Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/00006/FP LAND TO NORTH OF, STEVENAGE ROAD, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of 50no. residential dwellings (including affordable) with public open space, associated parking, landscaping and access.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 26/00006/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Minutes:

Audio recording – 1 hour 30 minutes 26 seconds

 

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 26/00006/FP and advised that:

 

·             Councillor Ralph Muncer had submitted a letter of objection after the publication of the supplementary documents.

·             St Ippolyts Parish Council had also submitted a letter of objection and an S106 request following the publication of the supplementary documents.

·             The Applicant had submitted a new proposed site layout, tenure plan, drainage addendum, highways technical note and noise impact assessment, and had requested for these to replace the original documents.

·             A request had also been made by the Applicant to extend the determination period of the application until 3 July 2026.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00006/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Mick Debenham

·             Councillor Daniel Allen

 

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

 

·             The ownership of the gate and the road that would be used for site access were unknown, but it was that they were owned by Kingshott School.

·             Affordable housing would be similar to market housing within the development and both their material distribution and form were similar.

·             Non-vehicle routes would lead out of the site in multiple directions to various facilities and amenities around 1km away.

 

In response to questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that ownership matters were not a material planning consideration as these would be between the Applicant and the road owner to discuss.

 

The Chair invited the Representative for the Applicant, Mr Alun Evans to speak in support of the application. They thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             In their opinion, the planning application had been put forward for consideration too early, and they had politely submitted an extension request to the Council.

·             The new documents put forward responded to comments from statutory consultees and offered technical reasoning and solutions to key parts of the scheme.

·             The contribution of the site towards Purpose A in the Green Belt assessment was not evident as containment features surrounding the site would prevent sprawl.

·             Grey belt development did not cause harm to the Green Belt, and this should be given material weight in determining the application.

·             50% affordable housing provided by the development should also be given significant weight.

·             An accessible ecological buffer would be provided by the development.

·             This application should be deferred or granted planning permission by the Committee.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·             Councillor Clare Billing

·             Councillor Ian Mantle

·             Councillor Louise Peace

·             Councillor Daniel Allen

 

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

 

·             They had not withdrawn the application due to the cost and the reputation of the Council to work proactively with developers.

·             This was not an isolated development as it would have direct active travel links with Hitchin and amenities in proximity to the development.

·             The development was a logical annex of Hitchin and Kingshott School played a critical role in providing outdoor sports facilities.

·             The developer had an established record of working with housing associations, and discussions had already taken place with some over the 50% affordable housing that would be provided.

·             Additional information submitted to the Council addressed the concerns raised by the Highways Authority, and they had also met with them to resolve site access issues.

·             Additional mapping and topographical data taken as part of a detailed site survey demonstrated that flooding would not be a concern.

·             Contrary to the report of the Principal Planning Officer, the site did not perform strongly to Purpose A of the Green Belt in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as there were strong containment features on each side that would restrict urban sprawl. 

 

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

 

·             The application had been processed in a particular way because of the reasons detailed in the supplementary documents.

·             It was believed that the application could not improve the environmental conditions of the area as referenced in paragraph 39 of the NPPF.

·             Key parts of the preapplication advice had been ignored by the Applicant in their application, therefore, Members were considering the application as it had been submitted.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse permission and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Daniel Allen

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·             The report and presentation from the Principal Planning Officer, in addition to the objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority and Highways Authority detailed sufficient reasons to refuse planning permission.

·             North Hertfordshire needed homes, but not to the detriment of the local area.

·             There was no argument for the site to be classified as Grey Belt.

·             This application had multiple areas of concern relating to flooding, access and separation of housing types.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 26/00006/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Supporting documents: