Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/02547/FP LAND TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF SENUNA PARK, STATION ROAD, ASHWELL

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development of 36 no. dwellings including creation of vehicular access off Station Road, associated parking, drainage, amenity space and landscaping

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

(1)   That application 25/02547/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

 

a.     The proposal would have an urbanising effect on the village edge and the density of the site was not appropriate in a village location, which would result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the area.

 

b.     The application was in conflict with policies SP2, SP5 and CGB1 of the adopted Local Plan and ASH1 of the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan.

 

c.     The site was in an unsustainable location.

 

d.     The Heads of Terms for the S106 agreement were incomplete.

 

(2)   That delegation be provided to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the wording for the reason for refusal.

 

 

Minutes:

Audio recording – 56 minutes 29 seconds

 

N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson declared an interest as Member Advocate Objector and moved to the public speaking gallery.

 

N.B. Councillor Bryony May declared an interest due to involvement with the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens, who were making a S106 request on this application, and left the Chamber for the duration of this item. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 25/02547/FP had been published as a supplementary document and advised that:

 

·       A revised recommendation had been included in the supplementary document.

·       Due to an error on the planning mapping system, the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens had not been consulted but should have been due to the site being within the 5.8KM zone of influence of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

·       They had now been consulted and were requesting a contribution, in line with SP7 of the Local Plan.

·       There were no concerns with the Officers regarding this and the principle had been agreed with the Applicant, but not the final payment amount.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/02547/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

 

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

 

·       It was effectively an extension of the existing Senuna Park development, with both developments having a SUDs provision creating a green centre of the site.

·       It was understood the Applicant for both this, and the approved permission for Senuna Park, were the same.

·       The housing mix proposed not meeting the policies of the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan was a material planning consideration on this application.

·       As the Council did not have a 5-year housing land supply, as outlined in the NPPF, significant weight had to be given to the delivery of new homes.

·       24 live trees and 2 dead trees would be removed for access. This was discussed with the Applicant, but no other access for phase 1 was possible.

·       There would be 143 trees planted across the site once complete, therefore it was considered a suitable mitigation in terms of the planning balance.

·       Existing trees not to be removed would create a canopy effect over the road through the site.

·       The S106 Heads of Terms had been largely agreed, with just two matters outstanding relating to the amounts in contribution for the sports pavilion and contribution to mitigate the Therfield Heath SSSI requirements.

·       In most instances, Heads of Terms would be agreed before Committee, but if agreed at this meeting, the matter would be delegated to the Development and Conservation Manager who could agree this. If an agreement could not be achieved, it would be brought back to Committee to reconsider the proposal.

 

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Parish Councillor Graham Lee, to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Lee thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       The Parish Council objected to the application for a number of reasons.

·       The current proposal would add 36 houses, bringing the total on site to 64, which would be 39% larger than the 2017 application, which was rejected due to the harm outweighing the benefits.

·       The delivery of these houses would be contrary to Local Plan and Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan policies and this should be given more weight.

·       There was no demonstrable need for the housing mix provided, with 50% being 4- and 5-bed properties, directly in conflict with the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan policy.

·       There was a low demand for larger houses, with 25% of the houses built on the adjacent part of Senuna Park still empty a year after completion.

·       The development, if approved, would be nearly double the size of any other development site in Ashwell.

·       There was conflict with policy relating to the density of developments on village edges.

·       The site was 1 mile from the primary school and essential services in the village, with no sustainable travel options.

·       The recommendation relied too much on the lack of 5 year housing land supply, rather than the impact on the existing village.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair then invited the second Public Objector, Clive Hall, to speak against the application. Mr Hall thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       He spoke on behalf of the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens and they retained concerns of the approach of the Council to the SSSI at Therfield Heath and ensuring adequate mitigations were in place.

·       There were concerns that policies in the NPPF, the adopted Local Plan, the Developer Contributions SPD and the Therfield Heath SSSI Mitigation Strategy were not being considered.

·       The Mitigation Strategy had not been followed as the Conservators had not been consulted until 2 days before the Committee.

·       Where the SSSI has not been considered, the NPPF outlined that the tilted balance should be disengaged.

·       The developer has indicated that they are willing to make a contribution, but until this is formally agreed through Heads of Terms, the application should be refused.

·       The Planning Officer, once aware of the error, had worked hard to resolve the issue over the past 48 hours, but the application should be deferred until full consultation could take place with Natural England and the Conservators.

