Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 22/03092/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager as amended by the Supplementary agenda, with the following additional condition:

 

“Condition 28:

 

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme of sensitively designed lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall include and consider temporary construction lighting as well as more permanent lighting associated with the development hereby approved. Light-spill (including from temporary construction lighting) onto retained and newly created habitat, in particular the retained woodland habitat forming the south of the site, should be minimised in accordance with good practice guidance, as set out in footnote 15 of the approved Updated Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology referenced 1005083 UEcoAp vf12 CL dated 15/11/2022. The sensitively designed lighting strategy shall consider the following key factors:

 

• Light exclusion zones

• Variable Lighting Regimes

• Light barriers

• Spacing and height of lighting units

• Light intensity

• Directionality

 

Reason: To ensure the protection, enhancement and management of biodiversity, and to comply with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”

Audio recording – 1 hour 14 minutes 1 second

 

N.B Councillor Sean Nolan returned to the Council Chamber at 20:44.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason advised that, following discussions with the Legal Advisor, as he had previously made comments publicly on this application and was therefore predetermined, he would leave the Chamber for the duration of this item.

 

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason left the Council Chamber at 20:45.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/03092/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

 

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

 

·       The applicant and Officers were aware that technology moved quickly and had proposed rather than confirmed, the solar panel and air source heat pump measures in section 7.1, which had been updated in condition 25 of the report, that these would be an enhancement of the measures outlined in section 7.1.

·       The biodiversity net gain (BNG) metric had demonstrated a net gain from the development and was policy compliant.

·       Herts Ecology had requested a Management Plan, and this has formed part of a condition for a BNG Management Plan and will later be adopted by the Council.

 

In response to the points of clarification the Principal Planning Officer stated that there was no current condition regarding low level lighting.

 

The Chair invited Mr Neil Dodds 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:

 

·       They had made criticisms of the transport assessment and air quality reports in January and that recently the air quality report had been revised.

·       There was an under estimation of the evening rush hour traffic at the intersection of Grays Lane and Upper Tilehouse Street as shown in table 5.7 of the report.

·       This application along with the HG5 site would increase traffic by 40% in the morning and 53% in the evening rush hour, which would exasperate congestion especially with pedestrians crossing the road.

·       The S106 money to improve pedestrian crossings, bus stops, and traffic light scheme will not elevate the traffic congestion or mitigate the congestion.

·       The air quality at the foot of Grays Lane would be affected by increased queuing traffic, this junction is on the edge of an air quality management area.

·       The air quality capsule in Upper Tilehouse Street is already showing nitrogen dioxide level close to, and in excess of, the air quality objectives and these are predicted to increase.

·       The application should be deferred to allow a decision to be made from clear, complete, and correct information.

·       The site contravenes the Local Plan as no site should overlook the Chilterns and changes to the boundary should not mitigate this.

·       The loss of meadowland, trees and hedgerows would result in a loss of wildlife and protected species of bats and badgers.

·       The 10% BNG was incorrect, due to the classification of grassland used in the metric calculation.

·       Should the site be approved, low level lighting would mitigate some of the harm to nearby wildlife and the proximity to the Chilterns.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to the points of clarification Mr Dodds stated that:

 

·       There would be an increase of 36 extra cars in the morning and 32 extra cars in the evening.

·       The traffic survey was conducted on a Thursday by the Martin Andrew Consulting Agency.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Dodds for his presentation and invited Councillor Chris Lucas to speak against the application. Councillor Lucas thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       There were many concerns regarding this application including Highways, biodiversity net gain, transport and air pollution.

·       The Highways concerns related to traffic volume, noise, safety and air quality.

·       Highways initially refused this application and stated that the junctions at Pirton Road and at Grays Lane were over capacity, particularly in rush hours.

·       Applications should be refused when there is an impact on highways safety or a severe impact on the road networks as stated in the NPPF paragraph 111.

·       Highways refused this application in their first report highlighting the numerous intersecting access points for user groups and requested a new stage one road safety audit, which has not been completed.

·       Highways second report did not adequately address the intersecting access points and there was no evidence of a statutory consultant request from the Rights of Way Officer.

·       Little consideration had been made regarding the creation of a road junction on an existing bridleway, on an unadopted road.

·       There was no consideration for the hierarchy of road users at the access point of the site.

·       There had been little consideration made for off street parking and emergency vehicle access, especially when used as a shortcut.

·       There was no regard to the quality of life for existing residents.

·       Should the application be approved, it would be erroneous to suggest that there would not be a severe impact on the local highways.

·       There would be an impact on local services, transport and congestion should this application be approved affecting the quality of life of existing residents.

·       The application should be refused or deferred pending a proper stage one road safety audit.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Lucas for his presentation and invited Mr Geoff Armstrong to speak in support of the application. Mr Armstrong thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The applicant had work closely with Officers and Highways to ensure they had fully complied with all requests.

·       The development provided open spaces and play areas, with a mix of affordable housing.

·       They would be a 12 metre buffer strip around the development due to the sensitivity of the hedgerows.

·       The development was now for 47 dwellings instead of the 53 in the Local Plan and the development met all aspects of HT6 and the Local Plan.

·       None of the statutory consultants had objected to the application.

·       An air quality report was submitted to the environmental Health Officer (EHO) who had no objection, and it was noted that the air quality was improving in the area.

·       The applicant had worked through the comments from Highways and there were now no objections from Highways to this application.

·       The bridleway issue had been dealt with in the application for site HT5 in the Local Plan, which was considered on 15 June 2023.

·       The metrics for the biodiversity net gain (BNG) were completed several times and showed a net gain of 10%, responses had been supplied to all BNG queries.

·       They were committed to delivering the highest level of sustainability.

·       They were happy to accept a condition on low level lighting.

·       The scheme was policy compliant and the applicant had addressed all the report concerns.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Armstrong for his presentation and invited the Senior Planning officer to respond to any points of clarification.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The previous air quality data was 5 years old, and the new report found that the air quality had improved.

·       The EHO had confirmed that the air quality had improved and believed that the air quality management areas may soon be revoked due to this improvement.

·       Due to the change in air quality, there had been a recalculation of the mitigation S106 funding.

·       There had been no road safety audit as there were now no Highways objections on this application, and Highways had stated that they were satisfied on road safety subject to the conditions of the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that they were happy to formulate and add a condition on a sensitive lighting scheme.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen stated that this application was in the wrong place and the traffic would not work properly, but there was no legal objection or legal reason to refuse the application.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed, with the addition of a condition on low level lighting, and this was seconded by Councillor Tom Tyson and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/03092/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager as amended by the Supplementary agenda, with the following additional condition:

 

“Condition 28:

 

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme of sensitively designed lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall include and consider temporary construction lighting as well as more permanent lighting associated with the development hereby approved. Light-spill (including from temporary construction lighting) onto retained and newly created habitat, in particular the retained woodland habitat forming the south of the site, should be minimised in accordance with good practice guidance, as set out in footnote 15 of the approved Updated Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology referenced 1005083 UEcoAp vf12 CL dated 15/11/2022. The sensitively designed lighting strategy shall consider the following key factors:

 

• Light exclusion zones

• Variable Lighting Regimes

• Light barriers

• Spacing and height of lighting units

• Light intensity

• Directionality

 

Reason: To ensure the protection, enhancement and management of biodiversity, and to comply with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”