Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of 10 dwellings (6 x 3-bed, 3 x 4-bed and 1 x 5-bed ) including creation of vehicular access off Police Row, associated garaging, landscaping, drainage infrastructure and ancillary works (as amended by drawing nos. JBA 23_231 01, JBA 23_231 02, 19251-100A; -101B; -102B; -103B; 104C; -106C; -110B; -113B and -114B received on 09/02/2024, drawing no.SK04 received on 13/05/2024, drawing nos. 19251 - 107D; -1001G; -1002F; -1003F; -1005C received on 17/06/2024, and drawings nos. 19251 - 105D; -111B and -112D received 25/06/2024, drawings nos. 1925 - 1004F received 27th June 2024; and drawing -19328-THER-5-SK001-E received 3rd July 2024).

RESOLVED: That application 23/01885/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

A)      The completion of a S106 agreement in line with the agreed Heads of Terms;

B)    The receipt of the Impact and Conservation Payment Certificate following an application to Natural England under the GCN District Level Licensing (DLL) or any other means to address impact on GCN and a response of no objection from the North Herts Ecologist;

C)    Seeking to address the objection from the Highway Authority relating to refuse collection, which the Highway Authority have indicated can be reasonably achieved, and this matter is delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager and the Chair of Planning Control Committee, so that this application would not need to come back to Planning Committee for this reason alone;

D)    The agreement to an extension of time to the statutory determination date to allow time for (A), (B) and (C) to occur; and

E)    The conditions and informatives recommended in the report, and any other reasonable and necessary conditions that are recommended by the Highway Authority.

 

And the following additional Condition 35 to read:

 

“Condition 35:

 

Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no gates shall be provided across the access to the site.

 

Reason: In the interests of local visual amenity and to comply with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”

 

 

 

Audio recording – 9 minutes 16 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided updates, including that:

 

·       A draft section 106 agreement had been received, which had been forwarded onto the legal team at the Council.

·       The current recommendation subject to the receipt of impact assessments had been updated, due to changes in the approach of the applicant to address the issues and it was not possible to consult with the Ecology Officer ahead of the meeting.

·       The Highways Authority continued to object to the application, due to the collection of refuse from the site. However, the proposals outline the collection of refuse from Police Row which was acceptable in the planning balance, and it was therefore considered that refusal for this reason would not be sustainable.

·       If the refuse matter can be resolved, without compromise to the design, then the matter should be explored further.

·       Should Members consider current refuse proposals to be unacceptable, then a proposed further amendment to the recommendation for resolution to grant had been circulated which would allow the Development and Conservation Manager, alongside the Chair of the Committee, to make this decision to prevent the application returning to Committee for this reason alone.

·       There was an error at paragraph 4.3.52 and an archaeological report had been received and was included on the website.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/01885/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Affordable housing requirements only applied to developments of 11 or more dwellings. If the application was for 12 dwellings, then 3 units would need to be affordable to be policy compliant.

·       There was only one access point proposed to the site within the application, but there was an informal footpath to the south.

·       Any open spaces in the proposals were expected to be for any Therfield residents and would not be sectioned off.

·       The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had been consulted and this is detailed in points 4.3.53 to 4.3.57 of the report. They noted the need to have regard to SUDs and boreholes but raised no objection subject to the inclusion of 3 conditions.

·       It would be unreasonable to reject the application on flooding grounds, as no objection had been received from the LLFA.

·       In assessments undertaken, and outlined at 4.3.46 to 4.3.49 of the report, there would be ecological and biodiversity gains. These had been consulted on with the Ecology Officer who had proposed 2 conditions.

·       The application was submitted prior to the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements being mandatory and so it is beneficial this is being done regardless.

 

The Chair invited Parish Councillor Andy Osbourne to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Osbourne thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       It had been 8 years since the application was first lodged for this site.

·       The Parish Council acknowledged that the site was included in the Local Plan but could not comprehend how this had been the case.

·       Therfield was an historic village, with low density housing, open character and surrounding green spaces.

