Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Erection of new convenience retail unit (Class E); alterations to means of access and reorganisation and extension of car park, including the change of use of land from residential gardens and the installation of EV charging points; demolition of outbuildings to pub and external alterations including the erection of garden pergola and structures, new patio and external lighting and installation of new cold store and covered walkway to back of house and replacement of part of kitchen extraction system.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01947/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 and with the following additional Conditions 17 and 18 and the following amendment to informative 3 and the addition of informative 8.

 

“Condition 17:

 

The retail unit hereby permitted shall not be open to customers and there shall not be any deliveries outside the hours of 07:00 until 23:00 Monday to Sunday and Bank Holidays.

 

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy D3 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031.

 

Condition 18:

 

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted lighting scheme (Plan No. 020-16-E-01) and retained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the development minimises light pollution and to protect wildlife and habitats in accordance with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 and Section 15 of the NPPF (2023).

 

Informative 3:

 

It is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway or public right of way. If this development is likely to result in the public highway or public right of way network becoming routinely blocked (fully or partly) the applicant must contact the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements before construction works commence (such as the installation of a box junction or keep clear marks). Further information is available via the website https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/highways-roads-and-pavements.aspx telephoning 0300 1234047.

 

Informative 8:

 

The applicant shall investigate a scheme of sustainability measures for the shop building, including the installation of solar panels. If sustainability measures are deemed to be feasible, they shall be implemented on site and retained thereafter.”

Audio recording – 6 minutes 49 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

 

·       There was an addition to the end of the Condition 7 to read, ‘or any other such agreement’.

·       There was an addition to the end of Condition 9 to read, ‘the applicant should liaise with the Highways Authority with regards to any changes that may need to be made to the kerb line at the site accesses.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/01947/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

 

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

 

·       The blue line on the plan showed the visibility splays and were a Highways requirement which allowed motorists to have a complete view of Cambridge Road. These splays complied with Highway standards.

·       There would be four, 4-metre-high lights on the site, the operational hours of these lights had not been stated.

·       A transport assessment had been completed and concluded that there would be no impact on traffic. Highways therefore did not have any objections to this application subject to Conditions and Informatives.

·       The car parking spaces would be open for public use.

·       Highways assessed the application, and the visibility splays were acceptable to their standards.

·       It was assumed that the light post to the right of the exit would remain.

·       The river was situated by the Millstream Pub on the other side of the road.

·       There was a detailed landscaping plan for the site, with any vegetation outside of the site boundary remaining in place. There was an ecological assessment in the report that assessed the development as no, unacceptable harm to the area and would comply with policy.

·       A condition regarding the sites opening hours could be requested.

 

In response to a point of clarification, the Development and Conservation Manager stated:

 

·       The site was within flood zone 1 which was the lowest risk of flooding from rivers or sea provided and was outside any flood plain.

·       The river was situated outside of the development site.

·       There were proposals in the report for the impact of heavy rain and ground water.

 

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

 

·       The development would dramatically alter the current quaint and calm site.

·       When the site was completed, it was anticipated that there would be 1100 vehicles entering the site daily compared to the current 50.

·       There were eleven traffic hotspots in Hitchin with three traffic hotspots close to this site on the A505. During peak time this road was bumper to bumper.

·       Peak usage of the shop would coincide with peak traffic times.

·       From a recent traffic survey 1 car turned into this site in peak time compared to 153 cars at a local, same sized supermarket.

·       Hertfordshire Constabulary Design Team had concerns regarding the busy Cambridge Road and this development site.

·       There were conflicts with 10.2 of the Local Plan and the retention of local shops.

·       There would be alcohol sold at both sites.

·       There were 120 reported crimes between August 2021 and July 2023 within 100 metres of this site.

·       The application failed on all 4 of the licensing objectives.

·       There were already local shops nearby and this new store would put them at risk.

·       There was a petition against this development containing more than 800 signatures.

 

The Locum Planning Lawyer advised that the licensing concerns could not be considered in a Planning application.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Tom Tyson, Mr Singh stated that:

 

·       They had surveyed traffic between the hours or 07:00 to 08:00 and again from 16:00 to 19:00 for all vehicles entering the Anchor pub site.

·       Two other people surveyed traffic outside the Tesco store by Hitchin station and Tesco in Stopsley using the same time frame.

·       Form the survey information they took the least number of cars from the surveyed time and multiplied it by the 17, the expected number of opening hours to get the 1100 vehicle movements.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Singh 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:

 

·       The construction work would disturb and affect the wildlife on Purwell Meadow and the increased site activity would have long term negative effects on the nature reserve.

