Agenda item

Members should notify the Chair of other business which they wish to be discussed at the end of either Part I or Part II business set out in the agenda. They must state the circumstances which they consider justify the business being considered as a matter of urgency.

 

The Chair will decide whether any item(s) raised will be considered.

The Chair advised that there had been one item of business notified for 25/00104/FP Land to the Rear of Banyers Hotel, King James Way, Royston, Hertfordshire, SG8 7BZ. The Chair provided reasons for its notification and advised that it would be considered as urgent under this item on the Agenda.

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/00104/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Audio recording – 6 minutes 8 seconds

 

The Chair advised that there had been one item of business notified for 25/00104/FP Land to the Rear of Banyers Hotel, King James Way, Royston, Hertfordshire, SG8 7BZ.

 

The Chair reported that the item was deferred from the Planning Control Committee on 17 July 2025 as the Member Advocates who called-in the application were not present at the meeting (as required under the Members Planning Code of Good Conduct) and did not arrange for another Member to present on their behalf or provide a written statement for the Chair to read out in their absence, as required under 6.1 of the speaking procedure for the Planning Control Committee.

 

However, the matter could not wait until the scheduled meeting of the Committee on 7 August as the statutory period for the matter to be determined had already been extended (to 30 July 2025), meaning that the Council could be liable to appeal against the failure to determine the application.

 

Therefore, the Chair advised that the item would be considered as urgent under this item on the agenda.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 25/00104/FP and advised that:

 

·             Two further letters of objection had been received from the occupiers of number 4 and number 29 King James Way which could be found on the Council website.

·             Concerns from residents had been raised on highway safety, lack of parking, adverse impact on local wildlife and trees as well as the potential impact of the development on the setting and significance of adjacent listed buildings.

·             The occupier of number 33 Hunters Mews had highlighted inaccuracies in the daylight and sunlight assessment and queried some of the below standard 25-degree guidance results.

·             In response, consultants working for the Applicant advised that images found in Appendices D and E of the assessment report demonstrated that neighbouring properties were not cloned as a single unit and this was further clarified by aerial view modelling provided.

·             They also advised that existing buildings had been accurately positioned in the report using the site layout and topographical survey drawings that had been submitted with the application.

·             Only five windows on number 33 Hunters Mews retained at least 80% of their former vertical sky limit value as per the guidelines of the Building Research Establishment (BRE). However, all windows retained over 15% of their former value which was considered acceptable for urban developments.

·             It was acknowledged that the 25-degree guidance had not been met and consultants had followed further guidance to address this by undertaking additional checks. These revealed that adequate levels of daylight could be received by number 33 Hunters Mews.

·             The full response from the consultants could be found on the Council website.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/00104/FP and gave a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Dave Winstanley, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             As the statutory 10% net biodiversity gain would not be achieved on-site, the Applicant would need to purchase the required habitat units from a land bank and submit certification of this to the Council to discharge the biodiversity net gain condition on the application.

·             The 10% net gain would be measured against the biodiversity already existent on the site. 

 

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Ms Mary Petch to speak against the application. Ms Petch thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             The application ignored the prominence of the Grade I listed building at number 18 Melbourn Street.

·             Despite the ownership change of the land, the development was still within the curtilage of the listed building and the relevant planning restrictions should apply.

·             Rich history was buried beneath the land and there had been no proposal to excavate the land to investigate its past.

·             Residents of King James Way were worried about the overspill of parked vehicles that might arise from the development as there was already insufficient parking in the nearby area. 

·             There were also concerns over rainwater runoff from the site and that drainage was not adequately equipped to accommodate increased water flow.

·             Wildlife on the existing site was incredible and its loss because of the development would be felt greatly by neighbouring residents.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Petch for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Mr Steve Brickles to speak against the application. Mr Brickles thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             They were the resident of number 33 Hunters Mews and the Director of Hunters Mews Residents Association which represented residents of both Hunters Mews and Dog Kennel Lane.

·             The daylight and sunlight assessment supplied by the Applicant was factually incorrect as it excluded number 30 Hunters Mews from the report, classing it as a property on Dog Kennel Lane, and numbers 31 to 35 Hunters Mews were merged into one property which could be seen on pages 16 and 17 of the report.

·             Because of this, the report did not identify that number 33 Hunters Mews was the closest and most effective property to the proposed site with seven windows facing it. All seven windows would be less than 5.5 metres away from the west elevation of the proposed residential building.

·             East facing windows of number 33 had enjoyed uninterrupted light for twenty-five years, providing natural light for several primary rooms and the only light for both sets of stairs, landing and hallway within the property.

·             If the 25-degree rule was applied, five out of the seven east facing windows would receive almost no light and be in constant shade as evident on pages 32 and 33 of the report which showed that they failed the light test with some windows losing up to 43% of their existing light. 

·             Members should remove the data manipulation described from their decision-making process.

·             It was expected that the main occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be 25-34 years old. They would be the least likely age group to fully utilise the local amenities within walking distance such as the health centre, banking hub, day care nurseries, primary schools and High Street.

·             The site was on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), within a conservation area on Grade I listed land, and adjacent to a Grade II listed building, thus having a major impact on these properties. 

·             The proposed height of the two-storey building seemed unnecessary and had been designed to potentially house more residents in the future.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Bryony May, Mr Brickles advised that an Ecology Advisor had informed them that the site was within the impact zone of Therfield Heath which was an SSSI. Because of this, Natural England would need to be consulted as the application fell into the residential category of development.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Brickles for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Cathy Brownjohn to speak against the application. Councillor Brownhjohn thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             The development was too large, too dense, unduly high, too close to neighbouring dwellings, unsympathetic to the conservation area, would not provide to demographics that would use local amenities and would impact the light within existing neighbouring properties as already outlined.