·       This site was the last remaining meadow within the village and was located adjected to the conservation area. The meadow was grade 3 agricultural land.

·       The site was frequently used by dog walkers.

·       There would be an impact on the neighbouring grade 2 listed buildings.

·       Therfield village and Hay Green were separate parts of the village and previous applications had been rejected due to the coalescence of these two separate parts.

·       There was a further application for 7 houses within the village boundary and, should both be approved, that would represent a 10% gain in houses in the village.

·       The proposals would lead to the character of the village and its countryside setting being lost.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Andy Osbourne for his presentation and invited Mr Charles Archer to speak against the application. Mr Archer thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       There were two specific issues he wished to address, including dangerous traffic situation and the low level street lighting proposed.

·       This road through Therfield was known to be a cut through between the A505 and A10 which caused high levels of traffic and often speeding.

·       Along Police Row, cars were often parked on the pavement and pedestrians use the site for safety.

·       Cars and agricultural vehicles often came to a head on Police Row, as there was not sufficient passing space.

·       The direction of the road and the position of the sun would turn the corner into a blind spot for motorists.

·       There was little public transport provision from the village.

·       The proposals would lead to around 40 to 60 additional car journeys per day.

·       Cars had been recorded doing between 35 and 40mph on this section of 30mph road, and proposals to address this by removing hedgerows was not appropriate.

·       The low level street lighting proposed was not appropriate and the village had previously opposed any form of street lighting, as it was in a dark skies area.

·       There were serious failings in the design and layout of the proposals and the solutions proposed were for problems which need not exist.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Archer advised that:

 

·       The Lynx bus service operated in the village, but this was chargeable and only callable via an app, which was not available at all times of day and was often very busy.

·       Points regarding the road being less safe related to the introduction of a junction into the site off Police Row.

·       Street lighting would make the road conditions safer, but this was contrary to the nature of the village which was in a dark sky area.

 

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

 

·       There were concerns around the drainage from the site, which had historically been a water storage site.

·       He lived in a property on a similar site and during the winter the garden regularly flooded.

·       The calculations did not account for greenfield run off.

·       The arrows included on plans were only relevant if that is how the water flows during flooding.

·       The storage pond was poorly located and badly designed.

·       Drainage would be from the south of the site, but would need to go to the north of the site to connect to the public sewer.

·       There were already issues of the sewer flooding and contaminating nearby chalk streams.

·       There was no commitment from Thames Water to upgrade the sewers.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Small for his presentation and invited Mr Jake Pavet-Golding to speak, as agent to the applicant, in support of the application. Mr Pavet-Golding thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Wheatley Homes had reached out to the Parish Council to work with them alongside this application, but the opportunity was not taken up.

·       They continued to work closely with Council Officers and statutory consultees throughout the process.

·       Proposals had been designed to take inspiration from local architecture and agricultural history of the area.

·       There was a large set back from Police Row to the proposed units.

·       This site would see the delivery of a high level designed scheme, which complimented its surroundings.

·       There would be a community orchard planted to the south of the site, which would exist in perpetuity.

·       The proposed drainage basin would be landscaped.

·       The open spaces enhanced the northern boundary of the site and would prevent any further coalescence of Therfield and Hay Green.

·       The proposed refuse collection would take place from Police Row, which was the same situation as other houses along this road. This had been proposed as it was felt detrimental to the site design to include space enough for a refuse vehicle to turn and it was felt this would undo conservation gains.

·       This design was being used as a template for other sites within North Herts.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Bryony May

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Pavet-Golding advised that:

 

·       There had been no intention from the applicant to only deliver 10 units to avoid affordable housing commitments, it was felt that 10 units was most suitable for the design and mix.

·       There would be public amenity open spaces, the attenuation basin would be landscaped and the community orchard would be designed.

·       The mix of properties was agreed with the Council and deemed appropriate.

·       Solar panels were not proposed for this site, but all units would be designed to modern standards and would achieve Part L requirements without the need for solar panels.

