Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline planning permission for the erection of 6 no. dwellings with access, parking and associated works (all matters reserved except for access)(as amended by plans received on 22 May 2023).

RESOLVED: That application 23/00523/OP be REFUSED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 6 minutes 3 seconds

The Planning Officer gave a verbal update and advised that a recent email received on 4 March regarding elements of public access had now been fully considered.  It was also noted that the document dated 21 December 2023 was originally not on the Council website, but had recently been added.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/00523/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

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

·                    The area was a heritage point of historical interest.

·                    The new houses, even though set back, would cause a loss of privacy due to all rooms being next to the road. There is slight privacy to the rear of the properties.

·                    His whole garden would be overlooked by property 1, which backs onto his house. The field is 1 metre higher than his property, imposing on the area.

·                    The gable end of the new house would cause loss of light, mostly around midday and early evening.

·                    The area was good for wildlife and recently more wildlife had been witnessed including badgers, deer, foxes, bees nests, frogs toads and newts.

·                    Many concerns had been raised about the smell from the adjacent poultry farm.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor David Levett, Mr Gordon confirmed:

·                    His house was a Grade 2 listed building. 

·                    The odour from the poultry farm was strongest around 7 times per year when the area was fully cleared and the smell was worse on damp, rainy days, rather than in Summer.

The Chair thanked Mr Gordon for his presentation and invited Councillor Gerald Morris to speak against the application. Councillor Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·                     It was considered the site was unsuitable and not in the local plan.

·                    Recently the area had been cleared of natural planting leaving a superficial cover to remain.

·                    This development was not necessary for North Herts housing needs, and Planning Officers had also objected.

·                    Previous applications for the Ashmill Poultry Farm site had been refused for similar reasons. 

·                    There were concerns over the proximity of the Poultry Farm to local business, places of employment, and to where people will live.

The Chair thanked Councillor Morris for his presentation and invited Mr Shane Ahern, the applicant, to speak. Mr Ahern thanked the chair for the opportunity and provided the committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·                    The site in Barkway was currently scrubland and had been earmarked for development.

·                    The development would consist of six houses, including one affordable home for key workers only.

·                    The site plan had been designed with heritage as a consideration by an expert and had been submitted with a written air quality guidance.

·                    The adjacent poultry farm was cleared and cleaned seven times per year. The odour from the farm was noted to be worse on hotter days and measurements showed a 25% acceptability. 

·                    Previous applications included dwellings approximately 3 metres from the poultry farm.  This current version included dwellings 60 to 70 metres from the farm.

·                    The homes in this development would be of a self-build style, allowing buyers to design their houses themselves.

The following members asked points of clarification:

·                     Councillor David Levitt

·                     Councillor Simon Bloxham

·                     Councillor Louise Peace

·                     Councillor Dave Winstanley

·                     Councillor Mick Debenham

In response to the points of clarification, Mr Ahern advised that:

·                    A full application and outline had not been taken, due to the principle of the site being agreed first. 

·                    The houses on site would be self-build therefore people could design their own home and one property would be allocated for key workers and local residents to purchase.

·                    The delivery of self-build homes was a statutory obligation and 89 people had already registered. 

·                    There would be an extensive play area and green space providing biodiversity net gain.

·                    Measurements of the odours from the poultry farm had been carried out over 3 days at approximately 25°C, however residents had noted that the odour was worse during wet weather. 

Councillor Tom Tyson proposed that the application be refused, and Councillor Simon Bloxham seconded.

The following members took part in debate:

·                     Councillor Daniel Allen

·                     Councillor David Levitt

·                     Councillor Louise Peace

·                     Councillor Nigel Mason

·                     Councillor Simon Bloxham

Points raised in debate included:

·                     Concerns over legality of offering houses to key workers only

·                     The recommendation for refusal was not because of the odour from the poultry farm alone and also concerned the heritage and conservation of the site.

·                     The development was noted to be outside of the settlement boundary with the rear of properties facing the High Street.

·                     Due to the height of surrounding trees and visibility from the properties, it was felt that the development would have heritage impact upon the listed buildings.

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

RESOLVED: That application 23/00523/OP be REFUSED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.