Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of 43 dwellings, access from Lower Innings, associated internal roads, parking, landscaping, amenity space and open space.

RESOLVED: That application 23/00563/FP be DEFERRED to a future meeting to allow for the applicant to review the potential for a pedestrian access point to the southeast of the application site, and for the wording and requirements of recommended Condition 8 regarding the Local Cycle/Pedestrian Network Audit to be reviewed.

 

Audio recording – 22 minutes 4 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer gave a verbal update and advised that:

 

·       The remaining s106 matters had been agreed by the applicant. These included funding for Oughtonhead Common, waste services and Hitchin swim centre.

·       There was an error at Paragraph 4.3.5, the affordable housing column should include one 4 bed dwelling, the total remained at 17 affordable dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/00563/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Louise Peace

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

 

·       There was one main road access to this site at Lower Innings and four pedestrian access routes onto Oughtonhead Lane.

·       The majority of dwellings had garages, and the plans highlighted the storage areas for refuse bins.

·       There had been a separate application approved for the access to this site.

·       The application only had vehicular access from the north via Lower Innings, access from Bowlers End did not form part of the application.

·       A draft travel plan had not been submitted with this application however, this would form a Condition of the approval of the application.

·       No response had been received from the Rights of Way Officers.

·       The biodiversity net gain was highlighted at section 4.3.65 of the report and there would be a net gain of 6.91%.

·       Solar panels for the majority of dwellings had been secured by the approved plans, and not as a condition of the approval of the application.

In response to points of clarification the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       Access to this site had been previously granted and this application was for the housing development and associated traffic of the new dwellings.

·       The absence of a draft travel plan would not be a reason to refuse an application and would normally be added as a condition when granting an application.

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

 

·       They had attended and objected to the application for access to this site.

·       There had been 97 comments on this application, only 1 comment was in support of the application.

·       There were concerns regarding pedestrian safety at the access point to this site.

·       There were concerns regarding the traffic flow which should be reviewed prior to the development commencing.

·       There were concern regarding priority rights on Lower Innings and how traffic queues and associated pollution would be managed.

·       Residents of Lower Innings had further concerns as they already struggled to get their cars and refuse bins out for collection.

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

 

·       There were 137 parking spaces on the development site, and it was predicted that this would generate 233 car journeys per day, of which 27 would be in the morning peak and 30 during the evening peak.

·       There were concerns regarding traffic congestion, air quality, noise and pedestrian safety.

·       The junction of Lower Innings would cross a green traffic free route that had flora and wildlife habitat and leads to a nature reserve.

·       There were concerns regarding the high level of street lighting which were not desirable in the location.

·       There were no cycle or pedestrian link to Bowlers End, which would have benefitted residents.

·       There were concerns regarding the cycle route on Oughtonhead Lane and the avoidance of vehicular traffic at the new Lower Innings junction.

·       There was no information regarding the market price of the affordable housing.

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

 

·       There were still unanswered queries relating to the access application.

·       The two applications were linked, this housing development provided the traffic that would be passing the Oughtonhead Lane bridle way.

·       There were concerns regarding the Lower Inning junction with the Oughtonhead Lane bridle path and the impact to users of the bridle way.

·       There were concerns relating to the access of the site as stated at 4.3.42 of the report, and these had yet to be addressed.

·       The technical plans details and the vehicular access safety were highlighted by Condition 8 of the previous application, however these had not been adequality addressed in this application.

·       A full traffic assessment had been requested but not completed by the applicant.

·       There was confusion regarding Condition 8 with conflicting information.

·       It was felt that questions still remained unresolved, including the vehicular access priority from Lower Innings into the development.

·       There were no slides of Oughtonhead Lane in the presentation.

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

 

·       The site had been allocated under the Local plan for the development of 46 dwellings.

·       Access had been approved from Lower Innings into the development area.

·       There was no other vehicular access point available due to a ransom strip between the site and Westbury Close.

·       There would be 17 affordable dwellings of various sizes.

·       There would be negligible visual impacts to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·       The designs were in keeping with local developments and would be two stories high.

·       There would be a biodiversity net gain and the development would avoid any impact on the important habitats within the site.

·       New play areas would be provided for all members of the community.

·       The garages on the site would be oversized to accommodate cars and bicycles.

·       There had been no objections from Hertfordshire County Council Highways team.

·       All dwellings would have heat pumps, PV panels, EV charging points and timber frames.

·       The application would generate S106 money including £500K for primary education and £600K for secondary education.

