Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 18/01154/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Audio recording – 5 minutes 18 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that four local residents had submitted late representations, however there were no new points raised.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 18/01154/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to the points of clarification the Senior Planning Officer stated that:

 

·       The applicant used manual and automatic traffic counts to update the traffic assessment and found that the original assessment was robust, and the traffic assessment mitigation was detailed in the report.

·       There were specific transport projects detailed under strand 1 of the S106 money and Highways have highlighted projects to allocate any remaining S106 money.

·       The signalised ‘shuttle system’ under the Woolgrove Road bridge had been earmarked, along with ongoing work on other Hitchin transport projects.

·       The widening the footpath under the Woolgrove Road bridge would allow users to pass each other safely, along with a shuttle traffic light system.

·       There would be a one-way system under the Bridge with a height restriction, this would make it clearer to drivers and decrease bridge strikes. The cost for the bridge work was estimated at £500K.

·       Projects and their feasibility had been highlighted on page 32 of the report.

·       The money would be sent to HCC Highways who would then allocate the funding to the right projects according to feasibility and stage of the project.

·       The footpath under the bridge would be increased from one metre wide to about 2 metres.

 

In response to the points of clarification the Senior Development Officer for Development Management at Hertfordshire County Council Highways stated that:

 

·       The widening of the footpath would increase user safety, as vehicles going under the bridge would then use the middle of the road, this scheme was workable and deliverable.

·       The 2017 traffic assessment had been quantified and the transport assessment trip data was robust, the trip data should show an industry standard of point 05.

·       The speed limit on the Stotfold Road would be reduced to 30 miles per hour.

 

In response to the points of clarification the Group Manager for Local Development Plans and Strategic Development at Hertfordshire County Council Highways stated that:

 

·       The shuttle system used traffic lights, and only allowed the one way flow of traffic at any given time, consideration had been given to any impact on congestion. 

·       The strand 1 works identified as S278 were usually required to develop the site and were usually carried out by a third party or the developer.

·       Strand 2 works were normally identified as S106 with a contribution from the applicant. A number of schemes would be identified, and the work would usually be carried out by HCC and could take place over a number of years.

·       The road speed would be 30 miles per hour from the site to the A505.

 

The Chair invited Mr Neil Dodds and Mr Richard Wilcox to speak in objection of the application.

 

Mr Dodds thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       There were concerns regarding the amount of traffic congestion, air pollution and safe routes for cyclist, pedestrians and the disabled going into Hitchin.

·       The matter had been deferred for a review of the air quality and traffic management.

·       A new report was received, commented on, and returned on the 13 September 2023.

·       A further report dated 18 September 2023 was received, with crossed out changes which concluded that the previous traffic assessment was robust, but with all the conflicting reports the conclusion did not appear robust.

·       The estate habitants would need to use a vehicle to go into Hitchin town, despite the public transport mitigation measures and the estimate of £3.42M of funding.

·       The proposed cycle routes were very aspirational, but it was difficult to understand how a cycle lane could be added to the A505 and the Woolgrove crossover.

·       The cycle routes from the east would be a very expensive project and had no costings or timescales.

·       There were concerns that the Woolgrove Road bridge works would cause traffic congestion.

·       The mitigation measures would not lead to a sustainable development.

 

Mr Wilcox thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       The traffic report produced by WSP was basically a resubmission of the 2017 report and based on the same trip data and skewed by a region with low car ownership.

·       No new, evidence based, justification had been given in the report it merely repeated that in 2018 NHDC accepted the 2017 report.

·       There were assertions in the report that the traffic issues on the Cambridge Road had declined, but this was obviously caused by the pandemic and should not be used as mitigation.

·       The report highlighted that traffic had been rising by 9% each year and will soon pass pre pandemic levels.

·       WSP were a consultant of Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) and carried out the traffic assessment.

·       The association of WSP to HCC, suggested a conflict of interest, and little weight could be attributed to the report.

·       A truly independent traffic assessment should be produced.

 

N.B Councillor Sean Nolan declared a conflict of interest as an employee of WSP, although had not been involved in the development of these reports, and, following advice from the Legal Advisor, he left the Chamber at 20:02.

 

 

The Chair thanked Mr Dodds and Mr Wilcox for their presentations and invited Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason to speak against the application. Councillor Wright-Mason thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The proposal would have a serious impact on the highways network.

