Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of three detached dwellings (1 x 3-bed,1 x 4-bed and 1 x 5-bed) and with associated infrastructure and landscaping

RESOLVED: That application 24/02606/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the following amendment to Condition 10 and the addition of Conditions 20 to 23 as follows:

 

‘Condition 10:

 

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the vehicle to vehicle inter-visibility splays of 2.4 metres by x 57 metres to the eastern direction and 2.4 metres by x 59 metres to the western direction shall be provided and permanently maintained as shown on the drawing (Ref-196661-001), Within which, there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600 mm and 2.0 metres above the carriageway level. These measurements shall be taken from the intersection of the centre line of the permitted access with the edge of the carriageway of the highway respectively into the application site and from the intersection point along the edge of the carriageway.

 

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan.

 

Condition 20:

 

No development shall take place (including any ground works, site clearance) until a Biodiversity Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall be informed by the November 2024 Ecological Assessment Report and include the following:

a) Review of site potential and constraints.

b) Details of any necessary working methods to prevent harm to wildlife.

c) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate.

d) Persons responsible for implementing the works.

 

The Method Statement must include a timetable for the delivery of measure on site and any agreed measures are to remain on site thereafter.

 

Condition 21:

 

No development shall take place until an Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) for the creation of new wildlife features such as hibernacula, the inclusion of integrated bird/bat and bee boxes in buildings/structures, as informed by the November 2024 Ecological Assessment Report, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed measures are to be implemented on site prior to the first occupation of the first dwellinghouse hereby approved and shall remain on site thereafter.

 

Condition 22:

 

The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition "(the biodiversity gain condition") that development may not begin unless:

(a) a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and

(b) the planning authority has approved the plan.

 

The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if one is required in respect of this permission would be North Herts Council.

 

There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply.

 

Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements are considered to apply.

 

Condition 23:

 

No development shall take place until the details of the boundary treatment for the habitat protection area and access to this area, are submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the LPA and these details shall be implemented on site before the first occupation of the first dwelling hereby approved and thereafter shall remain on site.’

Audio recording – 6 minutes 09 seconds

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report and supplementary document and advised that:

 

·       An update to the report had been published as a supplementary document and four conditions relating to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) had been included.

·       An additional map had been provided in the supplementary document, which was attached to the original s106, which had been located and provided for further clarification regarding existing landscaping conditions.

·       Condition 10 in the report required an amendment and instead of ‘Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted vehicle to vehicle inter-visibility splays…’, the condition should read ‘No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the vehicle to vehicle inter-visibility splays...’.  

 

The Area Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 24/02606/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Louise Peace

 

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

 

·       There had been no indication from County Highways that the 30mph zone would be extended and no objection or suggested conditions had been received.

·       There was no objection from the Inspector to the site being outside of the settlement boundary. The objection was related specifically to the size of plot 3.

·       There would be a connection point to existing rights of way, but this would be agreed at a later stage by condition.

 

The Chair invited Ms Lynne Bogie to speak against this application. Ms Bogie thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Applications for this site had previously been rejected by this Committee.

·       There had been a similar application for a site in Barkway recently, which was outside of the village settlement, and the Officer recommendation in that case was to refuse due to the weight which should be placed on this consideration.

·       There were modest benefits to the scheme, but these did not outweigh the harm done.

·       The site was on a 60mph road with no provision for pedestrians.

·       A recent application for Tussocks in Therfield was deemed to be unacceptable within the village boundary without the provision of a pavement. This should be applied in this case.

·       This site had been specifically rejected from the adopted Local Plan.

·       There was already a significant level of development in Therfield and the village could not support further luxury housing outside of the settlement boundary.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Ruth Brown, Ms Bogie advised that the site referenced in Barkway was a greenfield site.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Bogie for her contribution and invited Mr Simon Warner to speak as the agent to the applicant in support of this application. Mr Warner thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       This application represented a positive contribution on a brownfield site and was policy compliant.

·       Any negatives from the site would need to demonstrably harm the location in order to refuse the application.

·       Following the update to the NPPF in December 2024, this site was now considered brownfield, and the framework outlined that decisions should promote effective use of land which had previously been developed.

