Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application with means of access for residential development of up to 30 dwellings (including affordable housing); following demolition of all existing structures; associated landscaping, drainage, car parking; infrastructure and all ancillary and enabling works (all matters reserved except means of access).

RESOLVED: That application 25/01766/OP be DEFERRED.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

(1) To enable Members to undertake a visit to the application site.

(2) To allow further investigation into the application of the tilted balance to take place.

Audio recording – 05 minutes 46 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of Application 25/01766/OP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

In response to a request from the Chair to clarify matters for members of the public in attendance, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

· In cases where authorities such as the Council did not have a five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) dictated that policies within adopted local plans were out of date and the tilted balance applied in favour of development, which meant that any harms would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF policies.

· Legal opinion from King’s Counsel indicated that the approach taken when Council officers had last assessed the application had not correctly followed planning policies.

· After officers had sought further legal advice, a full review of the application had been undertaken. In addition, the Council had entered into a S106 agreement with a landowner at Weston Hils in Baldock for a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) habitat bank. As such, the officer recommendation had been changed to grant permission as the application would be planning policy compliant, despite the objection from the Ecologist.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Dave Winstanley

· Councillor Tom Tyson

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Caroline McDonnell

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

· The titled balance had been engaged when the application had previously been assessed by officers.

· Harms arising from the application and their attached weights were set out in the report, including the harm to the local wildlife stie, which had been downgraded to moderate weight as compensation could address this.

· Weston Hills was a habitat bank where entities could purchase credits for BNG provision such as the Applicant who would purchase them to deliver a 15% BNG contribution.

· Compensation for loss of the local wildlife site would be dealt with through a S106 agreement as legal advice had indicated that the purchase of BNG credits would not be appropriate.

· Counsel had not instructed the Council on how they should weigh the benefits and harms of the application in respect of the tilted balance.

· Relocation of horses and their potential to affect the biodiversity of other sites had not been accounted for by the Ecologist in their assessment.

· There was a condition recommended to ensure the pavement along the access road to St Albans Road would be in place before first occupation.

· Significant concern had been raised by the Ecologist on local ecology loss resulting from this application, and moderate weight had been given to this.

· The report had considered how the ‘Golden Rules’ had been met at paragraph 4.3.27 onwards, and Paragraph 1.58 of the NPPF stated that significant weight should be given in favour of an application where they had been met.

· Public open green space would not be lost by this application as the land either side of the footpath running north to south on site was private.

· The roadside footpath would be built on the left-hand side of the access road and would run along Cowards Lane to the junction with St Albans Road.

In response to questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that habitat banks had to be registered for them to be utilised for BNG purposes.

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

· There would be a permanent, immediate impact felt by this development as their home was next to the proposed site and the footpath to the neighbouring site would be replaced by the access road.

· Heavy vehicle movements, sustained noise, dust and access disruption would be felt by residents during the construction phase.

· Around 60 households in the surrounding area were opposed to this application.

· Countryside at the edge of the village hall would become built form and represent a permanent loss of character and privacy and increase noise for existing residents.

· This site was not in the adopted Codicote Neighbourhood Plan.

· A previous application for development in 1989 had been rejected on safety grounds as Cowards Lane was a narrow, rural lane and it remained so today.

· There was no safe separation between cars and pedestrians and further vehicles added to Cowards Lane from this development would not be accommodated safely.

· Pressure would be felt by the already overstretched village infrastructure and public services.

· The development was in the wrong place and not supported by the community.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

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

· Codicote had already agreed to substantial development through the Codicote Neighbourhood Plan, which included 355 new homes, and 40% of these had not yet been built or occupied, meaning the full impact was still to come.

· This proposal was not in the Neighbourhood Plan, meaning that the impacts of traffic, infrastructure and safety from the development would not be considered together, and would increase pressure on these issues without assurance that they could cope.

· Cowards Lane was already heavily used by pedestrians such as residents, school children and elderly people, but had no pavements.

· This and the Weavers Gate development would significantly increase traffic on Cowards Lane and connecting roads, which would lead to more congestion in the wider village road network, and present a danger during peak times at known pressure points such as the school.

· 200 objections made from residents across the village illustrated the widespread concern for the application.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Ms Currie for their presentation and invited the third Public Objector, Mr Martin Newman to speak against the application. Mr Newman thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· This site was a designated local wildlife site that formed a wider chalk stream environment that supported local nature recovery strategies, and contributed to biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and accessible green space for the community.

· Removing this land would diminish its connectivity with the wider ecological network, which could not be replaced remotely, and would be contrary to Objective 14 in the Codicote Neighbourhood Plan.

· Cowards Lane was a single-track road with no pedestrian infrastructure that served over 200 residents with 4 roads using it as their only access road.

· With the addition of many new homes in the village, traffic volumes had increased significantly, and the cumulative traffic impact of this development and others had not been properly assessed, which would increase the risk of congestion, reduce pedestrian safety and increase inefficiency of vehicle movements.

· Contributions within the S106 agreement were strategically dispersed and would not address the needs of Codicote or the concerns raised by its residents.

· The Highways contribution was generic and flawed as it offered no certainty that the risks in this location would be resolved.

· The S106 agreement did not make the development acceptable in planning terms, and should be refused.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Caroline McDonnell, Mr Newman advised that there was no pavement currently on Cowards Lane.

The Chair thanked Mr Newman for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Ralph Muner to speak against the application. Councillor Muncer thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· Based on the arguments submitted by the Applicant, this application was finely balanced.

· Codicote was already a village under strain.

· As part of the Local Plan adopted in 2022, 300 new homes were provisioned for Codicote and the cumulative impact of these had not yet been realised.

· This development was set to increase those impacts and make Codicote a worse place to live.

· This land had been designated as Green Belt in the Local Plan and should remain under that classification, even with the changes made to the NPPF over the years.

· Cowards Lane was a country lane with lots of development surrounding it, and new residents of Weavers Gate struggled to use it when getting their children to school

· The High Street was already congested and would continue to be so until funding was allocated towards infrastructure to mitigate this.

· If the Council were serious about the climate and biodiversity emergency they had declared, then they should reject the application as there would be a net loss to biodiversity in Codicote.

· If granted permission, this application would set a dangerous precedent for future development, and the Committee should refuse permission in the strongest terms.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Emma Fernandes, Councillor Ralph Muncer advised that:

· Residents of the Weavers Gate development used Cowards Lane to access the nearby school, and they were concerned over traffic speeds on this road.

· Approval of planning permission for this application would only worsen the risk to vulnerable pedestrians including school children.

The Chair thanked Councillor Muncer for their presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Ms Kathryn Ventham to speak in support of the application. Ms Ventham thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· Assessment of the scheme by Council officers confirmed that the benefits delivered by the development would outweigh the adverse impacts.

· The benefits delivered would include 30 dwellings where the Council had no five-year housing land supply, 50% affordable housing, open space and a new play area, upgrade of the public right of way, and a 15% BNG.

· It had been agreed that the site did not meet the local wildlife site designation as it had been grazed for several years and this would continue in a no development scenario.

· 6.4 hectares of flower rich, neutral grassland adjacent to Weston Hills Nature Reserve would deliver compensation for the loss of the wildlife site.

· Advice from King’s Counsel had been received by the Council before the S106 agreement, and it had been established elsewhere in their report that mitigation for the loss of the wildlife site would be possible.

· The Highways Authority had not raised an objection to the application.

· Two crossing points, a footpath along Cowards Lane, and further contributions would be delivered as part of the scheme.

· The new NPPF, which was anticipated to be released next month, would afford significant weight to all housing developments regardless of size.

· The site was also classed as grey belt, which meant that it was appropriate for this development, but would still be appropriate if classed under the Green Belt as very special circumstances would be demonstrated.

· Ecological benefits from this application would be substantial when compared to a do-nothing scenario.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Ruth Brown

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

· They had assigned the delivery of affordable housing significant weight rather than moderate weight as the Council did not have a five-year housing land supply,

· The footpath that they had been asked to provide would run west of the site only.