·       More than 1800 people had signed a petition opposing this scheme, with many of those signing being unaware of the scheme until recently and had not been consulted.

·       A number of documents produced by Highways had been circulated after the public consultation had ended.

·       Cambridge Road was currently overloaded and had today been gridlocked for 1.5 miles into Letchworth, leaving drivers stranded in their driveways.

·       The addition of 700 car dependant homes would add to this congestion and was mitigated only by out-of-date reports.

·       An independent transport assessment would confirm this taking into account the impact of these homes on the wider road networks.

·       Recent developments in Bedfordshire between Arlesey and Fairfield indicated the true traffic picture after a large development.

·       A traffic survey commenced on Stotfold Road, Cambridge Road, Woolgrove Road and High Dane on the 14 September for 1 week.

·       The locations of this traffic survey suggested it was related to the proposed development and would have required authorisation from Herts Highways Authority.  

·       The majority of local residents felt that they had not been adequately consulted on the matter, and that the developers had no meaningful relationship with the local community.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Wright-Mason for his presentation and invited Mr Martin Wright and Mr Tim Parker representatives of the applicant to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr Wright thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The transport assessment was reviewed and remained robust and fit for purpose with extra mitigation details.

·       The forecasted traffic flow was now lower than presented in the 2018 report and the predicted traffic impact of this development was deemed as low and not severe as outlined in the NPPF guidance.

·       Further, on reviewing the traffic impact assessment and considering this development and other local developments including the North Herts College site, the cumulative traffic impact was deemed as low and not severe.

·       The trip generation data had been compared to the industry standard trip database and was considered by Officers as acceptable.

·       A number of potential mitigation schemes had been costed and considered and were contained in the report, the precise schemes to be delivered would be at the discretion of HCC but would be funded by the S106 money.

·       They acknowledged that like other towns, Hitchin had existing Highways and mobility challenges and were committed to helping to improve this situation.

·       This development would generate £28M of S106 money, deliver 40% of affordable housing, contribute a biodiversity net gain of 133% and a two-form entry primary school.

·       The Highways contribution would be £4.7M of which £3.3M would be attributed to HCC for highway improvement projects.

·       The counsel for the applicant had advised that if the development was not approved there would be grounds for an appeal, which could lead to reviewing elements of the proposed S106 agreement.

·       Should this application go to appeal it could pave the way for planning by appeal, and not through planned developments.

·       The application site was allocated on the Local Plan and the application was policy compliant with no objections from Highways.

·       The application came with a substantial amount of S106 money.

·       The application was justified, and the applicant was committed to a public consultation.

 

Mr Parker thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that he had produced the transport assessment, the transport assessment addendum, and the technical notes.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Wright and Mr Parker for their presentations and advised Members that they should not consider comments made regarding any potential appeal when making their decision on this application.

 

The HCC Senior Planning Officer summarised that:

 

·       Projects that been identified that would prioritise transport into Hitchin town.

·       The developer was not solely responsible for mitigating the transport issues, these would be considered for feasibility and scope and would be managed by the Highways Authority.

 

The HCC Senior Development Officer summarised that:

 

·       Further details were initially requested on traffic flows and considered additional areas, on balance the traffic flows on all sites were lower than in 2017. 

·       A discrepancy was corrected by WSP in their follow up note and still showed that the report data was robust.

·       Written information regarding the traffic survey Councillor Wright-Mason mentioned could be provided.

 

The Group Manager summarised that:

 

·       Traffic monitoring had been ongoing throughout the pandemic and up to the end of 2022.

·       The traffic flow was shown to be 5% lower than pre pandemic, with traffic peaks lower and more spread.

·       Overall traffic volume was down by 5%.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Nigel Mason the Senior Development Officer stated that they had no knowledge of a traffic survey from August 2023 and that traffic surveys generally occurred in neutral months.

 

The following Members took part in Debate:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Louise Peace

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       The applicant had complied with all of the requests in the deferment.

·       The current trip data occurred when the school had 29 pupils, this would change once the site was built.

·       Questions remained regarding public transport for the site.

·       Whilst the impact on traffic of 700 dwellings was unknown the outcome of the application needed to be formed from the traffic report data provided. 

·       A planning authority required a legal reason to decline an application and there were no legal reasons to decline this application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised during the debate that £807K of strand 1 money would be invested in the Number 81 bus going through the site for a period of 5 years and was detailed in the report.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed and Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 18/01154/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.