·       The previous application had been rejected on appeal due to design, and the Inspector had outlined that this was an eminently suitable location for housing.

·       This proposal reduced the size, both in height and area, of plot 3, which addressed the concerns raised by the Inspector.

·       The proposals would pose no harm to the countryside, would provide a BNG and would reduce the hardstanding area with new landscaping and drainage.

·       There would be a connection to the site from existing rights of way.

·       There had been no objections received from statutory consultees, including the conservation and ecological officers.

·       A review of this application had been conducted by an active planning barrister, who had advised that the changes made would make this application suitable for approval.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

 

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

 

·       There would be a connection to existing rights of way which would link with a network of footpaths through the village.

·       There had been no requests from Herts County Council for S106 contributions for footpath improvements.

·       The site was currently vacant.

·       The site had previously been used for a haulage and distribution company.

 

Councillor Amy Allen proposed to grant permission, with the amended Condition 10 and additional conditions in the supplementary document. This was seconded by Councillor Louise Peace.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

 

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

 

·       The site was not within the settlement boundary and should be refused because of this.

·       This development of 3 houses would not help to meet the 5-year land supply requirements.

·       The site was unsightly and discordant, as outlined by the Inspector, and it was a brownfield site with previous use as a depot for industry. Therefore, the visual enhancements to the site were clear.

·       The Inspector had agreed the site was eminently suitable for 3 houses and the issues identified at the appeal had been addressed in this application.

·       The prevention of development outside of boundaries was intended to prevent uncontrollable spread of settlements, but this was not the case here.

·       This site was developed and now derelict and it did not make sense to be considered outside of the village, as the facility had existed for years.

·       It was important that this did not set a precedent for other applications on village boundaries, but in this specific case the site was not greenfield. Therefore, any application outside of a boundary which was on greenfield would be considered differently to this application.

·       This application was better than for the site to be used again for haulage.

·       The design of the 3 properties was good and fitted with the rural landscape and neighbouring properties, with high quality and sustainable design.

·       A concern was the footpath connection to the site, which let down the sustainable credentials of the application.

·       Further consideration should also be given to reduction of the 60mph road speed.

·       This development would increase the ‘green’ on site from its current usage, with a new landscaping plan.

·       The site would provide lots of greenspace and would make a positive BNG contribution.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 24/02606/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the following amendment to Condition 10 and the addition of Conditions 20 to 23 as follows:

 

‘Condition 10:

 

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the vehicle to vehicle inter-visibility splays of 2.4 metres by x 57 metres to the eastern direction and 2.4 metres by x 59 metres to the western direction shall be provided and permanently maintained as shown on the drawing (Ref-196661-001), Within which, there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600 mm and 2.0 metres above the carriageway level. These measurements shall be taken from the intersection of the centre line of the permitted access with the edge of the carriageway of the highway respectively into the application site and from the intersection point along the edge of the carriageway.

 

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan.

 

Condition 20:

 

No development shall take place (including any ground works, site clearance) until a Biodiversity Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall be informed by the November 2024 Ecological Assessment Report and include the following:

a) Review of site potential and constraints.

b) Details of any necessary working methods to prevent harm to wildlife.

c) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate.

d) Persons responsible for implementing the works.

 

The Method Statement must include a timetable for the delivery of measure on site and any agreed measures are to remain on site thereafter.

 

Condition 21:

 

No development shall take place until an Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) for the creation of new wildlife features such as hibernacula, the inclusion of integrated bird/bat and bee boxes in buildings/structures, as informed by the November 2024 Ecological Assessment Report, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed measures are to be implemented on site prior to the first occupation of the first dwellinghouse hereby approved and shall remain on site thereafter.

 

Condition 22:

 

The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition "(the biodiversity gain condition") that development may not begin unless:

(a) a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and

(b) the planning authority has approved the plan.

 

The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if one is required in respect of this permission would be North Herts Council.

 

There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply.

 

Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements are considered to apply.

 

Condition 23:

 

No development shall take place until the details of the boundary treatment for the habitat protection area and access to this area, are submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the LPA and these details shall be implemented on site before the first occupation of the first dwelling hereby approved and thereafter shall remain on site.’