proposed 42 dwelling development would result in one trip every two minutes in both the AM and PM traffic peaks.

·         The scheme would deliver affordable housing to meet the district’s needs, public open space, a biodiversity net gain, employment during construction and more use and investment of local community facilities.

·         Off-site improvements would be made to encourage walking and cycling.

·         Planning contributions had been requested by the HCC growth and infrastructure team, as well as NHDC.

The following Members had points of clarification:

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

·         Councillor Simon Bloxham

In response to the points of clarification, Ms Newbury advised:

·         The percentage increase in peak traffic on Croft Lane was based on a very low trip generation.

·         The traffic survey was conducted over several days.

In response to the points raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the report covered access and impacts but did not cover means of access. This would be covered in the next application.

Councillor David Levett commented that he was concerned about the absence of a specific number of dwellings included on the application and requested a condition be included to cover this.

Nurainatta Katevu, Legal Adviser, advised that that application covered the acceptability of site development, not the quantum of dwellings. If the application came back in Reserved Matters, the quantum could be considered by the Committee.

Peter Bull advised that section 4.3.9 of the report clarified issues relating to numbers.

Councillor Simon Bloxham commented that he was concerned about the consequences of this application, especially safety and advised that he wanted to push for refusal.

Peter Bull advised that this was an outline application and access was not being considered. He highlighted that no objection had been received from HCC Highways on this application and therefore it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on these grounds, as it would risk the Council losing on appeal.

Councillor Daniel Allen commented that while he had concerns regarding the increase in traffic, there were no legal grounds for this application to be rejected.

Councillor Tom Tyson commented that concerns regarding access would fall under Reserved Matters.

Councillor David Levett commented that as there were no technical or legal grounds for refusal of this application, he would support it in this instance, so that the Committee could further consider the application at the Reserved Matters stage.

Councillor David Levett proposed and Councillor Michael Muir seconded and after a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 22/01464/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement and the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.