Agenda item - 25/00571/FP Land North Of, Milksey Lane, Graveley, Hertfordshire

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of 24 dwellings including creation of vehicular access off High Street, associated parking, drainage, amenity space and landscaping

RESOLVED: That application 25/00571/FP be GRANTED planning permission, subject to:

a) the completion of a S106 agreement in line with the agreed Heads of Terms, and delegation to the Development and Conservation Manager the negotiation and agreement with the applicant a revised contribution towards improvements to the playground on Ashwell Close, following further correspondence with the Parish Council.

b) A response of no objection and any relevant conditions from the Local Lead Flood Authority, to be delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager prior to any decision.

c) A response of no objection and any relevant conditions from Hertfordshire County Councils LEADS (Ecology) following the carrying out of relevant surveys, to be delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager prior to any decision.

d) A response of no objection and any relevant conditions from Hertfordshire County Councils LEADS (Archaeology) following the carrying out of a geophysical survey and trial trenching evaluation and consultation with HCC as appropriate, to be delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager prior to any decision.

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

f) the conditions laid out in the report.

Audio recording – 11 minutes 13 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 25/00571/FP and advised a question had been asked by Councillor Louise Peace which would be addressed during the Member questions.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/00571/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Dave Winstanley

· Councillor Tom Tyson

· Councillor Nigel Mason

· Councillor Emma Fenandes

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Caroline McDonnell

· Councillor Dave Winstanley

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

· The Applicant and Agent for both application 23/00186/FP and application 25/00571/FP were the same. However, the landowner was different and therefore the two applications needed to be considered separately and would not qualify for 40% provision of affordable housing.

· A condition for landscaping had been included, as outlined at 4.3.26 of the report, to add additional screening in plots 1 and 2.

· The access to the site was expected to be before the speed limit change from 30MPH to 50MPH. Hertfordshire County Council Highways had provided a response to consultation and requested conditions, including that a Road Safety Audit be conducted, following which visibility splays and road speeds would be considered at the access point.

· The Council was signed up to a scheme with Natural England and, in certain areas, a scheme to mitigate against impact on great crested newts was required to be developed and countersigned by Natural England.

· The mitigation payment would go towards the prevention of damage to habitats of great crested newts.

· As part of the proposal new footpath links were proposed for the southwestern part of the development, which would lead onto existing footpaths in the village.

· At the time of the meeting no comments had been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority.

· The density on this site was considered against other schemes within Graveley, and, given the similarity of density, it was deemed appropriate development.

· The Parish Council had not made a formal request for an amount in Section 106 contribution and the amount £6300 was included as this was included in the previous scheme for 10 dwellings. This amount was noted as being subject to further review and indexation to inflate amounts both in terms of inflation and increase in units.

· Trees would be retained at the west of the site.

· As part of the Road Safety Audit included by condition, further consideration would be given to any changes required to the Highways.

· The inclusion of 24 swift bricks in the development was outlined under condition 17.

· Additional surveys had been requested in the response from the Ecology consultant, which would be completed ahead of development and reviewed by the Ecology team to ensure any further mitigations were put in place.

· Whilst additional surveys were completed, the Section 106 agreement would be progressed.

· Condition 14 outlined the requirement of an Environmental Risk Assessment to be conducted, which would ensure no contamination of the site existed.

In response to points raised during questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer noted that the Section 106 Heads of Terms currently outlined a figure required and was not indexed linked and was therefore no opportunity for the Parish Council to request further funds.

In response to points raised during questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that authority could be delegated to himself to agree the exact amount of Section 106 requested by the Parish Council.

Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed to grant permission, with the additional delegation to the Development and Conservation Manager to agree the Section 106 contributions, and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Emma Fernandes

· Councillor Caroline McDonnell

· Councillor Bryony May

· Councillor Tom Tyson

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Nigel Mason

Points raised during the debate included:

· Often housing designs in rural settings like these were not sympathetic to the area and were more urbanised in style.

· The number of dwellings on site should have been identified at the Local Plan approval stage, with the numbers increasing from 8 dwellings to 24. Therefore, there was concern that this development was not necessarily appropriate to the rural setting.

· Whilst the housing design was not ideal, there was still a generous spacing of properties, the site was sustainable from a transport perspective and would provide 8 affordable dwellings.

· Developments on the edge of existing villages which had their own specific access was not always appropriate for a village setting.

· Concerns remained about the speed limit on the existing highway, which would hopefully be addressed by the Road Safety Audit.

· There were only 2 objections received to the application from existing residents.

· There was a concern that the house design was more appropriate of a sub-urban site.

· The Parish Council had not objected to the plan.

· Housing design, styles and materials had changed in newer developments.

In response to points raised during the debate, the Conservation Manager advised that if objections were raised, in response to the outstanding consultations referred to in the recommendations, the application would return to the Committee for reconsideration. The outstanding items usually related to technical aspects, which were expected to resolved by Officers, but there could be situations in which reconsideration was required by the Committee.

N.B. During the Debate, the Chair held a brief pause to allow a Member to resolve a personal matter. There were no further contributions during this pause and the meeting resumed at 19:54.

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