·       The Council had a duty to adhere to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which outlines that development should further SSSIs, not ignore them.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair then invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Tom Tyson, to speak against the application. Councillor Tyson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       He supported the points raised by the Parish Council in objection to this application.

·       The original application had been refused unanimously by the Committee, as it was deemed to be sub-urbanising the area and was not a logical extension to the village.

·       The site was outside of the settlement boundary and was huge when considered as a whole.

·       The previous application was considered as bolted onto the existing village and was deemed not suitable for development by the Inspector because of this. However, this application was now additional to the already approved bolt on.

·       The new bus service along Station Road did not cover key commuter times and therefore cars would be required to travel to the station, which already had existing parking issues.

·       There was no footway or safe cycle route from Ashwell village to the station, and the other way led onto an existing dangerous part of the A505.

·       It was a 25 minute walk from the outer extent of Senuna Park to the Ashwell Primary School, which was unreasonable to expect a parent to walk this to take a child to school.

·       It was too far away from the amenities provided in the village.

·       The design of the housing was not in keeping with the village. This provided a sub-urban look, which did not match existing houses on the outer village boundary, or other neighbouring villages, which usually were constructed with Arseley brick.

·       It clearly failed to deliver on SP1 and SP2 of the NPPF.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair then invited the Agent to the Applicant, Stuart Booth, to speak in support of the application. Mr Booth thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       The application for the adjacent development on this site had been allowed on appeal in April 2022. This scheme was now complete and providing housing in the village and helping to meet the delivery needs of the district.

·       As part of the adjacent development, onsite greenspaces, a pond and planting had been provided to soften the impact of the development. This application would seek to do the same.

·       The same team has worked on this proposal, with the same Applicant.

·       There had been a detailed visual appraisal completed as part of the process, which sought to mitigate loss of the key visual aspects.

·       There was no objection received in terms of the proposed landscaping and all consultees were satisfied with the proposals.

·       There had been changes made following discussions with the Planning Officer, but these had not compromised on the design approach. An example of this was that the visuals of the frontage of the dwellings had been amended to be sympathetic to the existing dwellings.

·       This proposal would provide a 50% Biodiversity Net Gain with significant levels of tree planting, other planting, open space and play areas provided.

·       There would be 40% affordable housing delivered on site, with discussions ongoing with a social housing provider.

·       The design proposed was considered acceptable by the Inspector on the previous application for this site.

·       The development, if approved, could be delivered within 5 years and would immediately impact on the housing land supply of the district.

·       In 2022, when the appeal was upheld, the Council had a housing land supply of 3.5 years, this was now at 2.6 years, which represented a 3,300 home shortfall.

·       The government was supportive of housing delivery, especially by small and medium sized developers, who needed sites like this to be able to deliver housing.

·       The proposal was compliant with national and local policies, with change made throughout discussions with Officers.

·       Should the application be refused, it was likely the Applicant would submit an appeal.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Clare Billing

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

 

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

 

·       No consultation had taken place with this application, as there was a need to delivery housing and the Applicant had previously been working on phase 1 of the site for 9 years, during which time significant public consultation took place and helped to identify issues previously raised.

·       They were not aware of any drainage issues on site.

·       There were some units on the phase 1 site for sale still, but the scheme had been completed and was fully built, with just a few remaining works required.

·       They were not aware of the specific size of the units remaining for sale.

·       The issue relating to the SSSI had been raised two days before the Committee and the Applicant had immediately accepted the principle but wanted to consider the contributions requested and ensure these were consistent with policy and met regulations.

·       He could now confirm that the amount had been reviewed and the Applicant would accept the request from the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens and the Heads of Terms on this could now be updated.

·       An updated request had been received for payment towards the sports pavilion, but the Applicant wanted to explore this calculation further, as there was no specific reference to how this should be calculated. A meeting had been requested with Officers to discuss this point further.

·       The figure provided was pro-rata on another development in Ashwell for 14 units and this helped shape the offered amount of £135k. This has been submitted to the Planning Officer and they were awaiting a response from the Parish Council.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of the public speaking, Councillor Tyson left the Chamber for the remainder of this item.

 

Following the public presentations, the following Members asked questions of the Principal Planning Officer:

 

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Louise Peace

 

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

 

·       The issue relating to the SSSI came to light today and the Applicant had now agreed this and the issue was resolved. Therefore, this should not be used as a reason for deferral of the application.