The following Member asked additional questions:

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Louise Peace

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

· Officers had given lesser weight to the delivery of market housing than the Applicant, but they had still come to the view that the harms identified did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the housing delivery.

· Officers had determined that market dwellings carried moderate weight and affordable dwellings carried significant weight in terms of the benefits delivered as set out in Table 2 at paragraph 4.4.8 of the report.

· If the scheme had been larger, the weight attributed may have been greater.

· The report concluded that the land was grey belt as it did not strongly contribute to purposes A, B and D of the Green Belt as set out at paragraph 143 of the NPPF.

· The application would contribute to reducing the district wide shortfall for housing, and the application had been assessed against this, rather than local needs.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Caroline McDonnell

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Emma Fernandes

· Councillor Ian Mantle

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Tom Tyson

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Clare Billing

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· The main reasons for the recommendation to grant permission were the land designation as grey belt and the tilted balance being engaged.

· It felt like Codicote was being asked to absorb more development to fulfil the shortfall of housing in the district.

· Weston Hills was 10 miles away from this site and did not compensate residents for the loss of local biodiversity that they would experience.

· A footpath on Cowards Lane would not mitigate dangers to school children using this road.

· Codicote experienced flooding despite the lack of objection from the Local Lead Flood Authority and adding housing would compound this problem.

· Residents of this development would be unable to access buses from the High Street through active travel as there would be no footpath running east from the site.

· 15 affordable homes would help first time buyers to get onto the housing ladder, but the living conditions of existing residents would be compromised to do this.

· The recommendation to grant permission was flawed, and there were many reasons to refuse permission for it.

· The application had been recommended for refusal when it was last submitted to the Committee for determination, even with the tilted balance and grey belt classification.

· Mitigating the loss of a local wildlife site through offsite provision would go against the Codicote Neighbourhood Plan.

· There were options for this land aside from development such as becoming quality grassland to increase biodiversity and support local nature recovery strategies.

· It was an unsatisfactory application but there were no planning reasons to justify refusing permission for it, and they felt constrained because of this.

· This development would contribute to encroach into the Green Belt and the Committee should think about how to protect this.

· This development was a windfall site outside of the settlement boundary.

· There was little point in consulting residents on a neighbourhood plan if it could not be a material planning consideration.

· Reasons for refusing the application should be sought.

In response to points raised during the debate, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the report had identified conflict with policies in the Codicote Neighbourhood Plan, but the plan did not contain any housing policies or allocations, and so the tilted balance still applied, which diminished the weight given to those conflicts.

In response to further questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that the Committee could propose to defer an application as well as grant or refuse permission.

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

· It was common for applications to be deferred so that a site visit could be carried out, and for more information or further clarification to be provided on matters.

· The report presented to the Committee in December would be a consideration for Members.

· Table 2 at paragraph 4.4.8 in the report identified 3 harms, and Members would be able to review these and apply the tilted balance to make their verdict on the application.

Councillor Nigel Mason withdrew his motion to grant permission and this was accepted by Councillor Emma Fernandes as seconder.

Councillor Martin Prescott proposed to defer the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Clare Billing.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Claire Winchster

· Councillor Ruth Brown

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· The Committee had grounds for refusal as the impact on the local wildlife site, landscape, and residential amenity would be significant as heard by evidence given from the public speakers.

· They agreed with Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust that the ‘Golden Rules’ had not been met, which would reduce the significance of housing delivery to moderate, and tilt the balance in favour of refusal.

Having been proposed and seconded, the motion to defer the application was put to a vote, following which the vote was tied.

Therefore, the Chair used their casting vote and, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 25/01766/OP be DEFERRED.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

(1) To enable Members to undertake a visit to the application site.

(2) To allow further investigation into the application of the tilted balance to take place.

N.B. Following the conclusion of the item, there was a break in proceedings at 20:58 and the meeting reconvened at 21:13.

25/01766/OP LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF, COWARDS LANE, CODICOTE, HERTFORDSHIRE

Help improve this site by giving feedback

Give your feedback