·       The existing lighting was not bat friendly and the proposed lighting was even less friendly.

·       The biodiversity net gain for habitats would be satisfied by the planting of 6 new trees, however these would take 27 years before the net gain would actually be achieved.

·       There were 598 two way traffic movements expected to this site from the Cambridge Road on a typical day. This was a projected increase of 3.9% and would still increase congestion.

·       There were busy roundabouts, traffic lights, narrow bridges, bus stops and pedestrian crossings close to this development which all contributed to congestion and noise pollution.

·       There would be an increase of road noise and pollution to nearby houses.

·       There had already been two fatalities on this road since 2014.

·       The new store would detract trade from already established stores.

·       There were concerns regarding the drainage proposals for the site, which had previously flooded.

 

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

 

·       There were concerns from local residents living in the terrace that adjoined the Anchor Pub, whose gardens backed onto the development site.

·       Their main concerns regarding traffic, pollution, security and the impact on Purwell Meadow.

·       It was currently difficult to turn into the site due to traffic congestion and the new development would cause longer queues.

·       The site and the congestion would increase the noise and effects of pollution on their health and wellbeing.

·       The opening of a store would exacerbate the existing inconvenience of this already busy road.

·       There were concerns that this development would pose an increased security risk to their homes, with darker areas leading to anti-social behaviour.

·       If there were brightly lit areas this could cause light pollution to their homes and Purwell Meadow.

·       The development posed a risk to the safety of the local families.

·       The new bat boxes would not mitigate the loss of extensive wildlife and the damage to the area.

·       There had been 38 registered objections to this proposal.

·       There was no place or need for a store on this site.

 

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

 

·       The transport statement assumed that trips to the store would primarily be by foot.

·       It was projected that there would be 598 two way movements in a typical day to the site, of which some would be existing journeys. The resident survey suggested that the actual number of trips would be significantly higher.

·       The resident survey stated that pedestrian trips amount to 30% of those journeys.

·       All these journeys impacted on an already congested road.

·       Extending the isolated car park would increase the risks to local homes, including security, anti-social behaviour and littering.

·       There were currently several local stores within a short walk of the proposed site.

·       The site was prone to flooding and was on a busy road.

·       The were more homes currently being built in this area that would increase the road capacity.

·       This was not the right site for this development and the infrastructure needed to be upgraded.

·       Local residents had raised concerns regarding the proposal.

 

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

 

·       The application was for a Sainsburys local and improvements and enhancements to the Anchor public house.

·       The Pub sector was struggling and not viable, the proposed development would protect the long term future of the Anchor public house.

·       This development would protect existing jobs and create new ones.

·       The proposed store would generate investment in the public house by increasing trade.

·       The proposed store was small and passed the sequential test for urban developments.

·       There would be 12 to 20 new jobs created.

·       Impact on local business was not a planning consideration.

·       The Highways authority had no objections to the detailed transport statement.

·       The access point was assessed by Highways for safety and standard visibility splays had been implemented.

·       There would be on site parking for the disabled, parents and children as well as EV charging points.

·       There had been no objections from the LLFA, and the development would improve drainage conditions by desilting the existing surface water drainage network and by adding drainage gullies to the Cambridge Road.

·       The 10% Biodiversity net gain was not mandatory to this scheme.

·       It was believed that the scheme would achieve a 28% biodiversity net gain due to landscaping and ecological enhancements.

·       The scheme included bat and bird boxes and hedgehog houses and should not adversely impact on the nature reserve.

·       The proposed lighting scheme would ensure that there would be no spillage beyond the site boundary.

·       There would be EV charging points and cycle parking.

·       Six new trees would be planted, and the existing vegetation would be retained.

·       This was a high quality designed building on an appropriate site in keeping with the local character of the area.

·       The application complied with all levels of the planning policies.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Val Bryant

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr McLeod stated that:

 

·       There would be six cycle parking spaces outside the retail unit, these were not shown as being covered but this could be considered.

·       There would be improvements to the outdoor dining area of the Anchor, with the erection of a pergola and new patio.

·       10 pubs were closing a day and this retail unit investment would also be an investment in the public house.

·       The retail unit met the sustainability requirements and would have energy efficient lighting and water systems. Roof solar panels could be investigated.

·       The client had previously invested in similar successful projects linking a public house and a retail unit.

·       Highways were satisfied with the traffic survey and had provided a robust transport statement, however without the full details of the assessment from Mr Singh, no comment could be made.

