Agenda item - 22/02871/FP LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF, LOWER ROAD, BREACHWOOD GREEN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG4 8NS

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of six dwellings comprising of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings (2 x 2-bed and 2 x 3-bed) and two detached 3-bed dwellings with detached double garages (plots 3 and 4) including parking, landscaping and creation of vehicular access off Lower Road.

RESOLVED: That application 22/02871/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the following amendment to Condition 11 and the addition of Condition 14:

Condition 11:

Before the commencement of any other works on the site, trees to be retained shall be protected by the erection of temporary chestnut paling fencing of a minimum height of 1.2 meters on a scaffolding framework, located at the appropriate minimum distance from the tree trunk in accordance with Section 4.6 of BS5837:2012.

Reason: To prevent damage or destruction of trees to be retained on the site in the interests of the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenity of the locality, and to comply with Policy NE2 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

Councillor Daniel Allen requested the amendment to protect wildlife.

Condition 14:

Details of the foundation layout, type and depth for ‘Plot 4 Garage’ of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and the approved details shall be implemented on site.

Reason: To ensure that the development will not have an unacceptable impact upon the adjacent woodland and to comply with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

Audio recording – 5 minutes 5 seconds

The Planning Officer provided the following updates that:

· To comply with the Local Plan Policy SP1, the end of paragraph in section 3.3.5 of the report had been updated.

· The applicant had formally agreed to the amendment of the wording of the pre-commencement condition in relation to the foundation layout of ‘Plot 4 Garage’ at section 3.3.17 of the report.

· If Members approved the application, the amendment to section 3.3.17 would be added as Condition 14 to the decision notice.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/02871/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Mick Debenham

· Councillor Louise Peace

In response to the points of clarification, the Planning Officer stated that the objections by Highways were not valid because a technical note regarding access and scale had been accepted and the Local Plan endorsed the site as being sustainable because it was within the settlement boundary.

The Development and Conservation Manager stated that the Local Plan identified this as a sustainable rural location for development, that does have facilities to meet the needs of residents and therefore the Council did not believe refusal due to this being in an unstainable location would be sustainable upon appeal.

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

· Mr Wilkes was one of 12 objectors, most of whom lived in Lower Road.

· This proposal was on the edge of the village and situated on a narrow country lane with no passing points.

· People would therefore use the entrance to the development as a passing point and subsequently drive faster on the road.

· A speed and traffic count had been carried out by the applicants, however the speed counter was positioned on a blind bend where cars had to slow down and speed was only registered at 20 miles per hour.

· Since the survey there had been one accident on Lower Road where a residents car had been badly damaged by a speeding car and was a write off.

· The main objection to the application was the suitability of the area and the safety of not only the people using Lower Road, but also the people who would be purchasing the new houses.

· This development would bring more vehicles to Lower Road, including vehicles of any visitors or deliveries.

· This development was a dangerous proposal for Lower Road.

The Chair thanked Mr Wilkes for his presentation and invited Mr Geoff Long and Mrs Rosemary Long to speak in support of the application. Mrs Long thanked the Chair for the opportunity to and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

· Breachwood Green was listed a Category A village in the Local Plan.

· It was a sustainable small village where development was allowed within the defined borders to help ensure villages attracted young families preventing them from stagnating.

· The development had been designed with young families in mind and the houses at the back were disabled friendly and in keeping with the Local Plan.

· The development would provide 10 houses with the remainder of the site being let to neighbouring houses to increase the size of their gardens.

· The development would bring more people to the village who would therefore use the local facilities.

· Highways had recorded speeds outside the site which were slightly less than 20 miles per hour.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Levett, Mr Long advised that the area was currently vacant at present but had previously been used for dog training.

The Planning Officer advised that a footpath would be out of keeping with Lower Road and that the objections from Highways were purely on the sustainability and accessibility of the site for sustainable transport means, not on safety of access.

The following Members took part in debate:

· Councillor Daniel Allen

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Simon Bloxham

· Councillor Sean Nolan

· Councillor David Levett

· Councillor Mick Debenham

Points in the debate included that:

· Chain link fencing was unsafe for animals and this wording should be removed from Condition 11.

· There was no provision of a footpath from the development to the centre of the village or to the school.

· This was a small development which would not have a large impact on the sustainability of the area.

· Moving back the starting point of the 20 miles per hours restriction to the village may help with the speeding issues.

The Planning Officer advised that it would be possible to remove chain link wording from Condition 11 and that the only objections left with Highways were on sustainability issues and not regarding safety issues.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the only provision for a footpath was along the front of the site which wouldn’t gain access to the village. Lower Road was a country lane and it was felt that the installation of a footpath would change the character of the road.

The Locum Planning Lawyer advised that amending a speed limit was a matter for Highways as the public would need to be consulted and feedback taken before any decision could be made and that this was not in the applicants domain.

Councillor Tom Tyson proposed with the amendment above to Condition 11, and Councillor Simon Bloxham seconded and, following a vote, it was: