Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/00326/FP LAND ON, CAMPFIELD WAY, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, HERTFORDSHIRE

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Redevelopment of site comprising demolition of existing buildings and provision of 157 dwellings; associated roads, landscaping, open space, car and cycle parking provision, drainage and infrastructure works and all associated ancillary works (as amended)

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 24/00326/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

(1)   The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required.

 

(2)   The delegation of powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise a NHS contribution, and to update conditions and informatives with minor amendments as required.

 

(3)   Conditions as set out in the report.

 

Minutes:

Audio recording – 6 minutes 01 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 24/00326/FP had been published as a supplementary document and highlighted that:

 

·       The applicant had agreed to the pre-commencement conditions, therefore point C in the resolution was no longer required.

·       There was an error at paragraph 4.8 of the report regarding the housing mix, which should be 45 1-bed flats, 43 2-bed flats and no 3-bed flats. The correct mix was outlined at 5.2.9 of the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/00326/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Clare Billing

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

 

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

 

·       The area had been a later addition to the Conservation Area but was its own character area due to the unique social purpose and adherence to Garden City principles of the site.

·       Whilst the site did provide heritage value, the units could not be retained as they were in poor condition, and individually they did not have value.

·       The Applicant did explore retention, but no units were suitable.

·       The Applicant could provide further information on whether museum storage for one of the units was considered.

·       There was a bus service on Icknield Way.

·       The Highways Authority offered advice on the number of parking spaces provided on site.

·       The parking provision was lower than required standards on site, but as there were a significant number of 1-bed flats, the proportion of spaces provided could be lower.

·       There was a provision of visitor parking spaces throughout the site.

·       It was felt that overall the parking provision was suitable for a location within an urban area, and a good provision of cycle storage had been included to help balance the shortage of parking spaces.

·       Around 50% of the bungalows were still occupied, but the Applicant could provide further details on this.

·       The recommendation on sound proofing had been requested by Network Rail and had been agreed with the Applicant.

·       There were no plans to install Solar PV, likely due to the Conservation Area character, but heat pumps were proposed which were efficient and would be suitable for the units on this site.

 

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that new government regulations had been announced on 24 March 2026, to come into force on 24 March 2027, requiring homes to be delivered with lower carbon solutions, including solar panel installation.

 

The Chair invited the Public Supporter, Richard Clayton, to speak in favour of the application. Mr Clayton thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       He represented the Hawksley Bungalow Steering Group and provided comments on behalf of residents Mr Steven Fish and Ms Julie Baldock.

·       Mr Fish had been a lifelong resident on the site and had happy memories of the estate and bungalow. However, he understood the need to move on, as the bungalows no longer met modern living standards.

·       This proposal offered the opportunity to provide new, warm and decent homes, in a good environment, which were sympathetic to the Letchworth Garden City philosophy.

·       Ms Baldock was a tenant in one of the bungalows and had experienced that these properties were no longer fit for purpose and the new proposal for housing was a must.

·       Whilst she understood the historic relevant of the site, modern housing was required to bring new people into the town.

·       The existing properties were cold, mouldy and expensive.

·       Several tenants had already moved out of the site temporarily, but were looking forward to moving back into the new accommodation.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair then invited the Member Advocate Supporters, Councillors Amy Allen and Sean Nolan to speak in support of the application. They thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       The scheme to redevelop this site had potential to be transformational for residents and this modernisation was vital for the ward.

·       They wanted to ensure that those living in the area would not be impacted by the works.

·       As part of the Construction Management Plan, no parking should be allowed on Icknield Way or the surrounding roads.

·       As parking was already an issue for the area, further details and information was needed on the parking provision throughout the development.

·       There were some concerns that settle/Paradigm did not yet have ownership of the land, and this needed to be confirmed.

·       They supported the application, which brought new social housing to the area, was welcomed by residents and had engaged the community well throughout the process.