·       The proposed bin collection point would be at the front of the site and it would be the responsibility of the residents to ensure bins were put out appropriately. Refuse workers would not be expected to enter the site to collect bins.

·       The site had been tracked so a fire engine could turn and therefore delivery vehicles would be able to.

·       The site design was most important and working with Officers, it was agreed that 10 units was most suitable for the site.

·       The garages would be slightly larger than usual to ensure that they could fit, and be used by, modern cars.

 

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

 

·       Many different issues had been raised, but this remained an allocated site in the Local Plan and there was no objection in principle.

·       Other areas of concern, such as conservation, coalescence, flooding and highways access, had all been addressed. 

·       Therfield had been classed as a Category A village in the Local Plan, meaning development was allowed within the settlement boundary.

·       Policy circumstances had changed since the previous application, namely the adoption of the Local Plan.

·       He was not initially aware of the dark skies area, but the low level street lighting proposed had subsequently been removed once this was discovered.

·       Highways had raised no objection to access from Police Row.

·       Removal of existing hedgerow was required for access and this was proposed to be replace with other planting on site.

·       There were 3, 4 and 5 bedroom houses proposed on the site.

·       Highways had advised that it would be possible for a refuse vehicle to enter the site and turn around, should collection from Police Row not be acceptable to Members.

 

The following Members asked further questions:

 

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

 

In response to further questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The recreation ground opposite had a small car park and he was unsure if this led to parking on Police Row, but this had been indicated as the case in public comments received.

·       The Parish Council did not approach for section 106 contributions, but had been asked.

 

In response to further questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       If permission was granted, then the sewage company must make provision to service the development.

·       Sewage companies had a statutory duty to avoid spillages, but some had been acting illegally. However, planning determinations cannot be considered along those issues and would not be a defendable reason for refusal.

 

Councillor Amy Allen proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Michael Muir

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·       There were concerns about parts of this application, but could not see legal grounds for refusal.

·       There were safety concerns for refuse crews and parking along Police Row.

·       The site had been allocated in the Local Plan, which went through 5 and a half years of thorough consultation and examination.

·       There were lots of positives about this application.

·       It was disappointing the Parish Council had not worked with the applicant to get the best contribution for their community.

·       The plans would have been better had they included two smaller affordable units.

·       The removal of low level lighting was welcomed.

·       The gated access to the site should be removed as was the policy across North Herts.

·       Lack of smaller and affordable houses meant the development would likely be unaffordable for younger residents already living in the village.

·       There were concerns regarding the safety of the road and the impact on pedestrians using the footpath.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       There was no policy to require solar panels on developments. The desire was for sustainable housing and this application met Part L requirements through other methods.

·       The Sustainability SPD was being progressed but currently no policy requiring solar panels existed.

·       The removal of the gate to the front of the site was possible by condition, as had been done on previous application.

·       While the section 106 agreements and wildlife assessments were reviewed, the access of refuse vehicles could be considered again in consultation with Highways and, if possible, agreed with the Chair. If it could not be agreed, it would return to the Committee.

·       Due to the size of the site it would not be lawful to require a pedestrian crossing over Police Row.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/01885/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

A)      The completion of a S106 agreement in line with the agreed Heads of Terms;

B)    The receipt of the Impact and Conservation Payment Certificate following an application to Natural England under the GCN District Level Licensing (DLL) or any other means to address impact on GCN and a response of no objection from the North Herts Ecologist;

C)    Seeking to address the objection from the Highway Authority relating to refuse collection, which the Highway Authority have indicated can be reasonably achieved, and this matter is delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager and the Chair of Planning Control Committee, so that this application would not need to come back to Planning Committee for this reason alone;

D)    The agreement to an extension of time to the statutory determination date to allow time for (A), (B) and (C) to occur; and

E)    The conditions and informatives recommended in the report, and any other reasonable and necessary conditions that are recommended by the Highway Authority.

 

And the following additional Condition 35 to read:

 

“Condition 35:

 

Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no gates shall be provided across the access to the site.

 

Reason: In the interests of local visual amenity and to comply with Policy D1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 20.57.