·       There remained an outstanding technical objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), which sought further information which had now been provided by the Applicant. Due to ongoing resourcing issues at the LLFA, no further response has been received, despite chasing from Officers. The recommendation is therefore subject to the agreement of the LLFA, which was not unusual.

·       It was hoped the remaining matter relating to the sports pavilion would have been resolved, but it had not. There was no in principle objection to it, the Applicant has requested details on the calculations of the amount proposed but had agreed to make a payment. If this was not ultimately agreed, it could be brought back to Committee.

·       The report addressed points raised by the Parish Council.

·       Some of the sustainable highway contribution would be to relocate the speed sign on Station Road and to partly upgrade the footpath along the front of the site into the village.

·       There was already a footpath past the site connecting to the village, but there was not a footpath linking Ashwell to the station at Odsey and there was no indication the S106 funding would be used to enhance this.

·       They were not aware that a response letter from the LLFA removing their objection had been received and uploaded to the planning documents portal.

 

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       The units still for sale on the adjacent development was not a material consideration of this application.

·       There may be specific market circumstances currently which were affecting willingness to purchase new houses.

·       Reasons should be provided to defer consideration of the application, as the Applicant would have a right to appeal against non-determination.

 

In response to questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that circumstances on the adjacent site were not material to this application. If the application was refused, this would need to be a defendable decision, supported by material planning considerations.

 

Councillor Louise Peace proposed to refuse the application as it was in conflict with policies in the North Herts adopted Local Plan, as well as the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan, and was outside of the settlement boundary. This was seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Val Bryant

 

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

 

·       The original proposal, which was refused by Committee, was for 46 units. 28 were now built on the adjacent plot and this had been allowed at appeal. This application was for 36 units, which would mean there would now be 64 units delivered on a site the Committee, and the Inspector, said was not suitable for 46 units.

·       This represented significant urbanisation of a village outside of the settlement boundary.

·       The Parish Council had developed a Neighbourhood Plan, which this application clearly conflicted with policies included in this adopted Plan.

·       The scale, layout and type of units proposed was urbanising in the village and instead should be a lower density proposal, merging with the surrounding countryside.

·       There was no sustainable transport solution to the site. Whilst cycling was possible to the station, it was dangerous, and it was not suitably accessible by foot.

·       It would be difficult to defend a refusal at appeal, with the Inspector having allowed development on the other half of the site.

·       The Planning Inspector had refused the number of units requested in original application, and therefore considered that this site was not suitable for a larger number of dwellings.

·       More than moderate weighting should be applied to the points outlined at 4.4.1 of the Officer report.

·       It was a balance as to whether the grounds provided for refusal would be defendable.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The NPPF outlined that consideration had to be given to the delivery of housing, where a 5 year housing land supply could not be demonstrated.

·       Any adverse impacts identified would need to have significant and demonstrable negative impact to justify refusal.

·       The affordable housing provision was short by 1 bedroom in total. The request had been for a 4-bed house, but a 3-bed house was offered, which was considered to be a minor issue in the planning balance.

·       There was a good mix of housing units delivered onsite, and whilst this provided more 4 and 5-bed units than required through the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan, it was a net of 5 bedrooms more than policy. The impact of this was therefore not considered to outweigh the delivery of housing.

·       The S106 Heads of Terms had now been mostly resolved and agreed.

·       There was no objection to the design when considered against the existing section of Senuna Park.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       Conflict with policies of the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan had been identified and included within the report.

·       It was outlined in the NPPF that where a 5 year housing land supply did not exist, limited weight should be applied to these policies, as they were in effect considered out of date.

 

Following the debate, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised Members that there needed to be clear reasons for refusal provided.

 

Following the debate, the Chair summarised that the reasons for refusal were that the application was in conflict with the Local Plan policies and policies within the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan, that it would have an urbanising effect on the village edge, it was in an unsustainable location and the S106 Heads of Terms remained incomplete.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)   That application 25/02547/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:

 

a.     The proposal would have an urbanising effect on the village edge and the density of the site was not appropriate in a village location, which would result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the area.

 

b.     The application was in conflict with policies SP2, SP5 and CGB1 of the adopted Local Plan and ASH1 of the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan.

 

c.     The site was in an unsustainable location.

 

d.     The Heads of Terms for the S106 agreement were incomplete.

 

(2)   That delegation be provided to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the wording for the reason for refusal.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings. The meeting reconvened at 21.33 and Councillors Tyson and May returned to the Chamber.

Supporting documents: