Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 21/00541/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 26 minutes 23 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update and advised that the Parish Council comments dated the 25 March 2021 were missing from paragraph 3.4 of the report however, these comments were available on the Planning Portal and were included in Appendix A.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 21/00541/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair 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:

·       The application was for Local Plan site KM3 which had been allocated for 13 dwellings, this application was for 15 dwellings.

·       The village of Kimpton needed starter homes with 1 to 3 bedrooms. This would enable young people to remain in the village and older residents to downsize.

·       The site was ideal for a care home.

·       Should there be any future developments beyond this site a roundabout would be more logical.

·       Each dwelling would require two or more parking spaces.

·       Footpath 33 ran adjacent to the right hand side of the development, this should be protected as a condition as this was in constant use by villagers.

·       There should be mitigation for adequate drainage on the site.

·       The S106 money was welcomed however, the majority of villagers used Harpenden as their nearest town rather than Hitchin, and it would be more appropriate to allocate the money to that area.

·       The site should only be considered for 13 dwellings or for a care home.

In response to points of clarification from Councillor Val Bryant, Councillor Muncer advised that:

·       The application was submitted in 2021 and concerns would have been raised, had he been a Councillor at that time.

·       Concerns regarding Footpath 33 had been raised by residents at local events, who outlined it was used for dog walking and they would like it to be a protected green space.

·       Some elderly residents had expressed a desire to stay in the village, but options to downsize were not currently available.

The Chair thanked Councillor Ralph Muncer for his presentation and invited Mr Andy Moffat to speak as agent to the applicant, in support of the application. Mr Moffat thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·       The site was allocated for 13 dwellings however, this was a guide rather than a ceiling.

·       There was an indicative housing mix on the site, with adequate parking and drainage.

·       Five of the dwellings would be allocated as affordable housing.

·       The application was for outline planning and access.

·       The matter could be reserved for up to 3 years. A review of the housing mix would be considered at the reserved matters stage,

·       There was an agreement for S106 money for Hertfordshire County Council and North Herts District Council.

·       The benefits of the application outweighed the harms.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Michael Muir

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

·       Ideally a care home required 60 to 70 rooms to be viable and was therefore not appropriate for the size of the site.

·       The land beyond the site had the same ownership and was considered green belt land.

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

·       The housing mix was deemed acceptable in relation to the Local Plan, and the smaller units would be required for affordable housing.

·       The access was considered acceptable by Highways.

·       The public footpath 33 ran to the north of the site.

·       The east side of the site was used informally by walkers, but there was no public right of way. This area would not be restricted by the proposed development.

Councillor Tom Tyson stated that the principle of the development and access were fine, however some issued would need to be carefully considered when the application reached the reserved matters stage.

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Amy Allen and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 21/00541/OP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.