Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Reserved Mattersapplication forapproval ofthe detailsof theappearance,landscaping, layout and scaleof thedevelopment for80 dwellingsincluding streets, carparking, openspace andassociated works(pursuant tooutline application  17/01464/1  granted  02.11.2022)  (as  amended  by  plans  anddocuments received 30th October, 29th November, 20th and 22nd December2023 and 4th January, 7th February, 7th March and 18th April 2024). 

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/00743/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the removal of Condition 2 and the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Audio recording: 57 minutes 48 seconds

 

The Chair clarified for Members that outline planning permission had already been granted for residential development on this site including details of access. This was a Reserved Matters application to deal with the details relating to layout, landscaping, appearance, and scale.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

 

·       The applicant is Croudace Homes Ltd.

·       An extension to the statutory period had been granted to 19 June 2024.

·       Outline planning permission was granted on 2 November 2022, not 2011.

·       Condition 2 should be removed as it duplicates a condition on the outline application.

·       Granting “Planning permission” should read granting “Reserved Matters details”. The recommendation in 10.1 should be worded as follows: “That the Reserved Matters details are GRANTED subject to the following conditions.”

·       Further resident objections had been received regarding concerns about the boundary of the site and possible Japanese Knotweed, which had been covered by a landscaping condition requiring details of boundary treatment to be submitted and approved and with regard to Japanese Knotweed the applicant has been notified and no objection had been received on the application from Herts Ecology.

·       There were concerns raised that the 6-metre buffers to much of the hedgerow network endorsed by Herts Ecology was not consistent with the policy which states that 12 metres should be applied.

·       Whilst Local Planning Policy stated the provision of 12m buffers of complimentary habitat around wildlife sites, trees and hedgerows should be provided it was not an absolute requirement of policy.

·       A further representation was received from a neighbour regarding the protection of the wildlife on the boundary hedgerow and asked if the Council would consider asking that the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) offsetting was planted onsite. It was the officer’s understanding that at least 10% BNG could be provided on site, although a condition was recommended requiring an updated Biodiversity Metric.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/00743/RM supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Micheal Muir

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Louise Peace

 

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

 

·       The 10% biodiversity net gain had been secured on site. This was not clear in the outline application when it was submitted. The initial application was granted before the requirement for BNG.

·       Highways initially objected to this application, but minor changes had now been made to the layout and they had withdrawn their objection.

·       Proposals for Solar Panels and Heat Pumps would form part of the Energy and Sustainability statement required by condition on the outline planning permission.

·       Whilst most of the trees to be planted were situated in communal areas, some were sited in residential gardens and there was no condition which could be added to ensure that these would not be felled over time.

·       The 12-metre buffer was deemed not to be required on the whole site. The parameter plan had been approved as part of the outline application and a 12-metre buffer would be in place adjacent to the wildlife site with 6 metre buffers on the rest of the southern and eastern boundaries.

·       Access to the site was not being considered on this application.

 

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

 

·       Codicote village had fought an increased expansion of one third of the current size over the last few years, with problems of parked cars and increased vehicles.

·       Traffic now halted at peak times and travelled south and north to avoid the High Street.

·       Approved village expansion of 500 homes would add to the problems, as well as approval of development in the High Street with no parking.

·       The last full traffic assessment of Codicote was completed in May 2017. Since this the Council had approved much more development in the area.

·       The traffic data that decisions were based on was out of date. The application should therefore be deferred until a new traffic assessment could be undertaken.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

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

 

·       The Parish Clerk from Codicote wrote to Herts County Council in 2019 to highlight the problem of additional housing and school places in the village.

·       A transport assessment was submitted in July 2017 on behalf of residents to promote the need for a roundabout for access via St Albans Road and Cowards Lane.

·       Ordinance Survey map which this application had not used, showed 3 smaller ponds which had not been accounted for. To the right of this was woodland and a larger pond, with obvious connectivity for wildlife. Great crested newts had been photographed in the area.

·       Protection of wildlife was of vital importance as it cannot be replaced once gone. 

·       There were currently 240 homes being planned in Codicote.

·       A new assessment of pupil numbers and a highways assessment were required before this application could be passed.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

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

 

·       The resident had lived near to Cowards Lane for 24 Years, so knew very well of the traffic dangers in the area. The narrowest part was 1.8 metres wide with no adequate room for passing cars, ambulances or fire engines.