·       The trip data assessed that in 2021 there were 15273 two way trips on a typical day, the projected increase of 3.9% or 598 two way trips was not considered severe.

 

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

 

·       The TRICS database method was commonly used and accepted by Planning Inspectors as the main form of assessing traffic generation.

·       This database is accessed to identify the potential impact of a particular development. This was common practice of predicting the traffic flow.

 

In response to a point of clarification the Locum Planning Lawyer stated that:

 

·       The applicant submitted a Transport Statement in June 2023, the TRICS data was shown on page 12 of this statement.

·       Although the areas taken for the TRICS data were not stipulated the details were highlighted in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the transport statement.

·       The Cambridge Road was named when analysing the traffic impact as detailed in paragraph 3.3 of the transport statement.

 

The Chair thanked Mr McLeod for his presentation and invited the Senior Planning Officer to respond to any points raised.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Highways had stated there would be 598 two way trips per day of which 40-46 would be at peak time.

·       Highways consulted with the applicant and gave their opinion that the development would have no significant harm on the Highways network subject to Conditions and Informatives.

·       There had been no ecological objection to this application.

·       Conditions could be suggested, subject to approval, for opening hours, lighting times, sustainability regarding solar panels and a biodiversity net gain ecology Condition, if appropriate.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       There were concerns regarding the increased traffic on the Cambridge Road.

·       There were concerns regarding the impact on the landscape.

·       The loss of meadow views could be outweighed by the increased employment.

·       There would be increased traffic but no highways grounds to turn down the application.

·       Whether a lighting condition would be enforceable, which would mitigate the impact of the development on wildlife.

·       There was a condition for the opening hours of the store in the report.

·       A box junction would assist with the traffic.

·       There should not be any deliveries outside the trading hours of the shop.

·       This was a good site for solar panels.

 

During the debate the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       A lighting scheme had been submitted with the application, and this showed the proposed lighting levels, which were the lowest suitable lighting level for the proposed use. The lighting would be fitted with cowls to reduce light scatter.

·       The proposed opening hours were between 7am to 11pm, seven days a week. A condition limiting these hours could be implemented.

·       There was not a sustainability policy regarding fitting PV Panels to buildings, but a sustainability report could be requested from the applicant.

·       The applicant submitted an energy statement with the application and indicated that the scheme would achieve part L of the building regulations, PV panel were not required for a scheme of this level, however the site would have energy efficient lighting and insulation levels.

·       Solar panels on all south facing building could be considered for the new Local Plan.

·       Condition beyond the policy requirements should not be imposed on applications.

·       It was not uncommon for retail applications to have condition on their delivery hours, and these could be restricted to the same as the operating hours.

·       An Informative was a guide for the applicant, and there was no reason they could not be amended.

·       There could be an Informative to look into the possibility of solar panels.

 

During debate the Senior Planning Officer advised that a box junction was outside the red line boundary of the application.

 

The Locum Planning Lawyer advised that:

 

·       The public house had licensed hours but the proposed operating hours for the shop would be helpful. Without operating hours there could be an impact.

·       There were tests required for any Condition to be added, the first test was for necessity, would it be unlikely to go ahead with that Condition and was it a benefit. A solar panels Condition would not meet these tests.

·       An Informative could be used to emphasise the concern and encourage the applicant to review the matter.

 

Councillor Simon Bloxham proposed and Councillor Ian Mantle seconded and, following a vote it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/01947/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 and with the following additional Conditions 17 and 18 and the following amendment to informative 3 and the addition of informative 8.

 

“Condition 17:

 

The retail unit hereby permitted shall not be open to customers and there shall not be any deliveries outside the hours of 07:00 until 23:00 Monday to Sunday and Bank Holidays.

 

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy D3 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031.

 

Condition 18:

 

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted lighting scheme (Plan No. 020-16-E-01) and retained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the development minimises light pollution and to protect wildlife and habitats in accordance with Policy NE4 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 and Section 15 of the NPPF (2023).

 

Informative 3:

 

It is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway or public right of way. If this development is likely to result in the public highway or public right of way network becoming routinely blocked (fully or partly) the applicant must contact the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements before construction works commence (such as the installation of a box junction or keep clear marks). Further information is available via the website https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/highways-roads-and-pavements.aspx telephoning 0300 1234047.

 

Informative 8:

 

The applicant shall investigate a scheme of sustainability measures for the shop building, including the installation of solar panels. If sustainability measures are deemed to be feasible, they shall be implemented on site and retained thereafter.”

 

N.B Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings until 21:16.