·       There had been no consultee objections to this application.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor David Levett

In response to points of clarification Mr Farnsworth advised that:

 

·       All properties would have PV panels, EV charging points and heat pumps.

·       There was a ransom strip of land at Westbury Close.

·       The land at Bowlers Ends was owned by a management company and their policies did not allow Vehicle access from Bowlers End onto the development site.

·       No contact had been made to negotiate with the Bowlers End Resident Association.

The Chair thanked Mr Farnsworth for his presentation.

 

In response to points raised the Senior Planning Officer advised that access to the site and the condition attached to the Planning application were still under consideration from Highways.

 

The Chair invited Mr Senober Khan, Transport Senior Development Management Officer and Manjinder Sehmi, Transport Development Management Area Manager from Hertfordshire Highways to summarise the application.

 

The Transport Senior Development Management Officer summarised that:

 

·       The site access was to the north of site from Lower Innings a single carriageway cul de sac of 16 dwellings.

·       As part of the application the Lower Innings footpath would be widened, and the road would be extended to the Oughtonhead Lane bridle path

·       Following discussion with the HCC Rights of Way Officer priority would be given to non-motor users using Oughtonhead Lane

·       A stage 1 traffic audit had been undertaken and the access was deemed acceptable.

·       The access from the north west of the site was integral and essential to the development.

·       A condition of the application stated that a full traffic audit was required.

The Transport Development Management Area Manager summarised that:

 

·       A Construction Management Plan to ensure the flow of traffic was a recommended Condition.

·       The site was enclosed by private land that Highways had no control over.

·       There were no concerns regarding the impact of 30 extra cars per hour at peak time, and 27 car per hour at normal flow.

·       Local access roads were not uncommon in Hertfordshire.

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Val Bryant

In response to questions the Transport Senior Development Management Officer stated:

 

·       It was unclear from the site photo, if access from Bowler End was possible.

·       Priority would be given from Lower Innings into the site.

·       It would be the responsibility of drivers to pull over when faced with any oncoming traffic and the road layout would prioritise access from Lower Innings.

·       The new highway code gave priority to cyclist and pedestrians at junctions.

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer stated:

 

·       That Bowlers End was a privately managed road and had not been adopted.

·       This application considered the housing, internal roads and landscaping within the development.

In response to a question the Locum Planning Lawyer stated that the site access application had been determined in July 2023, this application related to the dwellings on the site, it was important that Members did not confuse the two matters. This application was for the houses, traffic on the development site and parking.

 

In response to a question the Development and Conservation Manager stated that applicant applied for the access on to the site separately, because section 278 agreements take a considerable time to be processed. This application would generate the traffic.

 

Councillor David Levett proposed that the application be refused, and Councillor Simon Bloxham seconded.

 

The Locum Planning Lawyer stated that it was unique to have separate applications for the access and development of a site. Members were reminded that the access had already been granted and this application was for consideration and voting on today.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Louise Peace

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       A legal reason to refuse was required to avoid costly legal bills.

·       There were concerns that the application was in conflict with the Integration into Existing Communities section of the Local Plan

·       There should be access onto the southern end of the site.

·       An agreement with the resident group for a southern path should be explored.

·       The application did not meet the criteria of section 135 of the NPPF.

·       Guidance was required from Highways regarding trip data.

·       This application should be deferred to allow the applicant to negotiate non-vehicular access from the south and east of the site.

In response to points raised in debate the Development and Conservation Manager advised:

 

·       There was only one vehicular access point for this site, other pedestrian access points had been identified.

·       Applicants were unlikely to procure costly technical reports at this stage as this could be unnecessary wasted expense in the event that an application was refused and instead preferred such matters to be controlled by a planning Condition.

Councillor David Levett on considering the points raised in debate, withdrew his proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Levett further proposed that the application was deferred to investigate and consider Condition 8 and for the applicant to enter discussion regarding access to the south of the site. Councillor Simon Bloxham seconded the deferral.

The Development and Conservation Manager stated that it was reasonable to ask the applicant to review pedestrian access to the south east of the site.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen stated that the applicant had confirmed that they had not contacted the Bowlers End Resident Association to discuss any access points.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/00563/FP be DEFERRED to a future meeting to allow for the applicant to review the potential for a pedestrian access point to the southeast of the application site, and for the wording and requirements of recommended Condition 8 regarding the Local Cycle/Pedestrian Network Audit to be reviewed.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings until 21:09.