·       Cowards Lane would be used as the entrance and exit to the development. There was an old people home on Cowards Lane housing 40 elderly residents who would need access to ambulances.

·       Traffic had increased on Cowards Lane and the additional footpaths proposed would exit onto the narrowest point of this road, which was an accident waiting to happen.

·       It was felt this plan needed the roundabout in the high street to enable ambulances to leave.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

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

 

·       Developers do not just build houses, but homes and communities and these needed to be built correctly first time around.

·       Taking into account the wider impact to the community of Codicote, around 300 houses would be built over the next few years, without the infrastructure to cope.

·       Many residents of Cowards Lane and The Riddy were concerned regarding privacy. The 1.8 metre fence and hedging should be extended to plots 40- 54.

·       Application was originally granted for 72 dwellings, which changed to 83 and now reduced to 80. The application should be granted for 72 homes as originally agreed.

·       The plans were felt not appropriate and far from in keeping with the rural, more open landscape.

·       Residents would be able to see into other gardens and it was felt developers should go back to the drawing board to check on equal spaces between properties.

·       Planning conditions in Codicote have been breached. Officers must ensure that conditions are enforced and that breaches lead to repercussions for the developers.

·       Access to the development was not appropriate with a dangerous and busy junction.

·       Developers should have more consideration to the adopted Local Plan.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Muncer for his presentation and invited Ms Rachel Caplin to speak as the applicant. Ms Caplin thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The developer, Croudace Homes, were a family owned, well established, award-winning, high-quality developer.

·       The site was granted planning permission in November 2022 for up to 83 dwellings.

·       Following discussion with officers, it was now reduced to 80 dwellings. The dwellings comprised of 32 affordable homes and 48 private homes. The affordable dwellings comprised 65% social and affordable rent and 35% shared ownership.

·       There was seen a greater need for 2 bedroomed houses for rent. The scheme has a mix of 1-to-5-bedroom properties, with materials in the local context.

·       Flats would have communal gardens and all houses would have individual gardens.

·       The main access would be tree lined with a new planting scheme planned.

·       Air source heat pumps and PV panels were proposed to a number of units, delivering improved energy performance.

·       All units would be fitted with EV charging points.

·       The site plan includes a Local Equipment Area for Play (LEAP) with play equipment and wildflower meadow.

·       Drainage would be via a swale and a drainage basin in the northeast and southeast corners.

·       Planting would be used to soften the area whilst providing a feature of the pond and essential habitat for nature.

·       Most of the development was two stories, which was consistent with surrounding developments.

·       The scheme was part of collaboration with North Herts Council Officers and had resulted in a well-considered and sustainable scheme.

 

The following members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

 

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

 

·       There would be no obvious difference in materials between the private and affordable housing on the site.

·       The 2.5 story block had been planned for the highest part of the site as to be a landmark feature. The location was moved following consultee comments. Officers considered this a suitable location.

·       The initial policy document proposed 73 homes for this site and permission was granted for up to 83 properties, which had now been reduced to 80 following discussions with officers.

 

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

 

·       Traffic concerns were outside the remit of the reserved matters application, which was just to look at layout, landscaping, appearance and scale.

·       Highways had been consulted and had not objected and access to the site had already been approved.

·       There was a S106 agreement on the outline application securing a contribution towards expansion of Codicote Primary School. Hertfordshire County Council are monitoring spaces and the release of places in the school.

·       There had been no objections from the Ecology officers on the application.

·       The fencing would be secured by the recommended landscaping condition.

·       The construction traffic management plan condition on the outline application would be enforced as necessary.

·       Ideally the Council would like to see affordable housing spread across the site, and there had been amendments to the plan.

 

Councillor Ian Mantle proposed to approved planning permission and this was seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

 

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       Concerns were raised over the privacy of the residents in the Bungalows at The Riddy. There was a condition for the applicant to submit boundary details.

·       Members liked the scheme, landscaping, biodiversity and the installation of Heat Pumps and Solar panels.

·       There were concerns over the 2.5 story block being on the highest point of the development, but this was viewed as acceptable.

·       Due to the materials to be used, the look and feel of the development will not distinguish between the private and affordable housing.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/00743/RM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of Condition 2.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21.51.