Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development comprising of 4 x 1 bedroom flats, 6 x 2 bedroom houses and 8 x 3 bedroom houses with associated landscaping, parking and vehicular access following demolition of existing commercial buildings.

RESOLVED: That application 17/04392/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Residential development comprising of 4 x 1 bedroom flats, 6 x 2 bedroom houses and 8 x 3 bedroom houses with associated landscaping, parking and vehicular access following demolition of existing commercial buildings.

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 17/04392/1.

The Area Planning Officer advised that Members would have received a statement from Councillor David Barnard writing in support of the planning application.  Councillor Barnard had urged the Committee to grant permission, subject to a Section 106 Obligation and planning conditions.

The Area Planning Officer stated that he had received a formal response from the London Luton Airport Aerodrome Compliance Manager.  The airport advised that the proposed development did not conflict with the safeguarding criteria relating to the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, however the design of the development should be such to minimise the risk of a bird strike hazard.  In addition, the airport advised that, as the development was close to the approach to the airport runway, external lighting schemes should be carefully designed to avoid light spill above the horizontal.  The Compliance Manager had also referred to Advice Notes 2 and 3 in respect of these issues.  Lastly, the airport would request details of any craneage associated with the development prior to commencement of works.

The Area Planning Officer had received a further comment from the Airport Chief Operations Officer, who asked that NHDC carefully considered the application as the new dwellings would be situated within the 63dB daytime noise contour and the 57dB night-time contour.  The Chief Operations Officer also commented that the development sat just outside, but very close to, the airport public safety zone (PSZ).

The Area Planning Officer reported that comments had also been received from the Hertfordshire Rights of Way Unit, who had advised that the new access may be beneficial as vehicles sometimes obstructed the current footpath 004.  The footpath should remain unobstructed at all times during construction works to ensure public safety.  Any deterioration of the footpath during works would need to be made good by the developer.  If a diversion was required during construction works a Traffic Regulation Order would be required. 

The Area Planning Officer advised that the applicant had submitted a revised Drainage Strategy Report dated April 2018.  This had been forwarded to the Lead Local Flood Authority for comment, although formal comments had not been received back from the Flood Authority.  Therefore, the Flood Risk objection raised by the Authority still stood and he advised that reason for refusal No. 5 remained as part of the recommendations.

The Area Planning Officer referred to typographical errors in Paragraphs 3.7 and 4.3.35 of the report.  In these paragraphs, reference was made to a Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment being required by the Environmental Health Officer.  This should in fact refer to a Phase II assessment, as the applicant had already provided a Phase I assessment.   

The Area Planning Officer presented a series of slides, which comprised photographs of the application site and drawings, following which he asked the Committee to support his recommendation for refusal.

Lisa Townsend (Applicant’s agent) addressed the Committee in support of application 17/04392/FP.

Ms Townsend stated that the application sought to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect in their place 18 residential dwellings and associated landscaping, green space and a revised vehicular access.  Notwithstanding that the site was located in the Green Belt, it constituted previously developed land, which had a long established commercial use for car repairs and maintenance.  The principle of residential development had been accepted by officers in pre-application discussions.

Ms Townsend was of the view that the existing buildings were of poor visual quality and in a state of disrepair.  Complaints had been received about noise, anti-social behaviour and odours emanating from the site, and fumes generated by vehicles parking on the site and in nearby roads.  Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required local authorities to encourage the effective use and re-use of land that had been previously developed.  This approach was repeated in the Housing White Paper and the changes to the NPPF published in February 2018.

So far as Green Belt Policy was concerned, Ms Townsend stated that redevelopment of previously developed land was seen as appropriate in the Green Belt, subject to such development not having a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  The design of the dwellings had been carefully considered in order to meet this objective, in providing a pleasant and attractive residential environment which would complement, rather than detract from, the area.

Ms Townsend felt that the proposal also provided a mix of housing aimed at a wide spectrum of the market, including first time buyers.  The proposal would also offer a period of exclusivity, whereby homes would be offered solely to residents of Breachwood Green and their immediate families.

Ms Townsend was disappointed with the Planning Officer’s recommendation for refusal, but responded to each of the reasons for refusal as follows:

·           Reason 1 – Contrary to Green Belt Policy – Development of previously developed land in the Green Belt was not inappropriate;  Whilst the footprint of the new buildings would be lesser than the existing, but in volumetric terms provided an increase in built development , this should be considered against the context of the overall design and layout of the development and the benefits of removing a number of unsightly buildings;

·           Reason 2 – Design: Contrary to Local Plan Policies/NPPF – the development would enhance the visual appearance, whilst making the most efficient use of the site, to provide much needed smaller homes.  The design was in keeping with the local vernacular, and the layout was reflective of a typical village end;

·           Reason 3 – London Luton Airport Public Safety Zone – this issue was not raised at Pre-Application Stage;

·           Reason 4 – London Luton Airport Noise Contour Area – these noise levels were not limits. but simply guideline values;

·           Reason 5 – Flood Risk – information had been submitted and a favourable response was expected; and

·           Reason 6 – Lack of Section 106 Obligation – the applicant was willing to submit such an application, but no dialogue had been offered by NHDC.

After a period of questions and answers, the Chairman thanked Ms Townsend for her presentation.

In response to issues raised during the presentation, the Area Planning Officer commented as follows:

·           Pre-application advice – because the existing dwellings on the site were single-storey, the advice had been that perhaps only 2 or 3 single storey bungalows might be an acceptable form of replacement development on the site;

·           Condition of the site – it was in a poor condition, but that in itself did not give any excuse for inappropriate development in the Green Belt; the dwelling design was not in keeping with the local vernacular (which was an agricultural environment with isolated buildings, and not an urban style housing estate as proposed in the application);

·           Noise issues – Environmental health had agreed that mitigation against noise could be incorporated into the design of the dwellings now, but the proposed expansion of Luton Airport would mean that these mitigation measures would not be fit for purpose in years to come.

·           Section 106 Obligation – the application had not been accompanied by any details to secure such an Obligation, and he felt that the application was so far off from being acceptable as to preclude the need for any dialogue about it with the applicant; and

·           Affordable Housing – as the application was for 18 units, there would be a requirement for a proportion of affordable housing, as required on all sites of 11 units and above.

Councillor Faye Frost made a speech in support of granting planning permission to the application.  During the speech she referred to attending an exhibition held by the applicant/developer and discussing matters with the applicant/developer.

A Member raised a point of order, in that he believed that Councillor Frost had indicated she had discussed the application with the developer and questioned whether this had fettered her judgement of the matter, in which case she should take no further part in the determination of this application.

In view of the above point of order and following legal advice, Councillor Frost decided to withdraw from the meeting for the remainder of the item.

The Committee debated the application and was supportive of the Area Planning Officer’s recommendation for refusal.  Whilst accepting that the site may well be developable for housing in the future, Members commented as follows:

·           The site in its existing state was a complete eyesore in the middle of the countryside; the problem in approving this and any similar applications would be that lots of little estates would materialise in the countryside;

·           On balance, removing the eyesore to allow development was probably appropriate, but the quality of what replaced it was the key question;  the quality had to be significantly better than the quality of the scheme now presented to the Committee;

·           The Committee should take the opportunity to enhance the site, rather than accept any replacement for the dilapidated buildings which currently occupied it;

·           The quality of what  was proposed was not of sufficiently high standard in design to be an acceptable replacement;

·           The urbanising effect of the 18 units proposed was contrary to enhancing the area, as set out in reason for refusal 2

It was therefore moved and seconded that the application be refused planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED: That application 17/04392/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.