Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 25/01790/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with additional Conditions 15 and 16 as follows:

 

‘Condition 15

 

Construction shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must prioritise the use of source control Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in consideration of the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and demonstrate no increase in flood risk as a result of the Proposed Development with sufficient supporting evidence provided to support its viability including supporting calculations for the 100% AEP (1 in 1 year), 3.33% AEP (1 in 30 year), 3.33% AEP (1 in 30 year) plus climate change, the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) and the 1% AEP (1 in 100) plus climate change critical storms. Infiltration testing shall be carried out to inform the detailed drainage design; if infiltration is not viable, a detailed drainage strategy based on discharging to the ordinary watercourse south of Snailswell Lane at the greenfield runoff rate shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

 

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Hertfordshire District Council.

 

Condition 16

 

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it shall be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment shall then be undertaken by a competent person, in accordance with BS10175:2011. A written report of the findings should be forwarded for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of remedial measures a verification report shall be prepared that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out. No part of the development should be occupied until all remedial and validation works are approved in writing.

 

Reason: To protect human health and to ensure that no future investigation is required under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.’

Audio recording – 1 hour 30 minutes 24 seconds

 

The Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to application 25/01790/FP and advised that:

 

·         A response had been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and an additional condition had been proposed, as outlined in the supplementary document.

·         Herts Archaeology had made representation and advised that they had no comments to make.

·         An additional Condition 16 had been proposed by Environmental Health relating to actions to be taken if contamination is identified during works.

·         There was a discrepancy identified on the mapping system, which had the neighbouring property labelled in the wrong position and with the incorrect spelling. However, the submitted plans were correct.

 

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/01790/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Val Bryant

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         A BOAT was a ‘byway open to all traffic’ and was the responsibility of Herts County Council Right of Way, rather than Highways.

·         The site was originally considered as not being inappropriate development in the greenbelt, but it was subsequently assessed to comprise development on greybelt land, as described in the submitted planning statement. Officers agreed with this assessment and there were no strong reasons for refusal of the application.

·         The site was considered as limited infill within an existing village.

·         As a greybelt assessment had been made alongside the infill consideration, it was prudent to assess both aspects.

 

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

 

·         The BOAT would be maintained by Herts County Council as the relevant authority.

·         Whilst the wider parcel of land to the north would be considered greenbelt, the site was considered as greybelt as it did not move the boundary further north than already existing properties.

 

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

 

·         There were three main concerns with this application, these were the highways issues, the character of the development and the loss of landscape.

·         The site would be accessed by a BOAT, which was essentially a rural track, not up to the standard of normal highways.

·         The proposal is to encourage sustainable transport, but cycling to the site was extremely challenging.

·         The room sizes on the plans would suggest a fourth bedroom could be created, which would further increase traffic movements and the BOAT was not safe or suitable for access.

·         The lane was rural in nature and allowing this infill would suburbanise the character of the lane and would establish a principle of development.

·         An apple tree on the site had already been removed and this loss of landscape was contrary to polices of the Local Plan.

 

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

 

·         This development would have a lasting impact on the existing family home due to the proximity and scale of the proposed dwelling.

·         The site prevents the crawl of properties on the lane and ensures open space.

·         It was proposed as a 3-bedroom house, but the size and layout included on the plans could lead to a 4-bedroom home, which would increase movements to and from the site.

·         The height and bulk proposed would be imposing to existing surroundings and the first floor window would overlook the existing property, Glenmore.

·         There were serious concerns about the access, with the lane already constrained and in poor condition. Construction traffic would make this situation worse and would cause potential obstruction to existing properties for both regular and emergency access.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Tom Tyson, Ms Eaton advised that the bungalow opposite the site, Glenmore, was one storey. The proposed first floor windows of the new dwelling would look directly into the bedroom and dining room.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Eaton for their presentation and invited the third Public Objector, Parish Councillor Phillip Crowe, to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Crowe thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         The Parish Council had submitted a concise and detailed report in objection to this application.

·         The lane represented one of the last rural parts of Ickleford and was part of the greenbelt.

·         The size and character of the proposed development would impact on the existing area, with bungalows along most of the lane, with 4 houses along it, which existed for historic reasons.

·         The entry access was not suitable, and the BOAT was primarily focussed on walkers and horse riders.

·         Ditches were already filled during rainy periods and this flowed into the River Hiz.

·         There were existing drainage issues in the area with the system unable to serve the lane adequately. Anglian Water were aware, as sewage incidents had occurred in this area.

·         Natural habitat, including a 35 year old hedgerow, would have to be destroyed.

·         There was a requirement on the Planning Authority to ensure no loss of biodiversity and that this should be enhanced through development, but without protections this was not possible.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Crowe for their presentation and Councillor Louise Peace to speak against the application, as Member Advocate. Councillor Peace thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         This application should be considered as an application for a 4-bedroom house in a rural area, which would make it inappropriate development in the greenbelt and was contrary to policies of the Local Plan and Ickleford Neighbourhood Plan.