·       It would be beneficial to keep the footbridge open and maintained throughout the construction period, as this was a vital route to the allotments and school sites, with only a long detour to avoid using the bridge.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair then invited the Applicant, and their Agent and Representative, Helen Pearson, Maddie Wild and Phil Rogers, to speak in support of the application. Ms Pearson thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       This development had been approached not just to build homes, but to provide places for people to live.

·       The demand for social and affordable housing was increasing.

·       The proposal was for a good standard of housing, which would provide roots for families to build their new lives.

·       These existing homes were now at the end of their lifespan, and it was important to look ahead for the next 60 years. This would provide a long term solution, rather than renovating failing homes.

·       The proposal would demolish the existing 60 bungalows and these would be replaced with 157 homes delivered on the site.

·       There had been engagement throughout the process with residents, who had broadly accepted the need to develop the site in this way.

·       All homes would meet or exceed the required standards and a mixture of private gardens, public open spaces and play areas would be provided, which had been developed alongside residents.

·       There would be some Biodiversity Net Gain provided on site, with the remaining requirement being delivered off site.

·       The decision to demolish the existing bungalows had not been taken lightly, but the costs of renovating existing properties would not be viable or long term. It was important that investments were made to ensure future provision.

·       A like-for-like replacement was considered, but it was felt more units could be appropriately delivered on the site.

·       As the estate was half empty, there had been an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime.

·       This scheme would provide modern, safe and sustainable homes for the residents of tomorrow.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor Clare Billing

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

 

In response to points of clarification, Ms Pearson advised that:

 

·       Roughly 50% of the site was currently empty. They had worked with the Steering Group to offer a right to return, a right to a home which would meet needs and an option to split families into separate units, where an adult child was living at home.

·       They were working with freeholders and leaseholders to buy back control at appropriate stages.

·       They had worked closely with the schools and had identified that the footbridge was a key route for students travelling between sites during the school day.

·       Whilst there was a need to close access to the footbridge due to the highways works required as part of phase 1, this would be minimised where possible and would be reopened once phase 1 was completed.

·       There were similar problems with the maisonettes, but these were currently owned by Settle/Paradigm on a leasehold basis and they were working with the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation to explore options.

·       Residents in shared ownership properties would be responsible for their own homes and garden maintenance, but Settle/Paradigm would maintain the rest of the site.

·       They had worked closely with residents, but understood this was an impact on people. The build would take place in two phases, and residents would be moved into properties completed during phase 1 before phase 2 began.

·       Lots of work had already taken place to move people off site once and into a new home. However, there were 5 or 6 families where work was ongoing one on one to identify a suitable solution.

 

In response to points of clarification, Ms Wild advised that all construction workers would be encouraged to use sustainable travel, but parking would be provided on site only and workers would not park on Icknield Way.

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Rogers advised that the bridge fell outside of the site boundary and was under different ownership. However, it had been agreed that the footbridge would be kept open for school students, with a secure passageway provided during phase 1 of construction.

 

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

 

·       There were 26 fewer parking spaces provided than required. However, there were 27 visitor spaces provided which would help meet some of the shortfall, and a car club space would be provided.

·       Overall, the planning balance was in favour of granting permission for this application, as the benefits outweighed the harm.

·       The concerns around the footbridge closure had been discussed early in the process. However, there needed to be a balance against delivery and the closure was required for works to be carried out. The footbridge would only be closed during phase 1 of construction, with an agreement in place with the school for student access during the day, which was the best solution possible.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

 

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

 

·       The scheme appeared well thought through and the Applicant had engaged with local partners.

·       Whilst some residents were understandably concerned about moving home, overall, this scheme delivered a net gain of 69 dwellings, 100% of which would be affordable, which was desperately needed across the district.

·       It would be difficult for some residents who had lived on this site all their life, but it was a suitable proposal to upgrade the site.

·       It would be good to retain an example of the bungalows for its historic architecture, but they were no longer suitable for purpose as dwellings.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 24/00326/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

 

(1)   The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and the applicant agreeing to extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required.

 

(2)   The delegation of powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise a NHS contribution, and to update conditions and informatives with minor amendments as required.

 

(3)   Conditions as set out in the report.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 20.02.

Supporting documents: