Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Proposed residential development for 42 dwellings, access, parking, landscaping and associated works, including provision of an electrical sub-station (as amended by plans and documents received 23.08.2022, 29.09.2022, 20.12.2023 and 27/02/24).

RESOLVED: That application 21/01882/FP be REFUSED planning permission as the proposed development would make insufficient contribution towards meeting the District’s affordable housing needs identified in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031 and therefore would conflict with the aims of Local Plan Policy HS2.

Audio recording: 2 hour 19 minutes 52 seconds

 

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason returned to the Chamber at 21:51

 

In response to declarations of interests from Councillors Michael Muir and Steve Jarvis the Locum Planning Lawyer stated that there was no conflict of interest for County Councillors.

 

The Development Management Team Leader provided an updated that:

 

·       There had been three updates published on the 20 March 2024 regarding this matter.

·       There was a typographical error in paragraph 4.2.1 as there were 20 detached dwellings and not 22 as stated.

 

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report in respect of Application 21/01882/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Michael Muir

 

In response to points of clarification, the Development Management Team Leader advised that:

 

·       There would be 7 dwellings facing onto the Royston Road with a northern strip of landscaping, both of which met the Neighbourhood plan criteria.

·       There was a water course on the eastern boundary, and there would be tree planting to provide boundary screening.

·       There would be a payment to the Council for maintenance of the greenspaces. There was provision off site for play space and a park.

·       There had been two rounds of viability reports produced, with the latest considering the high interest rates and housing market prices. The outcome of this report stated that it was not viable to increase the affordable housing units.

·       The applicant was the County Council, and payments would be made to the District Council ahead of the County Council.

·       There would be a clawback clause as part of the S106 agreement and this would be issued before the decision notice. The viability would need to be reassessed under paragraph 4.3.42 and should it be deemed that it was feasible to build more affordable housing then any, S106 payments would need to be made to North Herts Council before the NHS or the County Council.

·       The Council reviewed the viability assessment and concluded that the viability could not be meet on the site. This was provided as an appendix to the report.

·       The applicant had stated that settle did not want the EV charging points on the affordable houses.

·       Work was still ongoing on the details of the clawback, and only one new viability assessment would be completed, and this would be prior to the start of construction work.

·       The was a function within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which allowed for viability to be assessed. It was noted that affordable housing was the biggest costs for a developer.

·       Policy HS2 of the Local Plan gave the Council discretion in genuine circumstances to vary the percentage of affordable housing.

·       The majority of dwellings would have active EV charging points and only 2 would have passive points.

·       The independent assessor of the viability statement concluded that they agreed with the affordable housing mix put forward by the developers.

 

The Chair invited Ms Jennifer Smith to speak in support of the application. Ms Smith thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Work had been ongoing for three years on this application for 42 dwellings.

·       The development was within the boundary of Baldock and was originally designated for the development of a school.

·       This development was for 42 family homes which would be built over 18 months.

·       The properties would be detached or semi-detached two-story homes.

·       The properties would have a fabric first insulation approach with air source heat pumps and the majority of properties would have EV charging points.

·       The layout of the development takes into account the Greenway route to the south and would have a dedicated cycle way to the north of the site.

·       There would be pedestrian and cycle only routes through Rhee Spring with access to the bus stop into town.

·       Access to the site would be from Aleyn Way and Constantine Place not the Royston Road.

·       The site was originally designated as a school and the traffic concerns were addressed at that point. There had been no objections from Highway to this development.

·       There would be 95 parking spaces on the site and all homes would be provided with either a garage or a shed for bike and bin storage.

·       Dwellings would have wider doors for wheelchair access.

·       The application had a lower density of dwellings compared to the allocation on the Local Plan and would have careful landscaping.

·       There would be 139 trees planted on the development, leading to a 10% biodiversity net gain, above the requirements for the site.

·       No statutory consultee objections had been received against this application.

·       The benefits of this application outweighed the harms.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor David Levett, Ms Smith stated that the EV passive points would be provided as a result of discussion from the registered provider, the registered provider could then make these active at their own cost.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Smith for her presentation and invited the Development Management Team Leader to respond to any points raised.

 

The Development Management Team Leader stated that Condition 11 could be changed if required.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

 

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       This application did not supply sufficient affordable housing.

·       The access to the site and layout were acceptable.

·       The affordable housing in this application went against policy HS2 of the Local Plan.

·       Policy HS2 could be applied but this should be used for larger developments.

·       The density could be increase and then more affordable housing could be offered.

·       The Local Plan was being ignored and that was not the intention of the NPPF.

·       The viability report highlighted a valid reason for the number of affordable houses.

·       There were concerns raised about the different EV points proposed to be provided in the affordable units.

·       If the application was not approved, the homes would not get built, and an opportunity to use this land would be lost.

·       Concern that other applicants would use viability reports to build fewer affordable homes.

·       The application met all the other policy requirements.

·       The Committee had the discretion to accept the application.

·       The applicant should submit a different scheme with more affordable housing.

 

In response to points raised in debate, the Locum Planning Lawyer stated that the registered housing providers made a determination about passive charging points not the applicant.

 

In response to points raised in debate, the Development and Conservation Manager stated that the Local plan had a starting point of 40% affordable new homes, the viability report from the applicant stated that, this was not viable. An independent consultant assessed the report, and they confirmed that the 40% affordable housing was not viable. Under the NPPF Policy this was deemed an acceptable reason.

 

Councillor Steve Jarvis proposed that the application be refused, and Councillor Dave Winstanley seconded, and following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 21/01882/FP be REFUSED planning permission as the proposed development would make insufficient contribution towards meeting the District’s affordable housing needs identified in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031 and therefore would conflict with the aims of Local Plan Policy HS2.