·         Whilst the proposal was for a 3-bedroom dwelling, the size proposed would allow for 4 bedrooms.

·         The site was not within the defined settlement of Ickleford, therefore should not be considered infill.

·         The level of development in Ickleford meant that policies of the Local Plan were being contravened.

·         The National Planning Policy Framework outlined that safe and sustainable access was required for all users on developments.

·         Herts County Council Right of Way team define the lane as a highway, but only for the same level of use as footpaths or bridleways, and it was not in a suitable condition to support higher levels of usage by car.

·         There was a 500m walk to the nearest bus stop, with a bus that did not provide access to Letchworth or Hitchin stations.

·         The site does not fit the existing street scene, as it was too great in height, and was in conflict with the Ickleford Neighbourhood Plan.

·         Existing residents had already suffered from issues with sewerage overflow.

·         The application should be refused as the site was not sustainable, the height proposed was too high compared to existing dwellings and it would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours.

·         The application was not subject to biodiversity net gain requirements, as it was a self-build property.

·         A condition should be included, if permission granted, to require the dwelling be used as the main dwelling for the applicant for 3 years.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Val Bryant, Councillor Peace advised that there were busses from nearby the site, but these did not provide access to the closest train stations in Hitchin or Letchworth.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Peace for their presentation.

 

In response to points raised during the public presentations, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         An ecological enhancement condition had been recommended by the Ecologist and was the standard condition in line with Local Plan policies.

·         The internal space indicated on the plans would meet standards for a fourth bedroom. However, the parking provision requirement would remain as 2 off-street spaces.

 

In response to points raised during the public presentations, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         A condition requiring the applicant to live at the property for 3 years would not meet the test of necessity.

·         The application was for the erection of 1 self-build dwelling, therefore there was no requirement to add further conditions on the self-build element. If it was found not to meet the self-build requirements, then it would be liable for enforcement action.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         The condition of the BOAT was discussed with the Rights of Way team. However, works requiring resurfacing could not be forced on the developer.

·         The road would be maintained to a byway standard, but there were currently no plans to increase the level of maintenance of the BOAT.

·         It would be for the County Council Rights of Way team to maintain the standard of the BOAT.

 

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

 

·         The reference to 3 years of occupation was in relation to Community Infrastructure Levy payments and was therefore not relevant to a self-build.

·         A representation had been made on the application by the Right of Way team, not Highways.

·         Requiring the developer to complete unspecified works on land managed by the Highways Authority would not be reasonable to condition.

·         Condition 5 had been included following consultation with Highways and there had not previously been issues with enforcement of this condition.

 

In response to questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that:

 

·         The Committee needed to consider the application being presented and the information provided by Officers when coming to a decision.

·         Conditions were required to meet six tests, of which necessity and enforceability are two of these, which would not be met with a condition imposed on a potential fourth bedroom.

·         Imposing a condition to require the developer to conduct work to bring the BOAT to a higher standard would be unreasonable, as the BOAT was not in control of the applicant, nor was the applicant the sole user of this lane.

·         Condition 5 required the applicant to submit a Construction Method Statement for approval by Officers. The works would then have to be carried out in line with this plan, otherwise enforcement action could be taken.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission subject to the Conditions included in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the addition of Condition 15, as outlined in the Supplementary Document, and Condition 16, as outlined by the Planning Officer. This was seconded by Councillor Clare Billing.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/01790/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with additional Conditions 15 and 16 as follows:

 

‘Condition 15

 

Construction shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must prioritise the use of source control Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in consideration of the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and demonstrate no increase in flood risk as a result of the Proposed Development with sufficient supporting evidence provided to support its viability including supporting calculations for the 100% AEP (1 in 1 year), 3.33% AEP (1 in 30 year), 3.33% AEP (1 in 30 year) plus climate change, the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) and the 1% AEP (1 in 100) plus climate change critical storms. Infiltration testing shall be carried out to inform the detailed drainage design; if infiltration is not viable, a detailed drainage strategy based on discharging to the ordinary watercourse south of Snailswell Lane at the greenfield runoff rate shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

 

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Hertfordshire District Council.

 

Condition 16

 

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it shall be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment shall then be undertaken by a competent person, in accordance with BS10175:2011. A written report of the findings should be forwarded for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of remedial measures a verification report shall be prepared that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out. No part of the development should be occupied until all remedial and validation works are approved in writing.

 

Reason: To protect human health and to ensure that no future investigation is required under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.’

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings from 21.30 and the meeting reconvened at 21.33, at which point Councillor Louise Peace returned to the Committee.