Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Lower innings, associated interbal road, parking, landscaping, amenity space and open space.

RESOLVED: That application 23/00563/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Audio Recording - 9 minutes 50 seconds

 

Councillor Nigel Mason declared an interest and moved to the public gallery.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

 

·       Section 2.1 reference to policy HD6 is incorrect and the correct policy HD3 which is considered in the report.

·       Section 4.3.1 report to defer to enable applicant to review application to access point to Southeast of site together with wording on Condition 8 with reference to cycle path and pedestrian network review and addressing reasons for deferral.

·       It was noted that Alexander Greaves is incorrectly referred to as Kings Counsel rather than Counsel.

·       Section 4.3.16 should read “highway code does not seek to address”

·       Section 4.3.25 – it was noted the monitoring fees are missing from table.

·       The Applicant and agent had agreed to pre commencement conditions.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/00563/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

 

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

 

·       All properties in the development would be fitted with solar panels.

·       There would be 21 affordable homes.

·       A maintenance company would be responsible for the upkeep of the communal areas and play area and provisions would be made to monitor the management of the open spaces in the S106 agreement.

·       The main access to the development would be via Oughtonhead Lane. Members were concerned about the disabled access at this point. It was not proposed to make many changes to the Lane as this would alter the character of the area. There was still concern that this is the only vehicular entrance to the site.

·       Safety measures would be set out in the Construction Management Plan, and this was covered by Condition 7.

·       A letter had been sent by the applicant to the occupants of the management company regarding request for access via Bowlers End. This was again refused as this is a private road.

 

The Chair 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:

 

·       Traffic from the development was estimated to be around 233 vehicles per day, equating to 27 per hour in the daytime and 30 per hour in the evening.

·       Roads surrounding the site, including Oughtonhead Lane, Westbury Close and Redhill Road were all heavily congested.

·       Concerns were raised over air pollution in this area.

·       There were many pedestrians and cyclists in the area of Lower Innings and Redhill Road.

·       The crossover on Oughtonhead Lane was deemed to be against the Highway Code, as it would not give priority to horse riders, pedestrians and cyclists. There would be a need for prominent signs on the crossing.

·       The sight lines had been missed from the technical drawings.

·       Construction traffic would be exiting the site via Lower Innings, which was disappointing to the residents.

·       A bond to cover any damages incurred by construction vehicles was requested from the developer as part of the application.

 

There were no points of clarification from members.

 

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

 

·       He had already spoken to the committee in July 2023 and February 2024 to object against this application. The legal advice received by the Council advised that these two applications were linked.

·       There had been 97 comments, with all but 1 opposing this application.

·       There was much discussion at earlier meetings regarding the road and pedestrian safety, but no decision was made and consultation with other parties had not taken place.

·       It was noted that conditions would be put in place, but not necessarily enforced before commencement of work, only sometime before occupation and there were concerns as to whether the conditions would be enforced.

·       Residents of Lower Innngs should have access to the progress in monitoring actions and compliance contained in 8.2 of the report.

·       It was noted that uncertainty in February 2024 almost got a refusal for this application.

·       This site is a significant problem with its execution, which should be addressed before the application is approved.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

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

 

·       This was the fourth time this application had come before the Committee.

·       The first application was narrowly passed in July 2023, following assurance that consideration could be given to access at the meeting where this application was considered. However, in the February 2024 meeting this assurance seemed absent.

·       The Committee must decide whether vehicles can cross Oughtonhead Lane without being a threat to other users. Objections to this application have always been about the safety aspects.

·       Formal conditions had been improved but had raised more questions than answers.

·       Technical plans were great, when they are seen by residents.

·       There should be no housing built until Oughtonhead Lane can be crossed safely.

·       Any progress on the development should be made transparent to residents.

·       Lack of permeability to the site.

·       The request for access at Bowlers End has now been refused, leaving one access by Oughtonhead Lane and Redhill Road, where there is a primary school.

·       There were concerns regarding how traffic would be managed around Lower Innings to access the site.

·       There has never been a safe entrance for this site.

·       He believed it was a mistake to consider this as two applications, and residents would like this to be reconsidered as one application.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

N.B. Councillor Nigel Mason, following the conclusion of his presentation, left the Chamber for the remainder of this item.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Mason for his presentation and invited Mr Neil Farnsworth as the applicant, to speak in support of the application. Mr Farnsworth thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The application submitted on 15 February 2024 had been deferred. An update by the management company had been sent to Cala Homes.

·       Policy HD3 had been included within the adopted Local Plan.

·       Vehicular access, impact on the character of the area and amenities had been approved.

·       There were no objections from Hertfordshire Highways or the Rights of Way Officer.

·       The development complied with the NPPF and Highways plan.

·       The site was not in the green belt and Biodiversity net gain would be met.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the site access and road markings has been agreed by the Council and Hertfordshire Highways, who had been consulted and had no objections.

 

Councillor Michel Muir proposed to approve planning permission and Councillor Mick Debenham seconded.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       Having looked at the site and surrounding roads, it was felt there was nothing to vote against on this application.

·       Concerns were still raised about the access, particularly wheelchair access to the site.

·       The area was unsteady underfoot with no additional entry.

·       This was now a responsibility of Hertfordshire County Council Highways to be lobbied to provide adequate standards.

·       The responsibility will now be for the management company to ensure the maintenance of facilities.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/00563/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.