·             Two further objections on the application had been received recently from an Ecology Advisor and the Local Lead Flood Authority. These objections were related to the development being within the impact zone of an SSSI and flood risk respectively.

·             Its location conflicted with listed buildings and lower density housing nearby.

·             Royston had more than fulfilled its housing obligation with many large developments already constructed, in the build phase or in the pipeline. 

·             Developments had already provided hundreds of houses at the outer edges of the town, pushing its spatial footprint to the limit of capacity and stretching its resources such as water and services.

·             The application would not serve the need for affordable housing nor provide the type of housing that those wanting to live in a central location would need such as families and the elderly.

·             The site was within a surface flow water path meaning that there would be an increased risk of surface water flooding.

·             The Lead Local Flood Authority recommended that the application should pass a sequential test which should be carried out as a matter of urgency.

·             The open green space on the site was not only a space for wildlife but also acted as a CO₂ sink.

·             Traffic was an existing problem in Royston with the A10 running through its centre and the loss of town centre amenities in recent years meant some residents drove across the town frequently to access alternatives.

·             Given the above concerns and the right to light of neighbouring properties, the Committee should further investigate the application. 

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Brownjohn for her presentation and invited the Applicant, Mr Hamish Borno to speak in support of the application. Mr Borno thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             Hard work had taken place with the Senior Planning Officer to shape the application into its current state.

·             Both local and national planning policy had been accounted for and there was no policy reason for the application to be refused.

·             Therfield Heath was roughly two miles away from the proposed site with approximately 500-1,000 dwellings between it and the application site, making it difficult to understand how the development would impact the SSSI. 

·             The daylight and sunlight assessment met the BRE guidelines which had been verified by the Senior Planning Officer.

·             The Highways Authority were satisfied with the application. 

·             Pollution was not relevant to planning policies required to be met by the development.

·             The land on the proposed site had never been owned by number 18 Melbourn Street and was not related to it.

·             The archaeological assessment did not require them to excavate the site before construction.

·             By working with all parties, they had satisfied all policy requirements and were hopeful that the Committee would grant the application.

 

In response to points of clarification from Councillor Martin Prescott, Mr Borno advised that:

 

·             He disagreed with Mr Brickles on the daylight and sunlight assessment.

·             The public had been consulted through the public consultation process, with details of these responses included on the planning portal.

·             Decisions on applications needed to be made considering local and national planning policy.

 

Councillor Emma Fernandes proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Dave Winstanley.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Mick Debenham

·             Councillor Nigel Mason

·             Councillor Dave Winstanley

·             Councillor Caroline McDonnell

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·             The application met all the planning considerations, however, the major opposition from nearby residents was concerning.

·             There was disagreement between the Public Objector, Mr Brickles and the Applicant on the accuracy of the daylight and sunlight assessment.

·             The previous application for this site was refused and it was unclear what had changed about the application since its refusal. 

·             The roof height seemed out of proportion with the development and there could be potential for living space within the roof.

·             The development was in a good central location and young occupiers would reduce car use in the town centre. 

 

In response to points made in the debate, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             BRE guidance was a widely recognised document that provided guidelines for assessing daylight and sunlight schemes, however, it was not legally binding and was intended to be flexible to help with decision making.

·             The daylight and sunlight assessment had been undertaken by a professional lighting engineer who had used the BRE guidance and modelling tools as part of the assessment.

·             The consultants acknowledged that some of the windows on number 33 Hunters Mews had failed to meet the percentages in the BRE guidance, however, flexibility was needed in urban situations where it was not always possible to achieve these percentages. 

·             Retaining as little as 15% of the former light was considered by many authorities as acceptable in urban settings as detailed previously.

·             Images in the document showed that all properties had been modelled and consequently, all windows had been accounted for.

·             The Conservation Officer was satisfied that the impact of the development on the Grade I listed building at number 18 Melbourn Street was not significant as the harm was at the lower end of the less than substantial scale.

·             An archaeological condition on the application required a written scheme of investigation to be submitted by the Applicant and assessed by the Historic Buildings Advisor at Hertfordshire County Council. 

·             The development was not within the Local Plan but was within the urban area and town centre of Royston which was acceptable, and the application had been looked at on its merits.

·             The previous application was unacceptable due to its height, the number of dwellings, the impact on adjoining residencies and its design as it was three storeys in height and on a different alignment.

·             Since the previous application, the Applicant had moved the building to an east-west alignment after recommendations from the Conservation Officers, reduced its height by one storey and incorporated design features to make it more acceptable within the conservation area.

·             Plain roof tiles were expected on dwellings in conservation areas and they required at least a 35-degree pitch, therefore, the steep pitch of the proposed building was consistent with the conservation area. 

·             There would be no permitted development rights in the roof space of the proposed building, therefore, building further dwellings into the roof space would require planning permission.

·             Planning permission to add more dwellings into the roof space would likely be refused as there would be a need for additional parking spaces, amenity space and the building may be unacceptable in its altered appearance, however, it would depend on the application.

 

In response to points in the debate, the Team Leader Major Sites advised that:

 

·             Permitted development rights would not apply to the building as the dwellings were flats rather than houses and were also within a conservation area, therefore, no condition would be needed on the application to prevent the enlargement of roof space.

·             The addition of dormer windows would also require planning permission.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/00104/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings at 19.58 and the meeting reconvened at 20.03.