Agenda item - 22/02628/FP LAND AT 1-36 FREEMANS CLOSE, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Proposed residential development for 48 dwellings comprising 30 apartments, 14 two storey flats and 4 houses with associated vehicle and cycle parking, open space, access and ancillary works following demolition of existing buildings (as amended by plans and documents received 10th March and 19th May 2023.)

RESOLVED: That application 22/02628/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Planning Obligation, with the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required and the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager with amended conditions 6, 7 and 9, and an addition to informative 5.

“Condition 6:

Before commencement of the highways works and landscaping works relating to this development, additional plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which show the provision of pedestrian dropped kerbs and tactile paving across the site at all key junction points / pedestrian desire lines. The works shall be implemented as approved by this plan before first occupation.

Reason: So that all users of the development can safely, conveniently, and sustainably walk and wheel access the site, in compliance with paragraphs 110-112 of the NPPF, and Inclusive Mobility 2022.

Condition 7:

No dwelling forming part of the development shall be occupied until the bus stop along Westmill Road (120 metres south of Freemans Close) has been upgraded. The upgrade shall include build out of the kerbline to the Westmill Road carriageway edge (i.e. removal of the layby) and raised Kassel kerbing. Before first occupation of any part of the development, this work shall be completed.

Reason: To ensure residents and visitors of the development have the realistic option of travelling by local bus routes, and not a reliance on the private motorcar, in accordance with paragraphs 110 - 112 of the NPPF and in accordance with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan (2011-2031.

Condition 9:

Before the development hereby approved is first occupied, all on site vehicular areas, including internal access roads, forecourts, garages, carports and external parking spaces, shall be accessible, surfaced, marked out and fully completed in accordance with the approved plans. Arrangements shall be made for surface water from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway.

Reason: So as to ensure satisfactory parking of vehicles outside highway limits and to minimise danger, obstruction, and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the premises.

Informative 5:

A Sustainable Highway improvements/sustainable transport contribution of £24,640 (index linked to SPONS January 2019) is payable by a Planning Obligation.”

Audio recording – 1 hour 45 minutes 28 seconds

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason declared an interest and left the Chamber at 21:09.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

· There had been discussions with the applicant regarding the wording of Condition 6 and this would be amended.

· The applicant agreed to accept amendments to Condition 5.

· Further amendments were proposed to Condition 6, as well as amendments to Conditions 7 and 9.

· The Planning Obligation was to be referred to as a Unilateral Undertaking which was a legal deed. Unlike a bilateral S106 agreement these do not have to be entered into by the Local Authority. A Unilateral Undertaking would come into effect when planning permission was granted.

· The planning permission would then be granted subject to completion of a satisfactory planning obligation with time to extend if required and contain the same Informatives and Conditions as amended as the report.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/02628/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Mick Debenham

· Councillor David Levett

· Councillor Steve Jarvis

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

· When the application was submitted 36 properties were occupied. 9 properties would be moved to flats in phase 2 and the remaining 27 were temporary lets to the Local Authority.

· There was a shortfall of parking spaces on the site, however this had been considered by Highways and was deemed acceptable, with the use of on street parking and the expected low level of car owners and was highlighted at 4.3.53 of the report.

· The Condition 2 mentioned on page 97 of the report was a Highways condition and formed Condition 6 of the report recommendations.

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

· Whilst he had been supportive of Phase 1 and 2 there were several outstanding concerns regarding this application for Phase 3 of the development.

· There were concerns that the project missed an opportunity by not using photovoltaic cells (PV) on all of the properties.

· The report from the applicant was vague and stated that they would consider using solar panel at the next stage.

· There were concerns regarding the housing mix, as 1 bedroom dwellings were not selling and there were demands for family sized homes.

· The development had originally been 100% social properties this had now changed to just 40%.

· The application had no consideration for the disruption to the local area during construction or any countermeasures.

· The parking provisions were not adequate and related to a 2018 survey.

· The number of parking spaces included in this application kept changing and was vague.

· It was not clear if the proposed parking spaces took into account larger vehicles.

· The lack of parking presented a safety hazard, especially to school children.

The Chair thank Mr Burgess for his presentation and invited Ms Shenaz Virji to speak in support of the application. Ms Virji thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

· This application was the third phase of the John Baker Place redevelopment for which settle had committed £15 Million of funding.

· This was a major investment in the area and would allow residents to thrive.

· This phase had 48 affordable homes.

· Phase 1 had been a 100% affordable scheme for 37 retirement homes and retail units.

· Phase 2 was under construction for 46 affordable houses.

· The current houses in Freeman Close were undersized, not efficient and did not meet current living space standards.

· The phase would provide new, well insulated homes.

· The development had been designed after consultation with North Herts Council to meet the housing needs of the community.

· The dwellings would meet the new energy building regulations and have a fabric first approach to insulation.

· The applicant had been working closely with Officers, the Community and residents of the Westmill Estate.

· Settle was committed to this investment and the positive outcomes for the Westmill community.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Dave Winstanley

· Councillor Mick Debenham

· Councillor Michael Muir

In response to points of clarification, Ms Virji stated that:

· The road would be widened to 6 meters.

· The intention was to met, part L of the building regulations with dwellings having a fabric first approach to insulation. Consideration would then be made regarding either solar PV or heat pumps.

· There were solar PV panels on Phase 1 of the development which had been built under the old building regulations and these were beneficial to the elderly residents. This had resulted in a 10% improvement on the building regulations.

· They would start with the fabric first insulation and then decide the best approach to meet the building regulations.

· There was a high demand for 1 and 2 bedroom properties, which could be attributed to the bedroom tax, there was also a need for larger accommodation, so it had been decided to provide a mixture, of small and large dwellings.

· There were options in the application for heats pumps and this would be dependent on what best met the needs of the residents.

The Chair thanked Ms Virji for her presentation and invited the Senior Planning Officer to respond to any points raised.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that:

· There were Conditions for the energy statement to be updated. The statement proposed that there would be solar panels on the larger flat blocks and air source heat pumps for the dwellings.

· There was no policy regarding solar panels in the Local Plan.

· The details of the housing mix were shown at paragraph 4.3.20 of the report and was supplied by the Housing Supply Officer.

· The application did not meet the policy for housing mix but did meet the local need. The policy was flexible on density, and the local housing need was for smaller units.

· The Housing Supply Officer advised on the housing mix and considered it acceptable.

· The affordable housing policy had a 40% requirement, requests over this amount cannot be a requirement.

· The development proposed a mixture of 65% affordable rentals and 35% shared ownership homes.

· Conditions 10 and 16 related to the impact on construction and included a traffic management plan.

· Condition 17 restricted the hours of construction.

In response to a disclosure of interest from Councillor David Levett, the Locum Planning Lawyer confirmed that there was no conflict of interest from being a settle tenant.

Councillor David Levett proposed and Councillor Dave Winstanley seconded, and following a vote, it was: